MM ^ ftcfcujf $ aHvL >J\±. ■ «* UK® rr$F7 * m^SSkr v vjtfflF Jy > - ^ *WJ- .§*?. (£* *$& lEhiL j£ THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY ( 530.1 ZnZb NON CIRCULATING CHECK FOR UNBOUND CIRCULATING CORY Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates https://archive.org/details/recordsfrompurdu2112phil PURDUE UNIVERSITY AGRI CULTURAL EXPER- IMENT STATION BULLETINS 211-227 »# 1918-19 LAYETTE , INDIANA COl'TT'^TTS 211 212 213 214 215 216 221 w \y j\ \\ UNIVERSITY • agriculture u : - > ’ . Records from a Purdue farm flock by A. 0. Philips Plums and cherries by J . Oskanp T&e value of lime on Indiana soils by A. T. Wiancko end others Cost of raising white Plymouth Hocks by A. G. Philips Commercial fertilizers by E, G. Proulx and others Commercial feeds registered for sale in Indiana, May 1,1918 hy E. G. Proulx and others Commercial feeding stuffs by E. G. Proulx and others The value of skim-milk and meat scraps for white Ply- mouth Hocks by A. G. Philips Feeding trials with corn by-products, palmo midds, ?nd conmsrcial mixed hog feeds, 191 ? -1918 by J . H. Skin- ner and C. 5 . Starr Winter steer feeding I Comparison of rations with different amounts of corn and no corn for fattening two year old steers II Corn silage vs. corn and soybean silage for fattening two year old steers III Value of cottonseed meal in rations containing corn silage or corn and soybean silage for fattening two year old steers by J. H. Skinner and C. G. Starr Fattening western lambs I Qorn silage alone vs. corn silage and varying a- mounts of dry roughage II Comparison of Protein supplements III Hominy feed vs. shelled corn IV Partial vs. continuous grain feeding V Influence of shearing by J. H. Skinner and C. G. Starr *-153504 C01TTFITTS-- continued 222 The value of manure on Indiana soils by A. T. Wiancko and S. C. Jones 223 So-called medicinal hog cholera remedies and cures by C, H. Clinic and D. B. Clark 224 Selection of disease-free seed corn "by G. IT Hoffer and J. R. Holbert 225 Spring small grains in Indiana by A. T. Wian- cko and C. 0, Cromer 226 The value of legumes on Indiana soils by A. T. Wiancko and others 227 Feeding experiments with leghorns by A. G. Philips • . V i M t I 1 l • M fill I nW COV-’- v ' \jNl ^ or UR8ANA PURDUE UNIVERSITY Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 21 i March, 1918 Fig. 1. House for the farm flock RECORDS FROM A PURDUE FARM FLOCK Published by the Station : LAFAYETTE, INDIANA U. S. A. PURDUE UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BOARD OP CONTROL Joseph D. Oliver. President. South Bend Fay S. Chandler Indianapolis Charles Downing Greenfield John A. Hillenbrand Batesville Cyrus M. Hobbs Bridgeport Winthrop E. Stone, A. M., Ph. D. Warren T. McCray Kentland James W. Noel Indianapolis George W. Purcell Vincennes Andrew E. Reynolds Crawfordsyille President of the University ADVISORY COMMITTEE (Under Legislative Act of 1909) John G. Brown, Monon D. B. Johnson, Mooresville..^ State Live Stock Association State Dairy Association U. R. Fishel, Hope D. F. Maish, Frankfort State Poultry Fanciers' Association State Corn Growers' Association H. H. Swaim, South Bend.... I ndiana Horticultural Society ADMINISTRATION Charles G. Woodbury, M. S., Director Harry J. Reed Assistant to the Director Nellie Tracy Administrative Assistant Mary K. Bloom Bookkeeper AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION George I. Christie, B. S. A., Superintendent Thomas A. Coleman Ass’t State Leader Field Studies and Demonstrations George M. Frier, B. S. A Associate in " Charge of Short Courses and Exhibits Mabel L. Harlan. .A ss’t in Agricultural Extension ANIMAL HUSBANDRY John H. Skinner, B. S., Chief Chester G. Starr, B. S. A Acting Associate in Animal Husbandry Herbert E. McCartney, B. S. A Ass’t in Animal Husbandry Extension BOTANY Herbert S. Jackson, A. B., Chief George N. Hoffer, M. S Associate in Botany George A. Osner, Ph. D Associate in Botany Luna E. Allison, B. S Assistant in Botany Edwin B. Mains, Ph. D Assistant in Botany Harry R. Rosen, M. 5., Assistant in Rust Work Grace O. Wineland, A. B., M. S Assistant in Botany DAIRY HUSBANDRY Ralph E. Caldwell, B. S., Acting Chief Howard W. Gregory, B. S Associate in Dairy Manufactures George Spitzer, Ph. G.. B. S Associate in Dairy Chemistry Harry M. Weeter, M. S Associate in Dairy Bacteriology Turner H. Broughton, B. S Assistant in Creamery Inspection William F. Epple, Ph. G Assistant in Dairy Chemistry ENTOMOLOGY James Troop, M. S., Chief Preston W. Mason, B. S., Ass’t in Entomology HORTICULTURE Laurenz Greene, M. S. A., Chief Harry A. Noyes, M. S Associate in Horticultural Chemistry and Bacteriology Joseph Oskamp, B. S.. Associate in Pomology Walter A. Huelson, B. S Assistant in Horticulture POULTRY HUSBANDRY Allen G. Philips, B. S. A., Chief Dwight C. Kennard, B. S Assistant in Poultry Husbandry SOILS AND CROPS Alfred T. Wiancko, B. S. A., Chief Martin L. Fisher, M. S Assistant Chief in Soils and Crops Samuel D. Conner, M. S Associate Chemist in Soils and Crops Clinton O. Cromer, B. S Associate in Crops Sadocie C. Jones, M. S Associate in Soils STATE CHEMIST Wm. J. Jones, Jr., M. S., A. C. 3 State Chemist Edward G. Proulx, M. S. 1 .. Acting State Chemist Reuben O. Bitler, B. S. 2 .... Deputy State Chemist Paul B. Curtis, B. S. 2 Deputy State Chemist Omar W. Ford, A. B. 2 Deputy State Chemist Mary J. Minton, B. S. 2 Assistant Microscopist State Chemist’s Department Herman J. Nimitz, B. S. 2 . .Deputy State Chemist J. Howard Roop, B. S. 2 .... Deputy State Chemist Samuel F. Thornton, B. S. 2 Deputy State Chemist Otis S. Roberts, B. S. 2 Chief Inspector State Chemist’s Department Glenn G. Carter, B. S. 2 Inspector State Chemist’s Department Benjamin F. Catherwood, 2 Inspector State Chemist’s Department VETERINARY SCIENCE Robert A. Craig, D. V. M., Chief David B. Clark, D. M. C.. .Associate Veterinarian Lawrence C. Kigin, D. V. M Associate Veterinarian Rex A. Whiting, D. V. M Associate in Animal Pathology Carl H. Clink, B. S Ass’t in Serum Production Leo P. Doyle, B. S Ass’t in Animal Pathology Leslie R. George, B. S Assistant in Animal Pathology Fred L. Walkey, D. V. M Ass’t Veterinarian DETAILED BY U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Cereal and Forage Crop Insect Investigations John J. Davis, B. S.. Entomological Assistant in Charge John M. Aldrich, Ph. D.. Entomological Assistant Walter H. Larrimer, B. S Scientific Assistant Dean A. Ricker, B. S Scientific Assistant Chester F. Turner, B. S Scientific Assistant Seed Testing Anna M. Lute, M. A Seed Analyst 1 In charge of Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control 2 Connected with Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control 3 Died August 31, 1917 RECORDS FROM A PURDUE FARM FLOCK A. G. Philips SUMMARY 1. Leghorn pullets were as profitable in 1917 as during the three previous years. 2. The egg production per pullet per year was from 117.6 to 135.6. 3. The income per pullet per year was from $2.47 to $4,098. 4. The net per cent, profit on investment was from 29.5 to 74.2. 5. Leghorn pullets each made from $0.64 to $1.62 profit per year. 6. Poultry keeping was profitable in flocks ranging from 100 to 260 White Leghorn pullets. INTRODUCTION The Purdue University Agricultural Experiment Station has been carrying on experimental work with poultry for seven years, particularly along the line of feeding. The question has often been asked as to whether or not the information and experience derived from the feeding investigations could be utilized under the conditions ordinarily prevail- ing on the farms of Indiana. The Poultry Department therefore planned an experiment to be carried on for several years, in which a flock of from 100 to 260 pullets was maintained under ordinary farm conditions, applying strictly to the care, housing and feeding of this flock the information which was being recommended to the farmers of the State. OBJECT The object of the experiment was to determine the egg production, income, costs and profits that might be obtained from such a flock kept under the conditions mentioned. Experiments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were conducted during four different years as follows : Experiment No. 1 — December 1, 1913 to November 30, 1914 Experiment No. 2 — December 1, 1914 to October 31, 1915 Experiment No. 3 — November 1, 1915 to September 30, 1916 Experiment No. 4 — October 1, 1916 to September 30, 1917 Experiments Nos. 1 and 2 were not started until December 1, be- cause mature pullets could not be obtained before that date. As it is more practical and desirable to start pullets October 1, Experiment No. 2 was shortened to 1 1 months to permit the next one to begin November 1, and Experiment No. 3 was closed in 11 months to allow Experiment No. 4 to run from October 1 to September 30. Thus, Experiments Nos. 1 and 4 are of 12 months duration, and Experiments Nos. 2 and 3 are of 11 months duration, respectively. 4 HOUSING The birds were housed during Experiments Nos. i and 2 in a 20 x 20 feet half-monitor house built on a foundation of cedar posts, with one foot of gravel for a floor. For Experiments Nos. 3 and 4, the house was en- larged to 20 x 40 feet, the partition between the old and new parts being retained to prevent drafts. The construction was modern in every re- spect and the interior was equipped with feed hoppers, dropping boards, nests, etc. The cost of building the small house was $120.00 and for the large size was $220.00. Fig. 2. Poultry house in a corn field. House used in Experiments Nos. 1 and 2, show- ing how corn can be grown in the poultry yard successfully besides furnishing shade for the poultry YARDING During the first two years the fowls had free range over eight acres of corn, being confined to the house for a few weeks after each planting time. For Experiments Nos. 3 and 4, two lots, each an acre in size, were fenced off and the birds permitted to run in one or the other of them at all times. In the fall, a rye cover crop was planted and a growing crop of grain was harvested in one lot each year. During the summer, oats and beans were grown for pasture in one lot. All seed planted was charged as feed for the chickens in the records, but no rent was charged for the use of the land. The land was of gravelly loam, well drained, and but for lack of shade would have been considered ideal. The quality of the grain crops was greatly improved in the lots where the chickens were allowed to roam. STOCK Each year the stock consisted of Single Comb White Leghorn pul- lets reared on the Purdue Poultry Farm and except in Experiments Nos. 1 and 2 they were matured early; they were picked from the flock that remained after the pullets for other experiments had been chosen. In Experiment No. 3, the pullets were laying when put into the experi- 5 ment; in the other experiments, they were just ready to lay. The numbers of birds at the beginning and end of each experiment were as follows : Experiment No. i — at beginning ioo — at end 84 Experiment No. 2 — at beginning 130 — at end 115 Experiment No. 3 — at beginning 260 — at end 204 Experiment No. 4 — at beginning 230 — at end 206 Males, consisting of cock birds, were kept with the flock during the breeding season, and their feed and care only were charged to the pul- lets, no credit being given for any added income that was obtained from the sale of hatching eggs. RATIONS AND FEEDS The regular standard Purdue laying ration was used as a basis of a year’s feeding, which is as follows : Grain Mash 10 pounds corn 5 pounds bran 10 pounds wheat 5 pounds shorts 5 pounds oats 3^ pounds meat scraps Grit, shell, ground bone and green feed were available at all times and milk was used to supplement any shortage in meat scraps. About 50 pounds of skim-milk or buttermilk were considered equivalent to three and one- half pounds of meat scraps. During Experiment No. 4, very little wheat was fed and some ground oats was substituted for bran. Dur- ing the molting season, one pound of oil meal was added to the ration. Pricks ok Feeds. — Feeds were charged at the prices paid for them. The wheat and oats were pur- chased in large quantities during the summer, which helped reduce the cost. The other feeds were bought in smaller quantities and the prices varied from month to month. Wheat and corn were the only grains that ... , . . . . . . . . , at any time doubled in price rig. 3. A dry mash feed hopper, which will hold J 1 . a large quantity of feed; may be left open or closed in IQI? 3 -S Compared with and hung »„ a wall preceding years. 6 Table: I. — Prices of Feeds — (Minimum and Maximum) Feed Experiment No. 1 1913-1914 Experiment No. 2 1914-1915 Experiment No. 3 1915-1916 Experiment No. 4 1916-1917 Corn SI .1(7 to SI .215 $1,44 1.25 to l 0.94) to 81.25 to 81.57 81,71 to 83,75 Wheat 1.2.5 to 1.45 [>2,16 1.66 1.60 to 2.10 2.10 to 3.35 Oats 1.08 to 1.25 0.94 to 1,37 1.37 to 1.50 Bran 1,30 to 1.50 1.50 1,25 to 1.50 1.501 to 2.35 Shorts 1.40/ to 1.70 1.60 to 1.70. 1.35 to 1.60 1.70 to 2.85 Oil meal 1.80 1,80 1.95 2.85 Ground oats 1.55 to 1,70 1.85 Meat scraps 2.50 to 2,60 2.60 2.60 2.60) to 3.75 Grit 0.53 to 1.00 0.53 0.53: to 0.59' 0.59 to 0.66 Bone 2,25 to 3.50 2.25 2.25 to 2.35 Oyster shell 0.53 to 1.00' 0.53 0.54 to 0.50 0.50 to 0.66 Milk _ _ — ___ _ 0.25 0.24 to 0.25 0.25 to 0,30 0.30 to 0.50 METHOD OF FEEDING AND CARE The grains were mixed and placed in a large bin in the house, in quantities sufficient to last about a month. The mash was mixed and placed in a large feed hopper. It was planned to arrange the feeding so that the hens ate one-half as much mash as grain, but with the large range available and the outside feed plentiful, this was not possible ex- cept in the winter. This proportion was pretty well controlled in Ex- periment No. 4. The grit, shell and bone were fed in open hoppers ; the mangel beets put on nails and the milk or water fed in buckets. The grain was scattered in a deep straw litter in the morning and afternoon, Fig. 4. Wall nests. The wall of the house serves as the back. It may be closed to pre- vent roosting in the nests; is cheap of construction and easily cleaned 7 about one-third as much in the morning as in the latter part of the day. This method kept the birds scratching and exercising, and increased the appetite for mash throughout the day. The dry mash hopper was always open and everything but the grain was accessible at all times. The gravel floor was a nuisance and every spring and fall when a thorough cleaning was given the house, a large part of it had to be re- moved with the dirty litter. Rats found the house easy to enter and they burrowed under the sills at frequent intervals. A dog was found to be the best means of eliminating the rats. The house would be considered a cold house, as it was situated a little too low on a north slope and the glass windows had to be covered with burlap during the nights in winter to prevent rapid conduction of the warmer inside air. Shade was very inadequate and except when corn was grown, the birds stayed in the house during the middle of the hot summer days. They had an opportunity to go out at all times during the winter. At no time during the four experiments was there any trained poultryman in personal charge of the flocks. All new and inexperienced men brought onto the farm were given charge of the flocks under the supervision of an expert foreman. This was done in order that any results obtained might be comparable with what might be expected under conditions less favorable than those existing at Purdue. The house was a quarter mile away from the central feed house and was visited three times daily. Sanitation and cleanliness were given every consideration. WEIGHTS AND RECORDS A record was made of all feed as it was put into the poultry house and any not consumed was weighed back the first of each month ; the difference was the monthly consumption. Daily record was made of eggs produced and labor done. The labor was hard to estimate ac- curately and if there is any error, it is an under rather than an over estimation ; only such work was charged as was actually done on the house or flock. When a pullet died or was removed for sickness, a record was made of it and days lost deducted from the monthly total. Some eggs were set and a record was kept of the fertility and “hatchability” of same. 8 Table II. — Feed Consumption (in pounds) Feed Experiment No. 1 Experiment No. 2 Experiment No. 3 Experiment No. 4 Corn ] Wheat V srain 4380.0 6206.6 9683.2 10741.5 Oats ) Bran Shorts i Ground oats Oil meal Meat scraps 1 > mash 1 1129.5 1208.3 3092,2 5198.45 Total 5500.5 7580.9 12,775.4 15,939.9 Grit and hone 108.0 46.5 11(4.3 1(10.3 Oyster shell . 1)68.5 289.9 466.5 570.8 Grand total 5781.0 7906.3 18,356.2 16,621.05 Milk 5571.5 6322,0 14,926.7 9598.4 Table II gives the feed consumption in groups such as grain, mash, etc. It will be noted that the total amount consumed by a large flock seems very great. In Experiment No. 4, the fact that the birds ate over eight tons of feed and nearly five tons of milk appears to be an enormous amount, but per bird it is less than 100 pounds. The birds ate from two to six times as much oyster shell as grit. Table III. — Percentage Egg Production — (by months) Experiment No. 1 Experiment No. 2 Experiment No. 3 Experiment No. 4 October 20.3 November 12.9 26.8 December 30.0 7.3 12,7 12.1 January 40.0 20.4 21.8 13.6 February 28.0 31.7 38.8 22.9 March _ 40.0 60.6 64,7 57.0 April 71,0 67.8 78.0 66.5 May 72.0 60.0 66.0 68.0 June 48.0 57.0 20.0 46,0 July 28.0 50.2 26.0 43.9 August 11.0 22,6 22,0 38.5 September 32.0 12.1 22.4 36.5 October 14.0 7.0 November 1.4 Number eggs per hen ___ 181.0 124.3 117.6 13-5.6 9 Table III shows the per cent, egg production per month.. It will be noted that the spring production is similar as well as the highest in all years, regardless of total production, but there is no correlation be- tween the other months, one year with another. It appears as if birds must be early hatched, well grown and early matured before the laying season, if winter eggs are desired. They must be put into the laying quarters before they begin to lay. This latter point is particularly shown in Experiment No. 3. The birds were ready to lay in October, but the house was not ready for them until November. They had started laying in October and when moved, started a partial molt and almost ceased lay- ing. High winter egg production was not striven for, as this is un- natural and not to be expected. In Experiment No. 4, during a sudden and severe cold spell in December, enough combs were frozen to reduce production seriously for two months. In Experiment No. 1, the pullets laid well in the winter, having had a good start, but since their year ended November 30, they had a poor record for the last two months. Few birds lay in October and Novem- ber at the end of their pullet year ; therefore it pays to start them in October at six months of age. In this experiment, the total egg pro- duction was practically as high September 30 as it was November 30. In Experiment No. 2, the birds made a poor start in December and had a poor production the next fall. In Experiment No. 3, the production was lower than in the other experiments except in the spring. During the summer months, a time when Leghorns usually lay well, the egg yield was unusually low. No reason is known for this poor lay. In Experiment No. 4, the fall lay was good, the winter lay poor, but the spring and summer production was excellent, making the yearly total very satisfactory for a large flock. The total number of eggs per pullet per year was 131, 124.3, 117.6 and 135.6 for Experiments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively. Table IV. — Market Prices of Eggs — (in cents) Experiment No. 1 Experiment No. 2 Experiment No. 3 Experiment No. 4 October 40 November 46 45 December 42 43 42 56 January 32 41% 38 48 February 28 30 32 42% March 10 10 28 28 April _ _ B% 20 20 32 May 22 20 20 34 June 22 20' 21 30 July _ _ 20 22 28 38 August __ 26 24 20 37 September 20 2l7 33% 50 October 36 3 7 % November 38 10 Table IV demonstrates why the birds were really profitable. The egg’s were sold with the market eggs of the farm. The market for the winter and late fall was in New England during the last three experi- ments. Throughout Experiment No. i and during the spring and sum- mer months of Experiments Nos. 2, 3 and 4, they were sold in Indian- apolis. The markets were wholesale and the prices are net, minus ex- press charges and cost of cases for eggs in case lots sold to a whole- sale egg buyer. These prices are higher than the average Indiana farmer secures and show the advantages of being able to ship in case lots and to select good markets. Many other farmers in Indiana are now selling to these same markets, proving that the prices obtained are not unusual or impossible. Table: V. — Income from Market Eggs Experiment No. 1 Experiment No. 2 Experiment No. 3 Experiment No. 4 October $48,266 68.025 November $37.87 34.93 December $32.84 38.15 $11,026. 28.53 37.90 January 52.36 38.00 February 14.91 44.43 63.38 51.10 March 22:.60 38.52 92.55 92.10 April 32.50 42.53 87.93 117.04 May 38.08 38.20 81.80 120.81 June 24.55 34.30 33.63 74.20 July 13.42 34.71 30.426 70.47 August 6.62 16.36 30.28 77.55 September 20.54 9.472 38.30 92.25 October 11.40 7.86 November 5.156 Total $255,786 $306,028 $583,546 $806.80 Income per average number hens $2.76 $2.47(7 $2,509' $4,008 Table V gives the income for eggs per month. No credit is given for any eggs sold for hatching and all eggs set were credited at market prices. The sale of a few hundred hatching eggs at four to six cents each will help bring many a flock into the profitable column. The in- come is naturally the greatest in March, April and May, even though the prices are the lowest, for at that time the production is very high. The total income was good in every experiment, but for the purpose of com- paring one year with another, it is more practical to consider the income per hen. In figuring this, the average number of hens in the flock for the year is taken, rather than the number left at the end of the year, which seemed the better method. If figured on the basis of hens left, the amount would be lower. The income per hen was $2.78, $2.47, $2.50 and $4.09 for Experiments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively. The very high income in Experiment No. 4 was due to the excellent egg prices during 1917. II Table VI. — Expenses Experiment No. 1 1913-1914 Experiment No. 2 1914-1915 Experiment No. 3 1915-1916 Experiment No. 4 1916-1917 Cost of feed Cost of straw Cost of labor Depreciation on birds _ Mortality Depreciation on house Interest on investment $90.61 6.66 16.1/7 21.00 16.00 12.00' 113.20' $120.57 5.317 21.78 28.76 20.00' 12.00 14.02 $2217.12 4.60 27.94 51,. 00 56.00 22.00 26.40 $392.54 8.77 36.91 51.50 24.00 22.00 27.00 Total expenses $1)74.68' $281.44 $416.06 $562.72 Income market eggs Profit total Profit per average number birds Profit per bird alive at end Profit per cent, on investment $265.7-8 81.16 0.830 0.966' 36.8 $306.02 74.518 0.658 0.648 29.5 $583.54 168.48 0.706 0.825 35.0 $896.80 334.08 1.488 1.62 74.2 Table VI shows the summary of the year’s work for each experi- ment and the figures are totals for the flocks. Labor was charged at 1 7^ cents per hour during Experiments Nos. i, 2 and 3 and at 20 cents per hour in Experiment No. 4. The birds were charged in at $1.00 each and mortality was charged at the same price. The hens were sold at 75 cents each, hence the depreciation on stock was 25 per cent, or 25 cents each for those that lived. The depreciation on the house was 10 per cent, of the original cost and included upkeep. The interest on the in- vestment of the house and original number of fowls was 6 per cent. These estimates are fair and what might be expected under practical conditions. Some people might charge in the pullets at more than $1.00 each but it cost much less than that to produce them. During Experi- ment No. 4, prices advanced so greatly that the hens actually sold at $1.00 each at the close of the experiment, but they were not so credited. In Experiment No. 1, the net profit was $81.15 or 3^-8 per cent, on $220.00; in Experiment No. 2, the net profit was $74.58 or 29.5 per cent on $255.00; in Experiment No. 3, the net profit was $168.48 or 35 per cent, on $480.00; in Experiment No. 4, the net profit was $334.08 or 74.2 per cent, on $450.00. The profit of $1.62 per bird in Experiment No. 4 as compared with $0,825 in Experiment No. 3, indicates that during the year from October 1, 1916 to October 1, 1917, pullets could and did make as much profit as during preceding years when feed prices were much less. The farm hen can and does make a good interest on the investment and pays a satisfactory labor income. Any figures that an experiment station may give from such investigations as these, are open to criticism, because much must be left to the judgment of the man doing the figur- ing. No attempt has been made in using these figures to mislead any one as to the possibilities in the poultry business. All kinds of changes can be made, by any farmer in the figures shown. He can increase the labor cost, cut down the egg income and increase the original value of the birds, but still the net per cent, profit will be as good or better than any other 12 branch of agriculture on the farm. For a farmer, the feed prices and costs would be less than those charged in the experiments, because more waste feeding materials are available and hauling charges on grains are not necessary. Figures from demonstration flocks on several Indiana farms bear out the figures in this bulletin. Fig. 5. A stand for a water pail. Permits the use of a bucket for watering the poultry and keeps it above the floor, insuring cleanliness r> For an individual making poultry an important phase of farm opera- tions some items of expense would be greater, but they can be counter- balanced by the sale of utility hatching eggs. In Experiment No. 4, the eggs set by Purdue hatched 73 per cent, of all put into the incubators, which was considered a very good investment at six cents each, for hatching. This investigation is being continued with yearling hens and more data will be available in the future. PURDUE UNIVERSITY Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 212 March, 1918 PLUMS AND CHERRIES Published by the Station: LAFAYETTE, INDIANA U. S. A. PURDUE UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BOARD OF CONTROL Joseph D. Oliver. President. South Bend Fay S. Chandler Indianapolis Charles Downing Greenfield John A. Hillenbrand Batesville Cyrus M. Hobbs Bridgeport Winthrop E. Stone, A. M., Ph. D Warren T. McCray Kentland James W. Noel Indianapolis George W. Purcell Vincennes Andrew E. Reynolds Crawfordsville .President of the University ADVISORY COMMITTEE (Under Legislative Act of 1909) John G. Brown, Monon D. B. Johnson, Mooresville State Live Stock Association State Dairy Association U. R. Fishel, Hope D. F. Maish, Frankfort State Poultry Fanciers' Association State Corn Growers' Association H. H. Swaim, South Bend. ...I ndiana Horticultural Society ADMINISTRATION Charles G. Woodbury, M. S., Director Harry J. Reed Assistant to the Director Nellie Tracy Administrative Assistant Mary K. Bloom Bookkeeper AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION George I. Christie, B. S. A., Superintendent Thomas A. Coleman Ass’t State Leader Field Studies and Demonstrations George M. Frier, B. S. A Associate in Charge of Short Courses and Exhibits Mabel L. HARLAN..Ass’t in Agricultural Extension ANIMAL HUSBANDRY John H. Skinner, B. S., Chief Chester G. Starr, B. S. A Acting Associate in Animal Husbandry Herbert E. McCartney, B. S. A Ass’t in Animal Husbandry Extension BOTANY Herbert S. Jackson, a. B.. Chief George N. Hoffer, M. S Associate in Botany George A. Osner, Ph. D Associate in Botany Luna E. Allison, B. S Assistant in Botany Edwin B. Mains, Ph. D Assistant in Botany Harry R. Rosen, M. S., Assistant in Rust Work Grace O. Wineland, A. B.. M. S Assistant in Botany DAIRY HUSBANDRY Ralph E. Caldwell, B. S., Acting Chief Howard W. Gregory, B. S Associate in Dairy Manufactures George Spitzer, Ph. G., B. S Associate in Dairy Chemistry Harry M. Weeter, M. S Associate in Dairy Bacteriology Turner H. Broughton, B. S Assistant in Creamery Inspection William F. Epple, Ph. G Assistant in Dairy Chemistry ENTOMOLOGY James Troop, M. S., Chief Preston W. Mason, B. S., Ass’t in Entomology HORTICULTURE Laurenz Greene, M. S. A., Chief Harry A. Noyes, M. S Associate in Horticultural Chemistry and Bacteriology Joseph Oskamp, B. S., Associate in Pomology Walter A. Huelson, B. S Assistant in Horticulture POULTRY HUSBANDRY Allen G. Philips, B. S. A., Chief Dwight C. Kennard, B. S Assistant in Poultry Husbandry SOILS AND CROPS Alfred T. Wiancko, B. S. A., Chief Martin L. Fisher, M. S Assistant Chief in Soils and Crops Samuel D. Conner, M. S Associate Chemist in Soils and Crops Clinton O. Cromer, B. S Associate in Crops Sadocie C. Jones, M. S Associate in Soils STATE CHEMIST W t m. J. Jones, Jr., M. S., A. C. 3 State Chemist Edward G. Proulx, M. S.A.Acting State Chemist Reuben O. Bitler, B. S. 2 ....Deputy State Chemist Paul B. Curtis, B. S. 2 Deputy State Chemist Omar W. Ford, A. B. 2 Deputy State Chemist Mary J. Minton, B. S. 2 .Assistant Microscopist State Chemist’s Department Herman J. Nimitz, B. S. 2 .. Deputy State Chemist J. Howard Roop, B. S. 2 ....Deputy State Chemist Samuel F. Thornton, B. S. 2 Deputy State Chemist Otis S. Roberts, B. S. 2 Chief Inspector State Chemist’s Department Glenn G. Carter, B. S. 2 Inspector State Chemist’s Department Benjamin F. Catherwood, 2 Inspector State Chemist’s Department VETERINARY SCIENCE Robert A. Craig, D. V. M., Chief David B. Clark, D. M. C... Associate Veterinarian Lawrence C. Kigin, D. V. M Associate Veterinarian Rex A. Whiting, D. V. M Associate in Animal Pathology Carl H. Clink, B. S Ass’t in Serum Production Leo P. Doyle, B. S Ass’t in Animal Pathology Leslie R. George, B. S Assistant in Animal Pathology Fred L. Walkey, D. V. M Ass’t Veterinarian DETAILED BY U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Cereal and Forage Crop Insect Investigations John J. Davis, B. S.. Entomological Assistant in Charge John M. Aldrich, Ph. D.. Entomological Assistant Walter H. Larrimer, B. S Scientific Assistant Dean A. Ricker, B. S Scientific Assistant Chester F. Turner, B. S Scientific Assistant Seed Testing Anna M. Lute, M. A Seed Analyst 1 In charge of Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control 2 Connected with Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control 3 Died August 31. 1917 PLUMS AND CHERRIES Joseph Oskamp The plum and cherry are not of the first commercial importance in Indiana, but they are deserving of more intelligent management than is commonly accorded them. Of the two fruits, the cherry is grown more largely as a commercial crop than is the plum. Either fruit is preferably grown to supply the demands of a local or nearby market rather than for distant shipment. Cherries, particularly, are of a delicate and per- ishable nature and because of the large number of pickers necessary to harvest the crop, they should be grown near populous communities. The chief place of these fruits in Indiana horticulture probably is in the farm orchard. Although this position may be a homely one, the universality with which plum and cherry trees appear in the door- yards of the State is ample evidence of their very wide-spread popularity. Without going into the technical classification and bewildering sub- divisions of plums and cherries, it might be well to recall at this time, owing to their slightly different requirements, that there are three main classes of cultivated plums; the European, the Japanese, and the native American plums. The Lombard and the Damson are among the most common varieties of the European plums grown in Indiana, the Bur- bank and the Abundance represent the Japanese type, while Wild Goose, Weaver, and Miner are popular native American sorts. Among the cherries, the sour varieties are the only ones of im- portance in the State. The sweet cherries do not seem to be generally profitable, although they make an attractive tree for the lawn. The Dukes, hybrids between the sweet and sour cherry, are occasionally planted. SITE Plums and cherries seldom winter-kill but they are susceptible to late spring frosts; therefore a location should be selected that has an out- let to lower lands, so that the cold air may drain away. Ravines or pockets into which the cold air may settle, should be avoided. The American plums will grow under practically all soil conditions existing in the State, from the stiff clays and black prairie lands, to soils of a pronounced sandy nature. The European varieties find their most congenial surroundings in a rather heavy loam, while the Japanese sorts show a preference for the more sandy soils. The most important soil requirement of the cherry is good drainage, as it positively will not thrive in a wet soil. The sour cherry has a wider range of adaptation than the sweet cherry ; in fact, locations in the State that seem suited in soil and climate for the profitable production of the sweet cherry are limited. It does best on a well drained, sandy loam. 4 PLANTING % Two year old trees are preferable for planting under normal con- ditions. Being larger than one-year-olds, they are not quite so apt to be run over or injured. Three year old trees, although sometimes used, do not stand the shock of transplanting so well as younger trees. The medium grade is the most profitable size to purchase. The small two year old trees are generally lacking in vigor and the abnormally large trees do not transplant so successfully. It is a common practice to overcrowd plum and cherry trees. Plums and sour cherries should be set 18 to 20 feet apart, and sweet cherries at least 25 feet apart. The tree holes should be large enough to allow the trees to be plant- ed without crowding the roots. The roots should not be needlessly ex- posed to the wind and sun, but kept moist by the use of wet gunny sacks or other means ; the tree set slightly deeper than it stood in the nursery and as the hole is being filled, the earth tramped well about the roots. Both cherry and plum trees should be firmly and carefully planted. Cherries especially are difficult to transplant and some losses may be expected even under favorable conditions. Spring planting is generally to be preferred. SOIL CULTURE Cultivation of the soil will insure the best success where these fruits are grown on a commercial scale. The ground should be stirred frequent- ly during the summer and a cover crop sowed in late summer to be turned under the following spring. Tillage is often impractical with only a few trees, in the home orchard. In such case, a mulch of straw, shredded fodder, grass or leaves spread about the trees is very helpful in conserving the soil moisture. The drawback to a mulch system for these fruits is the pro- tection it gives diseases and insects, particularly the plum curculio. PRUNING Very light pruning should be the rule. Cutting back the annual growth is seldom advisable except in certain cases to preserve the symmetry of the tree by heading-in unusually long shoots. Young plum trees may be cut back moderately at planting time, but this practice is cjuestionable with cherries. The shaping of the young trees should not be ignored, however. The first year, only such scaffold limbs should be saved as are sufficiently well spaced on the trunk to avoid crowding in the future, when second- ary limbs are formed. The central leader may be allowed to grow for the first few years, when it will generally become suppressed or can be cut out after five or six well spaced main limbs have been produced. The trees at all times should be kept moderately open by removing crowding branches to admit light into the tops and make possible a thorough job of spraying. The necessary pruning may well be done in February or March; needless to say, all dead or unthrifty wood should be removed at once. 5 DISEASES Black-knot is a common disease of the plum, and to some extent of the cherry, producing hard, charcoal-like galls on the branches. All diseased wood should be cut out when it appears, and burned. As the spores are disseminated as early as April, it is especially desirable to have all knots removed by that time. A dormant application of one gallon of lime-sulfur solution to eight gallons of water is a good sanitary measure, but not alone effective. Plum-pockets cause the fruit of the plum to become swollen and distorted with a spongy growth. The dormant spray, before the buds open, using one gallon of lime- sulfur solution to eight gallons of water has given satisfactory results. Brown-rot affects the fruit of both plums and cherries. It starts as a small brown, rotten spot and soon involves the entire fruit. The disease rapidly spreads through the orchard. Brown-rot may be controlled by two or three summer applications of lime-sulfur solution, one to fifty. Thinning the young fruits so that they will not touch when mature, is a great aid in rot control. Powdery mildezv is occasionally seen on the shoots and leaves of the cherry, especially on young trees. Lime-sulfur solution, one to fifty, affords satisfactory control. Leaf-spot, sometimes called shot-hole owing to the small circular holes appearing in the leaves, is common on both plum and cherry foli- age. After the leaves have become riddled with holes, they turn yellow and fall. This loss of foliage is very weakening to the tree and is the principal cause of the unthrifty appearance and unsatisfactory produc- tion of many cherry trees in Indiana. Three applications of lime-sulfur solution, one to fifty, will hold the disease in check. INSECTS The Plum-curculio . — This insect is the main cause of wormy plums and cherries. The adult, a small, rough-backed snout beetle, punctures the fruit in feeding and egg laying. In the case of plums, the wormy fruit generally falls to the ground, but with cherries it frequently re- mains on the trees. The adult insects hibernate in weeds, brush and rubbish, which should be cleaned up. The larvae pupate in the ground and cultivation will cause many of them to be turned up to the sun and die. The larvae of the curculio should not be confused with the cherry fruit-maggot. The former is a grub having a brownish head ; the latter is smaller and is a true maggot. Effective control consists in spraying with arsenate of lead, two pounds of paste, or one pound of powder, and two pounds of lime to 50 gallons of water. An application should be made just after the leaf buds burst, again after the petals fall, and again 10 days later. The Pear-slug. — The adult of this insect is a four-winged fly, the larvae of which feed principally upon cherry foliage. They are covered with a slime and resemble small snails. They eat the upper surface of 6 the leaves leaving the skeleton of the leaves to wither and fall, some- times defoliating the entire tree. , An application of arsenate of lead as recommended for the cur- culio will rid the trees of this pest. Road dust or air slaked lime will also destroy the slugs. Aphids are small plant lice which infest the leaves, causing them to curl up. A thorough spraying should be given the infested trees, particularly the under sides of the leaves before they curl, using one pint of nicotine- sulfate 1 and four pounds of soft soap to ioo gallons of water. Scale Insects do not ordinarily bother the sour cherry, but are quite prevalent on the plum and sweet cherry. The San Jose Scale is the most common and serious of these pests. Spraying the orchard thoroughly while the trees are dormant, with lime-sulfur solution, using one gallon to eight gallons of water, is ef- fective. The Fruit Tree-bark Beetle is a small beetle which bores into the bark, making shot-like holes which are connected beneath the bark by winding channels. Weakened and failing trees are more liable to their attacks. All dead trees and limbs should be cut out and burned early in the spring, and the orchard cultivated, sprayed and cared for to induce a vigorous growth which will be less subject to attack. A thick whitewash applied about twice during the season will serve as a repellent to egg laying. The Cherry Fruit-fly has been reported in the neighborhood of South Bend, as attacking the later varieties of cherries. The eggs are laid in punctures in the fruit. The young maggots are smaller than the larvae of the curculio. Crosby 2 advises about a pint of sweetened poison sprinkled over the tree in large drops, which would probably attract the flies. The mix- ture consists of arsenate of lead three ounces, molasses one pint, and water four gallons. It can be put on with a small garden syringe, when the flies first appear and repeated every week until controlled. SPRAY SCHEDULE Dormant Spray. — Applied in late winter before the buds open, for San Jose scale, bladder plum, etc., and as a general sanitary measure. Not generally necessary for the sour cherry. Use concentrated lime-sulfur one gallon to eight gallons of water. 3 Cover every part of the tree thoroughly. First Summer Spray. — Applied just as the leaf buds burst in the spring, for the curculio, using one pound of powdered or two pounds of paste arsenate of lead and two pounds of hydrated lime to 50 gallons of water. If aphids are present at the time of any application, add one- half pint of nicotine-sulfate to every 50 gallons of solution. 1 This recommendation is based on nicotine sulphate containing 40 per cent, nicotine. For nicotine sulphate of less strength, proportionally more material should be used 2 Bulletin No. 79, Part II, New York State Department of Agriculture 3 All recommendations are based on a concentrate testing 32 degrees Beaume. For other strengths, different dilutions will be necessary. (See Purdue Extension Leaflet No. 48) / Second Summer Spray . — Applied just after the petals fall for brown-rot, powdery mildew, leaf-spot and curculio, using concentrated lime-sulfur 1 diluted one to fifty and one pound of powdered or two pounds of paste arsenate of lead and two pounds of lime. Third Summer Spray . — The same as above, applied when the fruit is about the size of buckshot. Additional applications of a fungicide at intervals of two weeks will be necessary in many cases to control brown-rot on the plum. Cherries should have an additional spray after the fruit is picked to control the leaf spot effectually. POLLINATION AND VARIETIES The failure of plums to set fruit, particularly the American and Japanese varieties, may frequently be traced to self-sterility, or the fail- ure of the pollen of a variety to fertilize its own flowers. While the European sorts are not ordinarily considered in need of cross-fertiliza- tion, it is nevertheless advisable in setting plum orchards, to plant at least two varieties which bloom at the same time to insure proper pollin- ation. The sour varieties of cherries may safely be planted alone. The sweet cherries in the far west have in many cases been found wholly or partially self-sterile, but under Indiana conditions this seems to be a minor factor in limiting fruit setting. Here failure must be attributed largely to climatic and soil conditions. The following described varieties of plums and cherries have fruited on the Station grounds. While some of these varieties have not fruited long enough so that a report on their behavior is entirely satisfactory, yet it is felt that such general information as can be given at the present time will be helpful to many who intend planting these fruits. Harvest- ing and blooming dates, are for the season of 1914. 2 The blooming dates will be valuable in selecting varieties for cross pollination. The harvesting date is the actual time at which the crop was picked for market. This would vary considerably between varieties, in different seasons, or in other localities. Those varieties marked with an asterisk are particularly suggested for the consideration of Indiana growers. It will only be necessary to mention Opata, Sapa, Ezaptan, Sansota and Tokeya varieties of plums, which were received through the kind- ness of Professor N. E. Hansen. They are small in size and inferior in quality and although valuable for their hardiness, many better var- ieties are hardy in Indiana. 1 For the tender Japanese varieties, the self-boiled lime-sulfur, as recommended for peaches in Purdue Experiment Station Circular No. 69, is safer 2 Phenological notes were taken by Mr. J. C. Grossman, formerly orchard foreman in the Horticultural Department 8 PLUMS 1 Wild Goose.* — Harvested July 22, full bloom April 27. Tree spreading, rather dense, flat top, vigorous, productive. Fruit one and one-sixteenth inches in width, slightly oval; skin bright red, thin, tough; flesh yellowish, tender, juicy, sweet, fair to good; stone adhering. A favorite early variety. American. Climax. — Harvested July 25, full bloom April 23. Tree spreading, moder- ately open, flat topped, wood subject to decay organisms. Fruit large, two inches in width, cordate, halves unequal; skin dark purplish red, mottled, medium thick, slightly tough; flesh brownish yellow, juicy, tender, melting, sweet, aromatic, very good; stone adhering. Often cracks open when ripe; very early blooming makes it liable to frost injury. Its large size and good flavor would be appreciated in the home orchard. Hybrid. Shiro. — Harvested July 25, full bloom April 25. Tree spreading, open, rather weak and subject to decay. Fruit one and one-half inches in diameter, round; skin clear yellow, thin, almost transparent; flesh yellow, juicy, flavor sweet but flat and unattractive; stone free. Hybrid. Milton. — Harvested July 30, full bloom April 27. Tree moderately up- right, dense, round top, medium size, vigorous, healthy. Fruit one and one- eighth inches in width, oblong; skin red, thin, tough; flesh dark yellow, mod- erately juicy, sweet, rather flat, quality fair; stone adhering. Very similar to Wild Goose and about same season. American. Abundance. — Harvested August 2, full bloom April 23. Tree moderately spreading, rather open, round top, vigorous. Fruit one and one-half inches in width, roundish ovate; skin tough, purplish red; flesh dark yellow, tender, melting, juicy, sweet aromatic, good; stone adhering. A well known variety. Blooms early and therefore subject to late spring frosts. Must be well sprayed on account of brown-rot. Japanese. Hale. — Harvested August 5, full bloom April 25. Tree moderately up- right, round top, medium to weak. Fruit one and five-sixteenth inches in width, round; skin yellow, rather tough; flesh juicy, subacid to sweet, fairly good; stone adhering. Fruit rots badly and not a desirable market variety. Japanese. Robinson. — Harvested August 5, full bloom April 27. Tree quite spreading, open, round top, vigorous, healthy. Fruit fifteen-sixteenths inch in diameter, round; skin bright red, thick, tough; flesh yellow, medium to soft, juicy, mild, sweet, fair; stone adhering. American. Bartlett. — Harvested August 7, full bloom April 25. Tree decidedly up- right, very dense, cone top, vigorous and healthy. Fruit one and five-sixteenths inches in diameter, round; skin purplish red, thin, tender; flesh yellow, rather dry, peculiar flavor resembling Bartlett pear; stone adhering. Not a reliable variety. Hybrid. Weaver. — Harvested August 7, full bloom April 29. Tree spreading, vigor- ous. Fruit fifteen-sixteenths inch in diameter, round; skin red, thick, tough; flesh yellow, juicy, mild, fair; stone adhering. An old time variety and still planted. American. Sultan. — Harvested August 7, full bloom April 25. Tree quite spreading, open top, only medium to below in vigor, foliage subject to shot-hole. Fruit one and one-half inches in diameter, round; skin purple, medium; flesh red, juicy, sweet, good; stone adhering. European. Gold. — Harvested August 8, full bloom April 27. Tree moderately upright, fairly open, irregular, medium in vigor, subject to shot-hole fungus. Fruit one and three-sixteenths inches in width, roundish oblate; skin golden yellow, thick, tough; flesh yellow, juicy, subacid, fair; stone adhering. Not good enough for dessert and its color is against it on the market. Hybrid. 1 All Illustrations are natural size 9 America.* — Harvested August 10, full bloom April 25. Tree spreading, moderately open, round top, vigorous, healthy. Fruit roundish oblate, one and one-half inches in diameter; skin bright red, medium to thin; flesh yellow, juicy, sweet to sub- acid, fair to good ; stone adhering. A reliable variety. Hybrid. Burbank.* — Harvested August 12, full bloom April 25. Tree spreading, moderately open, flat top, vigorous, healthy, but some shot-hole fungus. Fruit one and one-half inches in width, roundish conical; skin dark red over yellow, thin, tough; flesh rich yellow, firm, meaty, melting, juicy, sweet, good; stone adhering. Hardy, healthy and fairly regular bearer for plum ot its class. Japanese. Wolf. — Harvested August 12, full bloom April 28. Tree moderately upright to spreading, rather open, round top, vigorous. Fruit one inch to below in diameter, roundish oval; skin dark red, thick, tough; flesh yellow, juicy, sweet, fair; stone free or nearly so. American. Niagara. — (Bradshaw) Harvested August 12, full bloom April 28. Tree upright, dense, irregular top, susceptible to shot-hole fungus and wood decaying organisms. Fruit one and one-half inches in width, oval; skin dark blue over red, rather thick; flesh yellowish, juicy, subacid, good; stone adhering to almost free. A plum of good size, attractive in appearance, but tree is subject to disease and often shy bearer. European. Forest Garden. — Harvested August 12, full bloom April 28. Tree some- what spreading, moderately open, round topped, fairly vigorous, somewhat inclined to attacks of shot-hole fungus. Fruit one and one-eighth inch- es in diameter, round; skin light to dark red, thick, tough; flesh yellow, juicy, with a distinctive sugary flavor, fairly good; stone almost free. American. Cheney. — Harvested August 12, full bloom April 28. Tree moderately spreading, rather dense, round top, susceptible to shot-hole fungus. Fruit one and one-sixteenth inches in width, roundish oval; skin dark red over yellow, thick, tough; flesh yellow, juicy, fair; stone adhering. Not generally desirable. American. Newman. — Harvested August 15, full bloom April 27. Tree spreading, dense, flat top, medium in vigor. Fruit seven-eighths inch in width, oval; skin bright red, medium, tough; flesh yellow, subacid, fair; stone adhering. Fruit small and not particularly attractive. American. Chabot.* — Harvested August 17, full bloom April 25. Tree moderately spreading, rather open, large, fairly vigorous and healthy. Fruit one and three-eighths inches in diameter, roundish coni- cal, almost cordate; skin light red over yellow, medium; flesh yellow, firm, moderately juicy, al- most sweet, good; stone adhering. Blooms slight- ly later than some Japanese varieties. Japanese. Yellow Egg. — Harvested August 18, full bloom April 28. Tree moderately upright, rather dense, round top, medium large, fairly thrifty. Fruit one and one-half inches in diameter; oval; Figr. 3. Burbank 10 Fig. 4. Surprise Z skin clear yellow, thick; flesh yellow, coarse, subacid to sweet, fair quality; stone free. A plum of good size but lacking quality. European. Pottawattamie. — Harvested August 19, full bloom April 27. Tree spreading, open, round top, vigorous. Fruit seven-eighths inch in width, almost round; skin bright red, rather thin, very tough; flesh yellow, watery when ripe, sweet, good; stone adhering. Although small, the fruit is sweet and good out of hand and the tree is a heavy cropper. American. Wyant. — Harvested August 22, full bloom April 28. Tree moderately spreading, dense, round top, rather small, vigorous and healthy. Fruit one and one-eighth inches in width, oblique, compressed; skin purplish red, thick, tough; flesh yellow, juicy, fair in quality; stone free. Hybrid. Hawkeye. — Harvested August 22, full bloom April 28. Tree moderately upright, dense, round top to irregular, healthy. Fruit one and one-eighth inches in diameter, round; skin dark red, thick, tough; flesh yellow, rather soft, juicy, sweet, quality fair to good; stone almost free. American. Surprise.* — Harvested August 24, full bloom April 28. Tree moderately upright, dense, round top, vigorous, healthy. Fruit one and one-eighth inches in diameter, round; skin dark red, thick, tough; flesh yellow, juicy, sweet, fair to good; stone almost free. A native plum well worthy of more extended planting. American. Lombard.* — Harvested August 26, full bloom April 27. Tree moderately upright, rather open, round topped, healthy. Fruit one and one-half inches in width, form oval, flattened at cavity; skin purplish red, rather thin, tender; flesh yellow, firm, meaty, juicy, sweet, fair; stone sometimes free. A stand- ard variety, suitable for home or commercial planting although subject to brown-rot. European. DeSoto.* — Harvested August 28, full bloom May 5. Tree spreading, open, round top, irregu- lar, small, some injury by shot-hole fungus. Fruit one inch in diameter; skin light red, thick, tough; flesh yellow, tender, juicy, mild, fair; stone al- most free. A late bloomer. Worthy of trial. American. October Purple. — Harvested August 28, full bloom April 23. Tree moderately upright, fairly open, irregular, moderately vigorous, susceptible to shot-hole fungus. Fruit one and one-half inch- es in width, roundish oval to cordate; skin pur- ple, thin, tough; flesh yellow, juicy, sweet, fairly good; stone adhering. Not especially desirable in tree or fruit characters. Japanese. Pond. — Harvested August 29, full bloom April 28. Tree upright, dense, irregular, healthy, vigor- ous. Fruit large, variable, oval, necked; skin reddish purple, medium; flesh yellow, firm, meaty, sweet, fair; stone partially adhering. European. Omaha.* — Harvested August 29, full bloom April 25. Tree spreading, open, irregular, vigor- ous, healthy. Fruit one and three-eighths inches in diameter, round; skin light red over yellow, thin, tender; flesh yellow, melting, juicy, sweet, good; stone adhering. Commendable in size and quality. Hybrid. Fig. 5. Lombard Fig. 6. Arctic Arctic.* — (Moores Arctic.) Harvested September 1, full bloom April 27. Tree moderately upright, dense, round top, vigorous, healthy. Fruit one and one-fourth inches in diameter, roundish oval; skin dark blue, medium; flesh yellow, firm, moderately juicy, subacid, fair; stone almost free. Good for preserving. European. Diamond.- — Harvested September 1, full bloom April 25. Tree upright to spreading, rather dense, round top, healthy, vigorous. Fruit one and five- sixteenths inches in width, oval; skin deep purple, thin, tough; flesh yellow, firm, coarse, tender, rather dry, subacid, fair; stone partially adhering. Not valuable as a dessert plum but sufficiently attractive for market. European. Purple Egg. — (Hud- son) Harvested Sep- tember 1, full bloom April 28. Tree up- right to spreading, round top, large, vig- orous, healthy. Fruit one and three-eighths inches in width, oval; skin dark reddish purple, thin, tender; flesh yellow, a trace of red at pit, firm, meaty, moderately juicy, subacid to sweet; stone adhering. European. Monarch.* — Harvested September 1, full bloom April 28. Tree moderately upright, rather dense, irregular top, vigorous, some- what subject to fungi. Fruit one and three- fourths inches wide, generally roundish; skin purple, rather thin, tender; flesh yellow, firm, meaty, juicy, subacid to sweet, good; stone free. Suitable for dessert or market, but requires late spraying for rot. European. Miner. — Harvested Sep- tember 1, full bloom April 29. Tree moderately up- right, dense, round top, vigorous, fairly healthy. Fruit one and one thirty- second inches in diameter, round; skin red, thick, Fig. 7. Monarch tough; flesh tender, juicy, sweet, good; stone adhering. An old variety and still good. American. Arch Duke.* — Harvested September 3, full bloom April 25. Tree upright, dense, irregular top, fairly healthy, • vigorous. Fruit one and three-eighths inches in width, oval, necked; skin dark purple, medium; flesh yellow, firm, meaty, mild subacid to sweet, good; stone free. Not the best to eat out of hand, but good for culinary use and ex- cellent for shipping. European. Shropshire.* — (Damson) Harvested September 3, full Fig. 8. Shropshire bloom April 27. Tree upright, dense, round top, vigorous, 12 hardy, healthy. Fruit one inch in width, oval; skin purple to black, thin; flesh greenish yellow, coarse, juicy, acid, fair; stone adhering. One of the best plums of the Damson type, so popu- lar for preserves, etc. Has a place in either the home or commercial orchard. European. German Prune. — Harvested September 10, full bloom, April 28. Tree spreading, rather open, irregular top, vigorous, healthy. Fruit small, oval to ovate, halves unequal; skin dark purple, rather thin, tough; flesh greenish yel- low, firm, somewhat dry, subacid, fair; stone free. Planting is not to be encouraged on ac- count of small size and inferior quality. European. Green Gage.* — (Bavay) Harvested (Septem- ber 20, full bloom April 25. Tree moderately up- right, round top, fairly vigorous and healthy. Fruit one and seven-sixteenths inches in width, roundish oval; skin greenish yellow, thick, tough; flesh rich yellow, firm, meaty; juicy, sweet, mild, very good; stone free. One of the favorites in the home orchard and equally good for market. European. Grand Duke.* — Harvested September 15, full bloom April 28. Tree moderately upright, dense, round top, vigorous, healthy. Fruit one and five- eighths inches in width, long oval, halves un- equal; skin purple, thick, rather tough; flesh yellow, firm, meaty, mild, sweet, fairly good; stone adhering. Rather free from rot and a good market variety. European. CHERRIES Dyehouse. — Slightly earlier and fruit small- er than early Richmond but more exacting as to soil conditions than that variety. Early Richmond.* — Harvested June 15, full bloom April 28. Tree medium size, spreading, rather dense, round top, vigor- ous, healthy. Fruit medium size, round; skin thin, bright red; flesh white, acid. The most popular early sour cherry. Baldwin. — Harvested June 20, full bloom April 27. Tree large, upright, dense, round top, vigorous, healthy, unproductive. Fruit medium size; round; skin dark red, tough; flesh red, acid, good. Montmerency.* — Harvested July 1, full bloom May 1. Tree large, upright, dense, round top, vigorous, healthy. Fruit medium size, roundish oblate; skin bright red, thin; flesh yellowish, tender, moderately acid, good. The favorite in Indiana for both home and commercial planting. English Morello. — (Said to be identical with Ragg.) Very late sour cherry. Tree dwarfish in habit and lacking in vigor. Fruit almost black with rich, deep red flesh and juice; very astringent until fully ripe. The variety is sub- ject to the attacks of the cherry fruit-fly where this insect is found. Fig. 9. Grand Duke Several varieties of sweet cherries and their hybrids have been tried at this station. They have given only one crop worthy of the name in the last six years, although the trees make a very thrifty growth. This seems to be the general experience over the State with possibly a few local exceptions. Such being the case it has not been thought worth while to include descriptions. If one must plant sweet cherries, the Napoleon is one of the best light-colored, firm-fleshed varieties, and the Windsor one of the best dark-fleshed sorts. PURDUE UNIVERSITY Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 213 March, 1918 Fig. 1. Effect of ground limestone on alfalfa, Knox County, 1916. Where no lime- stone was applied there was no alfalfa THE VALUE OF LIME ON INDIANA SOILS Published by the Station: LAFAYETTE, INDIANA U. S. A. PURDUE UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BOARD OP CONTROL Joseph D. Oliver. President, South Bend Fat S. Chandler Indianapolis Charles Downing Greenfield John A. Hillenbrand Batesville Ctrus M. Hobbs Bridgeport Winthrop E. Stone, A. M., Ph. D Warren T. McCray Kentland James W. Noel Indianapolis George W. Purcell Vincennes Andrew E. Reynolds Crawfordsville .President of the University ADVISORY COMMITTEE (Under Legislative Act of 1909) John G. Brown, Monon D. B. Johnson, Mooresville^ State Live Stock Association State Dairy Association U. R. Fishel, Hope D. F. Maish, Frankfort - State Poultry Fanciers - ’ Association State Corn Growers' Association H. H. Swaim, South Bend... .Indiana Horticultural Society ADMINISTRATION Charles G. Woodbury, M. S., Director Harry J. Reed Assistant to the Director Nellie Tracy Administrative Assistant Mary K. Bloom Bookkeeper AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION George I. Christie, B. S. A., Superintendent Thomas A. Coleman Ass’t State Leader Field Studies and Demonstrations George M. Frier, B. S. A Associate in Charge of Short Courses and Exhibits Mabel L. Harlan. .A ss’t in Agricultural Extension ANIMAL HUSBANDRY John H. Skinner, B. S., Chief Chester G. Starr, B. S. A Acting Associate in Animal Husbandry Herbert E. McCartney, B. S. A Ass’t in Animal Husbandry Extension BOTANY Herbert S. Jackson, A. B., Chief George N. Hoffer, M. S Associate in Botany George A. Osner, Ph. D Associate in Botany Luna E. Allison, B. S Assistant in Botany Edwin B. Mains, Ph. D Assistant in Botany Harry R. Rosen, M. S., Assistant in Rust Work Grace O. Wineland, A. B., M. S Assistant in Botany DAIRY HUSBANDRY Ralph E. Caldwell, B. S., Acting Chief Howard W. Gregory, B. S Associate in Dairy Manufactures George Spitzer, Ph. G. t B. S Associate in Dairy Chemistry Harry M. Weeter, M. S Associate in Dairy Bacteriology Turner H. Broughton, B. S Assistant in Creamery Inspection William F. Epple, Ph. G Assistant in Dairy Chemistry ENTOMOLOGY James Troop, M. S., Chief Preston W. Mason, B. S., Ass’t in Entomology HORTICULTURE Laurenz Greene, M. S. A., Chief Harry A. Noyes, M. S Associate in Horticultural Chemistry and Bacteriology Joseph Oskamp, B. S.. Associate in Pomology Walter A. Huelson, B. S Assistant in Horticulture POULTRY HUSBANDRY Allen G. Philips, B. S. A., Chief Dwight C. Kennard, B. S Assistant in Poultry Husbandry SOILS AND CROPS Alfred T. Wiancko, B. S. A., Chief Martin L. Fisher, M. S Assistant Chief in Soils and Crops Samuel D. Conner, M. S Associate Chemist in Soils and Crops Clinton O. Cromer, B. S Associate in Crops Sadocie C. Jones, M. S Associate in Soils STATE CHEMIST. Wm. J. Jones, Jr., M. S., A. C. 3 State Chemist Edward G. Proulx, M. S. 1 .. Acting State Chemist Reuben O. Bitler, B. S. 2 ....Deputy State Chemist Paul B. Curtis, B. S. 2 Deputy State Chemist Omar W. Ford, A. B. 2 Deputy State Chemist Mary J. Minton, B. S. 2 Assistant Microscopist State Chemist’s Department Herman J. Nimitz, B. S. 2 .. Deputy State Chemist J. Howard Roop, B. S. 2 .. ..Deputy State Chemist Samuel F. Thornton, B. S. 2 Deputy State Chemist Otis S. Roberts, B. S. 2 Chief Inspector State Chemist’s Department Glenn G. Carter, B. S. 2 Inspector State Chemist’s Department Benjamin F. Catherwood 2 Inspector State Chemist’s Department VETERINARY SCIENCE Robert A. Craig, D. V. M., Chief David B. Clark, D. M. C.. .Associate Veterinarian Lawrence C. Kigin, D. V. M Associate Veterinarian Rex A. Whiting, D. V. M Associate in Animal Pathology Carl H. Clink, B. S Ass’t in Serum Production Leo P. Doyle, B. S Ass’t in Animal Pathology Leslie R. George, B. S Assistant in Animal Pathology Fred L. Walkey, D. V. M Ass’t Veterinarian DETAILED BY U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Cereal and Forage Crop Insect Investigations John J. Davis, B. S.. Entomological % Assistant in Charge John M. Aldrich, Ph. D.. Entomological Assistant Walter H. Larrimer. B. S... Scientific Assistant Dean A. Ricker, B. S Scientific Assistant Chester F. Turner, B. S Scientific Assistant Seed Testing Anna M. Lute, M. A Seed Analyst 1 In charge of Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control * Connected with Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control * Died August 31. 1917 THE VALUE OF LIME ON INDIANA SOILS A. T. Wiancko S. D. Conner S. C. Jones SUMMARY Clover will not thrive on acid soils. Liming is the only practical means of correcting soil acidity. Three-fourths of the soils of Indiana are acid and in need of liming. About one-fourth of our soils is so very acid that clover fails almost every time it is sown. About one-half of our soils is of slight to medium acidity and clover will fail whenever the weather conditions are at all unfavorable. Only about one-fourth of the soils of Indiana is well enough sup- plied with lime to enable clover to develop properly. A liberal application of pulverized limestone' or some other form of lime is needed to insure a clover crop on any acid soil. Wherever clover fails to thrive, the soil should be tested for acidity. If the soil is acid enough to need liming at all, at least two tons per acre of ground limestone or its equivalent in other forms of lime should be applied. Ground limestone may be applied at any time, but the best plan is to apply it on plowed ground and disk it into the surface soil. Lime will often produce immediate increases in grain and other crops, but the greatest benefit derived from it comes through increasing clover and other legumes in the rotation. Following a good clover crop, it is possible to grow good grain or other crops. The greater the proportion of legumes that can be turned under, either directly or in the form of manure, the easier it will be to main- tain the fertility of the soil. Lime is not a fertilizer. Manure or fertilizer, or both, should be used in addition to lime. On seven experiment fields in different parts of the State, ground limestone has produced crop increases worth from $10.50 to $67.70 per acre per rotation of corn, wheat and clover. The average net profit has been $6.78 per acre per year, and $2.68 per dollar invested. INTRODUCTION Increasing crop yields from a few bushels of corn or wheat to 80 bushels of corn and 30 bushels of wheat per acre, is the problem that confronts thousands of Indiana farmers. The Purdue University Agricultural Experiment Station through its Department of Soils and Crops has been conducting extensive soil im- provement experiments in many parts of the State. It is determining in a practical way through its field investigations, the value of the different practices, methods and materials involved, in permanent increase in soil fertility. The value and use of lime as one of several essentials in soil im- provement, is reported in this bulletin. The average yields given, in- 4 elude the low yields of the first years and any crop failures resulting from adverse weather conditions. The use of lime, legumes, phosphorus and drainage has made it possible to double and treble the yields on these experiment fields in five years. Indiana soils have been depleted in organic matter and nitrogen more than in anything else, and to profitably increase the supply of these valuable soil constituents, it is necessary to grow more legumes than are now grown. Lime is of great importance in increasing the fertility of Indiana soils and is the key to increased legume production. Three-fourths of the cultivated lands of Indiana are acid in re- action. About 25 per cent, of our soils is so very acid that clover will fail almost every year. On about 50 per cent, of the cultivated lands, clover fails whenever the season is at all unfavorable. The remaining one-fourth of our soils is well supplied with lime, and clover failures are seldom known. It is possible by the use of lime to insure the growth of clover on practically all the soils of the State. Lime will often produce immediate increases in corn, wheat and other crops, but the greatest increases will come after it has exerted its effect on the clover or other legume in the rotation. This bulletin presents the results that have been secured by this sta- tion during the last 12 years from the use of lime in the form of finely ground limestone, on seven experiment fields on different soil types in different parts of the State. The crop yields that have been secured with and without lime on the different fields are presented in the follow- ing pages, together with brief descriptions of the conditions under which the experiments were conducted and concise discussions of the results. THE SCOTTSBURG FIELD The experiment field at Scottsburg, Scott County, is located on Volusia silt loam, commonly called “yellow clay,” which is the predom- inating soil type on the hill and rolling lands of southern Indiana. The soil is of medium acidity with a very acid subsoil. Pulverized limestone was applied in 1906 at the rate of iooo pounds per acre and in 1911 at the rate of 4000 pounds per acre. In Table I are shown the average yields of corn, wheat and clover on the limed plot and on the untreated plot alongside. The small aver- age yields on this land indicate the impoverished condition of the soil brought about by many years of exhaustive cropping. In these experi- TablE I. — Results from Ground Limestone on a Corn, Wheat and Clover Rotation — Scottsburg Experiment Field, 1906-1917 Average yields per acre Average totals per acre per rotation Treatment Corn, busheis Stover, pounds Wheat, bushels Straw, pounds Hay, pounds Value of in- crease Cost of treat- ment Net returns Nothing 23.0 2163 8.1 748 379 Time - 29.9 2551 10.2 915 578 Increase for lime 6.9 388 2.1 167 199 $14.67 $3.11 $11.56 5 ments all the produce has been removed from the land except the small amount of second growth clover, which has been plowed under. Table I shows also that the liming has produced good increases in the yields of all the crops as compared with the small yields on the un- treated land, the net value of the increase being $11.56 per acre per rotation, or $3.85 per acre per year for the entire 12 years. The profit per dollar invested has been $3-72. 1 Liming alone is not sufficient to produce good crops on this land. With better treatment, using manure in addition to the liming, the average yield of corn has been over 50 bushels per acre, wheat has averaged 19 bushels and the clover crop has been over three times as large as where lime alone was used. THE NORTH VERNON FIELD The experiment field at North Vernon in Jennings County is located on the whitish silt loam soil, commonly known as “slash land.” This type of soil is flat, poorly drained and naturally rather poor but capable Fig. 2. Effect of ground limestone on clover, North Vernon field, 1916. Each shock is the produce of one-twentieth acre Manure only Manure and limestone 3560 pounds hay per acre 5520 pounds hay per acre of raising large crops if properly drained and treated. The soil is very acid and the subsoil still more acid than the surface. After thorough tile drainage of the land, pulverized limestone was applied in 1912 at the rate of four tons per acre. In addition, this land receives a six-ton dressing of stable manure plowed under for corn once in three years. All the crops have been removed from the land except the second growth clover, which has been plowed under. ^-Throughout this bulletin the crop increases produced have been valued as follows: corn, $1.00; wheat, $2.00; oats, 70 cents; soybeans, $3.00 per bushel; corn stover, $6.00; wheat straw, $5.00; oats straw, $6.00 and hay, $20.00 each per ton. Ground limestone has been valued at $3.00 per ton on the field. 6 Table: II. — Results from Ground Limestone on a Corn, Wheat and Clover Rotation — North Vernon Experiment Field, 1913-1917 Treatment Average yields per acre Average totals per acre per rotation Corn, bushels Stover, pounds Wheat, bushels Straw, pounds Hay, pounds Value of in- crease Cost of treat- ment Net returns Manure 62.3 3849 10.5 1230 2725 Manure and lime 72.9 4928 20.1 1880 3700 Increase for lime 10.6 1079 9.6 650 975 $44.41 $6.00 $38.41 Table II shows that liming has proven to be of great importance on this soil and has produced large increases on all of the crops in the rota- tion. It should be noted that the liming has shown these good results on land which was well manured and already producing good crops. The wheat yields were not what they might have been, because of consider- able Hessian fly damage in two out of the five years that this experiment has been running. It will be seen that the net profit has been $38.41 per acre for each round of the rotation, or $12.80 per acre per year. For each dollar spent for lime on this land, the crop increases have been enough to pay back the dollar and give a clear profit of $6.40. It is worthy of note that on land across the fence to the west, which until five years ago was a part of the same field, the 1916 corn crop was not worth husking, while in the experiment field the average yield was 67.9 bushels per acre. On a field to the south, which was considered better land, except that it was not tile drained, the 1917 corn yield was about 30 bushels per acre, while in the experiment field the average yield was 78.5 bushels per acre. These differences, of course, are due in large part to the fact that the experiment field is well tile drained, while the adjoining fields have only surface drainage. p THE WORTHINGTON FIELD This field is located near Worthington, Greene County, on Knox silt loam, commonly called “clay.” This is the predominating soil type of the rolling uplands of that section of the State and is very similar to much of the light colored so-called “clay” soils of central Indiana. The land had been exhaustively cropped for a number of years and was very much run down. The soil was quite acid, with a very acid subsoil. The field was laid out and tile drained in the fall of 1911, and in the spring of 1912 pulverized limestone was applied at the rate of two tons per acre on manured land. The manuring has been at the rate of six tons per acre plowed under for corn once in three years. All the crops have been removed from the land except the second growth clover, which has been plowed under. 7 Fig. 3. Effect of ground limestone on corn, Worthington field, 1917. Each shock is the produce of one-twentieth acre Manure only Manure and limestone 35.6 bushels corn per acre 49.3 bushels corn per acre Table III. — Results from Ground Limestone on a Corn, Wheat and Clover Rotation — Worthington Experiment Field, 1913-1917 Treatment Average yields per acre Average totals per acre per rotation Corn, bushels Stover, pounds Wheat, bushels Straw, pounds Hay, pounds Value of in- crease Cost of treats ment Net return* Manure 31.1 2297 9.9 792 2623 Manure and lime 39.3 2671 12.3 1142 4680 Increase for lime 8.2 374 2.4 350 2057 $35.56 $3.00 $32.56 In Table III are shown the average annual crop yields, the in- creases produced by liming over and above manuring and the financial results. As at North Vernon, the liming has increased all of the crops, giving a profit of $32.56 per acre per rotation, or $10.85 P er acre P er year and the same amount per dollar invested in the limestone. The relatively low grain yields on this field were due to two seasons of extremely dry weather for the corn and one entire failure of the wheat crop due to winterkilling. That this land is being improved is borne out by the fact that the lime and manure treatment last year pro- duced 56 bushels of corn and 30 bushels of wheat per acre. THE BEDFORD FIELD This experiment field is located on the Moses Fell Annex Farm near Bedford, Lawrence County, on a medium acid, yellowish-brown silt loam soil which is representative of much of the upland of Lawrence and ad- joining counties. The field was laid out and thoroughly tile drained in Fig:. 4. Effect of ground limestone on clover, Worthington field, 1917. Each shock is the produce of one-twentieth acre Manure and limestone Manure only 6460 pounds hay per acre 3740 pounds hay per acre 1915. Pulverized limestone was applied at the rate of four tons per acre. The manuring has been at the rate of six ions per acre plowed under for corn. All the crops have been removed from the land except a light soybean crop, which was plowed under for the 1917 corn crop. Table IV. — Results from Ground Limestone on a Corn, Wheat and Clover Rotation — Bedford Experiment Field, 1916-1917 Treatment Average yields per acre Average totals per acre per rotation Corn, bushels Stover, pounds Wheat, bushels Straw, pounds Hay, pounds Value of in- crease Cost of treat- ment Net returns Manure ~ 41.2 2012 1.7 3)85 1000 Manure and lime 44.1 24017 2.6 485 1440 Increase for lime 2.9 395 0.9 100 440 $10.53 $12.00 $-1.47 In Table IV are shown the average yields of corn, wheat and clover, the increases produced by the limestone and the financial results. This field has been operated two years only and although the value of the increase from liming has been $10.53 P er acre it has not been sufficient to pay for the four-ton application of ground limestone. On this land even thorough liming and manuring are not sufficient to produce the most profitable crops. The addition of acid phosphate has increased the aver- age yield of corn to 63.5 bushels of corn per acre and the yield of clover to two tons per acre. Due to winterkilling and much Hessian fly damage, the wheat crops of both 1916 and 1917 were almost complete failures, as 9 can be seen by the small yields. Had there been reasonable wheat crops, the liming would doubtless have paid for itself in the first two years after application, although enough was applied to last for several years longer. THE WESTPORT FIELD This experiment field is located near Westport in Decatur County on a flat, whitish silt loam soil very similar to that of the North Vernon field. The Westport soil is quite acid but not as acid as that on the North Vernon field. Pulverized limestone was applied at the rate of four tons per acre in 1915, at which time half of the field was tile drained. In Table V the results secured on the drained and undrained portions of the field are presented separately, since they show quite a marked differ- ence in the results. Tests of the soil acidity on the drained and undrained parts of this field indicate that the drainage has materially decreased the acidity. This is also borne out by the fact that the limestone has been much more profitable on the undrained than on the drained land. A commercial fertilizer containing 10 per cent, of available phosphoric acid and 5 per cent, potash has been used on both the limed and unlimed land alike at the rate of 500 pounds per acre per rotation. All the crops have been removed from the land except the second growth clover. Table) V. — Results from Ground Limestone on a Corn, Wheat and Clover Rotation — Westport Experiment Field, 1916-1917 Treatment Average yields per acre Average totals per acre per rotation Corn, bushels Stover, pounds Wheat, bushels Straw, pounds Hay, pounds Value of in- crease Cost of treat- ment Net returns Tile-drained land Fertilizer _ 49.9 21794 8.3 675 4180 Fertilizer and lime_ 39.5 32180 10.0 800 48(10 Increase for lime _ 9.6 495 1.7 1215 I18O1 $10.60 $12.00 $4.60 Undrained land Fertilizer 19.5 1500 3.1 252 3430 Fertilizer and lime 34.6 1028 4.3 348 3670 Increase for lime 15.1 414 1.2 91 240 $21.36 $12.00 $9.30 In Table Y, it will be seen that at present crop prices, the liming has been more than paid for in the first two years, although the applica- tion has been heavy enough to last for several years longer. The net profit per acre per rotation has been $4.60 on the tiled land and $9.36 on the untiled land. This is not an argument against drainage, since the drained land produced much larger crops without liming than the undrained land did with liming. The tile drainage has in itself increased the value of the crops produced on these plots, $13.44 per acre per year. The low average wheat yields on this field were due to winterkilling and Hessian fly damage. 10 THE FRANCISCO FIELD This field is located near Francisco in Gibson County on a medium acid, yellowish-brown silt loam soil characteristic of the loessial rolling uplands of southwestern Indiana. The field was started in the fall of 1915, at which time pulverized limestone was applied at the rate of three tons per acre. In Table VI are shown the average annual crop yields on the limed and unlimed land, the increases due to liming and the financial results. All the crops have been removed from the land. Table; VI. — Results from Ground Limestone on a Corn, Wheat and Clover Rotation — Francisco Experiment Field, 1916-1917 Treatment Average yields per acre Average totals per acre per rotation Corn, bushels Stover, pounds Wheat, bushels Straw, pounds Hay, pounds Value of in- crease Cost of treat- ment Net returns Unlimed 33,9 31146 5.9 669 1683 Limed 46.7 3940 9.6 881 10118 Increase for lime 12.8 704 3.7 222 335 $26.40 $9.00 $17.49 Although the experiments on the Francisco field have been running only two years, the three-ton application of ground limestone has shown good increases on all the crops in the rotation, the gross return amount- ing to $26.49 P er acre f° r th e three crops. The net return per acre per rotation has been $17.49 and the profit per dollar invested has been $1.94. The wheat on this field has not yet had the benefit of a legume; when it does, better yields may be expected. THE WANATAH FIELD This field is located near Wanatah in Laporte County on a very acid, black, sandy soil. This is a prairie soil and had never been culti- vated before the experiment field was laid out in 1909. There are several thousand acres of this type of soil in the Kankakee region of Indiana which are absolutely worthless for cultivation until after they are limed. In this experiment, pulverized limestone was applied at the rate of four tons to the acre on untreated land and also on fertilized land, as shown in the following table. On the fertilized land 400 pounds per acre of 2-10-8 fertilizer have been applied per rotation. II Table VII. — Results from Ground Limestone on a Corn, Oats and Legume Rotation — Wanatah Experiment Field, 1910-1914 Treatment Average yields per ; acre Average totals per acre per rotation Corn, bushels Stover, pounds Oats, bushels Straw, pounds Legume 1 Value of in- crease Cost of treat- ment Net returns Hay, pounds (half) Soy- beans bushels (half) Nothing 2.8 273 6.7 28(5 700 10.3 Lime _ 15.6 986 6.3 272 1100 14.1 Increase for lime 12,8 662 -0.4 -113 400 3.8 $22.16 $8.10 $14.06 Fertilizer _ _ 2.3 167 22.3 951 500 9,5 Fertilizer and lime 32,8 10i76 34.7 1(481 I960 19.0 Increase for lime 30.5 1)800 12.4 530 14J50 9.5 $67.70 $8.10 $56.60 iOnly half of the soybean crop and half of the hay crop have been counted in comput- ing the value of the increase, because each was grown half of the time in the three-year rotation As will be noted in Table VII, it is necessary not only to use lime but to use fertilizer also. The results on this field are good proof of the fact that lime cannot take the place of fertilizer and that fertilizer can- not take the place of lime. It is only when both are provided for, that maximum results can be obtained. The profit from liming on the fer- tilized land has been $55.60 per acre per rotation as against $14.06 on the unfertilized land. The profit per dollar invested has been $1.73 on the unfertilized land and $6.86 on the fertilized land. AVERAGE OF ALL FIELDS Counting all of the crops raised, there have been about 100 tests of limestone on the seven experiment fields reported in this bulletin. The average rate of application has been three and one-half tons per acre. The average value of the increase per acre per year has been $9.31 and for each dollar invested in limestone, the average net profit has been $2.68 HOW TO TELL WHEN A SOIL NEEDS LIMING When clover persistently fails to make a satisfactory growth, it is a good indication of soil acidity and the need of liming. When red sorrel (Rumex acetosella) tends to crowd out clover and grass, it is a very good indication of soil acidity. Soil acidity can be tested by means of blue litmus paper, which is turned pink when in contact with acid soil. Dark colored acid soils will partly dissolve in ammonia water, giving a dark colored solution. When such soils are well supplied with lime, they will give a clear solution after settling in ammonia water. Besides the above tests, there are a number of laboratory methods for determining the degree of soil acidity. Many county agricultural agents are equipped to make such tests. If the local county agent is not 12 able to decide whether or not a soil is acid, the Soils and Crops De- partment of the Experiment Station will make tests for farmers, free of cost. For full details about making soil acidity tests and for determining the lime and fertilizer requirements of soils, see Circular No. 66 of this station, copies of which may be had upon application. THE KIND OF LIME TO USE Ground limestone, burned lime, hydrated lime, air-slaked lime, refuse lime and marl may all be used for neutralizing soil acidity. Which of these different forms of lime should be used in any particular case should be determined by the cost at which a given amount of calcium carbonate or its equivalent, in a reasonably fine condition, can be delivered to the soil. Aside from this, there is no good reason for discriminating against any of these materials. Neither should magnesian limestone be considered either more or less valuable than the ordinary calcium lime- stone. Theoretically, ioo pounds of finely ground limestone, 56 pounds of freshly burned lime, 74 pounds of hydrated lime, and about 90 pounds of air-slaked lime have equal acid neutralizing power. In calculating the cost, the price of the material, the freight if any, the cost of hauling and the labor involved in spreading it on the land, should be taken into account. If finely ground limestone can be secured delivered at the nearest railroad station at $2.00 per ton, then, allowing for the smaller cost of handling equivalent amounts of the more concentrated forms, fresh, burnt lime should be secured at the Station for $4.00, hydrated lime for $3.00, and air-slaked lime for about $2.40 per ton. Usually ground limestone will be the most economical and most satisfactory material to use. A number of concerns all over the State are producing good grades of ground limestone at reasonable prices. In considering the price, the fineness of grinding and the freight rate must be taken into account. The fine material is worth more than the coarse. If coarse material is used, it will require more to get the same immediate acid neutralizing effect. A good grade of ground limestone should be fine enough so that all will pass through a 10-mesh sieve, one-half through a 40-mesh sieve, and one-quarter through a 100-mesh sieve. The objection to coarse material, such as screenings, is that it acts too slowly. Only the fine dust will act immediately. THE AMOUNT OF LIMESTONE TO APPLY If a soil is acid enough to require liming at all, it will pay to apply at least two tons of finely ground limestone to the acre. Some soils may require as much as four tons to the acre. After the first application, one or two tons per acre applied every six to eight years will usually be sufficient to keep the soil in good condition. WHEN AND HOW TO APPLY GROUND LIMESTONE Liming may be done whenever it is convenient. The best time is when preparing the seed bed for a crop after plowing either in spring or fall. It should not be plowed under unless the ground can be thoroughly 13 disked after applying the lime and before plowing. In case a crop that particularly needs lime, such as alfalfa, has been sown before discovering that the soil is acid, a surface application of pulverized limestone may be made satisfactorily. Such a surface application may save the crop by neutralizing acidity through the lime being dissolved and carried down into the soil by rain water. The best way to apply any form of lime is by means of a machine specially made for this purpose, and when any considerable acreage is to be limed it will pay to purchase one of these machines. When only a Fig. 5. Spreading ground limestone small acreage- is to be limed, it may be spread by hand with a shovel, with a manure spreader, using a little manure to make enough bulk, or through a large capacity fertilizer attachment on a modern grain drill, going over the ground often enough to put on the required amount. THE HOME GRINDING OF LIMESTONE In some localities, deposits of limestone are found so near to the land that is to be limed that it may be cheaper to buy or hire a portable grinding outfit than to buy the ready g'round limestone and have it shipped in from a distance. Whether or not such local or home grinding will pay must be determined in each particular case after finding out what the delivered cost of the ready ground material would be. Some- times a number of farmers having a convenient deposit of limestone in the neighborhood can club together, buy a portable pulverizer, and pre- pare what ground limestone they need at considerably less cost than the purchased material. Other cases have come to our notice where it did not pay either to buy or hire a portable grinder. Counting the cost or 14 rental of the machine and the labor of quarrying- and handling the stone, there may be no saving, and the cost may be even greater than in using purchased material. LIME IS NOT A FERTILIZER Neither ground limestone nor any other form of lime will take the place of fertilizer or manure, nor will manure or fertilizer take the place of lime. This is well illustrated in the results obtained on the Wanatah experiment field. In that case, as may be seen from Table VII, neither fertilizer alone nor lime alone produced large yields, but when the two were combined, very satisfactory yields were obtained. On the North Vernon and Worthington fields, liming has produced very profitable re- turns on manured land where the manure itself had already produced large increases in the crop yields. In this connection it should be further stated that in order to get the best results from liming, provision must be made to replenish the organic matter and nitrogen of the soil. The best way to do this is to grow more legumes and to conserve carefully and turn under all manures and crop residues. SOURCES OF LIME, LIME SPREADERS, AND LIMESTONE PULVERIZERS There are many places in Indiana and nearby in neighboring states where various forms of lime may be secured. Information concerning convenient sources will be gladly furnished by the Soils and Crops De- partment. The Department will also supply the addresses of the principal mak- ers of lime spreaders and of the makers of portable crushers for home grinding. Suggestions for home-made spreaders can also be supplied. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Adopt a systematic rotation of crops, including clover or some other legume at least once every three or four years. 2. Wherever clover fails to do well, apply two or more tons of ground limestone to the acre. 3. See that the land is properly drained and practice good tillage methods. 4. Feed as much of the produce as possible and carefully conserve and return to the land the manure produced, as well as any unused crop residues. 5. Apply from 150 to 200 pounds per acre of acid phosphate or some other available phosphate to each grain crop in the rotation. In a permanent system, where manure is applied for corn, enough phosphate for the whole rotation may be most conveniently applied when seeding wheat or oats. Under certain systems of farming, where the crops are not all fed on the farm, it will pay, under normal conditions, to add some nitrogen and potash in the fertilizer. 6. If acid phosphate or other available phosphate cannot be secured, a mixed fertilizer as high as possible in available phosphoric 'acid should be used. i5 SOME MANUFACTURERS OF GROUND LIMESTONE 1 Firm name Postal address A. & C. Stone and Lime Co., Indianapolis, Ind. Brownell Improvement Co., Chicago, 111. Casparis Stone Co., Kenneth, Ind. Dolese and Shepard Co., Chicago, 111. Dolomite Products Co., Maple Grove, Ohio Erie Stone Co., Huntington, Ind. Farmers Ground Limestone Co., Richmond, Ind. Greely Stone Co., St. Paul, Ind. Hoadley Stone Co., Bloomington, Ind. Lehigh Stone Co., Kankakee, 111. Logansport Stone & Construction Co., Huntington, Ind. Louisville Cement Co., Louisville, Ky. Mitchell Lime Co., Mitchell, Ind. Monon Crushed Stone Co., Monon, Ind. Muncie Stone and Lime Co., Muncie, Ind. Newton Stone Co., Kentland, Ind. Perry Stone Co., Ellettsville, Ind. The Solvay Process Co., Detroit, Mich. Spencer Stone Co., Spencer, Ind. Stone Products Co., Bedford, Ind. U. S. Crushed Stone Co., Chicago, 111. Webster Stone Co., Irvington, Ky. SOME MANUFACTURERS OF LIME SPREADERS 1 American Seeding Machines Co., Springfield, Ohio Crown Manufacturing Co., Phelps, N. Y. Empire Drill Co., Shortsville, N. Y. Excelsior Drill Co., Springfield, Ohio Guarantee Manufacturing Co., Baltimore, Md. Hurst and Company, Indianapolis, Ind. International Harvester Co., Chicago, 111. Keystone Farm Machinery Co., York, Pa. Nonpareil Manufacturing Co., Cochranton, Pa. Peoria Drill and Seeder Co., Peoria, 111. Thomas Manufacturing Co., Springfield, Ohio 1 These lists include all Indiana firms known to the Station but are doubtless incomplete i6 AVAILABLE PURDUE PUBLICATIONS ALONG SOIL FERTILITY LINES Experiment Station Bulletin No. 155. Results of Cooperative Fer- tilizer Tests on Clay and Loam Soils Experiment Station Bulletin No. 157. Unproductive Black Soils Experiment Station Bulletin No. 170. The Reclamation of an Un- productive Soil of the Kankakee Marsh Region Experiment Station Bulletin No. 172. Soybeans and Cowpeas Experiment Station Bulletin No. 187. Acid Phosphate vs. Raw Rock Phosphate as Fertilizer Experiment Station Bulletin No. 198. Summaries of Soil Fertility Investigations Experiment Station Bulletin No. 210 on Indiana Soils Experiment Station Bulletin No. 213 Indiana Soils Experiment Station Circular No Better Wheat Experiment Station Circular No. 25. How to Grow More and Better Corn Experiment Station Circular No. 36. How to Grow Alfalfa Experiment Station Circular No. 49 Experiment Station Circular No. 66. The Lime and Fertilizer Needs of Indiana Soils Experiment Station Circular No. 76. Increasing Crop Yields for War Needs Experiment Station Circular No. 79. Indiana Soils Need Phos- phates Department of Extension Bulletin No. 22. Hints on Soil Im- provement Department of Extension Bulletin No. 46. Lime for Acid Soils Department of Extension Leaflet No. 3 o. Unproductive Black Soils Department of Extension Leaflet No. 31 agement of Clover Department of Extension Leaflet No. 53 Department of Extension Leaflet No. 55. More and Better Wheat in Indiana Department of Extension Leaflet No. 62. Sweet Clover The Value of Phosphates The Value of Lime on 23. How to Grow More and How to Grow How to Grow j Farm Manures The Value and Man- Alfalfa for Indiana ’D, r / ,1b PURDUE UNIVERSITY ... SITT tf lUIHIS LI8M8V Agricultural Experiment Station, 5 Bulletin No. 214 April,, 1918 Fig. 1. Ten-pound White Plymouth Rock capons COST OF RAISING WHITE PLYMOUTH ROCKS Published by the Station : LAFAYETTE, INDIANA U. S. A. PURDUE UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BOARD OF CONTROL Joseph D. Oliver, President, South Bend Fay S. Chandler Indianapolis Warren T. McCray Charles Downing Greenfield James W. Noel John A. Hillenbrand.... Batesville George W. Purcell Cyrus M. Hobbs Bridgeport Andrew E. Reynolds. Winthrop E. Stone, A. M., Ph. D President of the University Kentland ...Indianapolis Vincennes Crawfordsville ADVISORY COMMITTEE (Under Legislative Act of 1909) John G. Brown, Monon D. B. Johnson, Mooresville State Live Stock Association Statf m Vuv " V a o U. R. Fishel, Hope D. F. Maish, Frankfort STATE POULTRY FANCIERS' ASSOCIATION STATE CORN GROWERS ^ASSOCIATION H. H. Swaim, South Bend.. ..Indiana Horticultural Society ADMINISTRATION Charles G. Woodbury, M. S., Director Harry J. Reed Assistant to the Director Nellie Tracy Administrative Assistant Mary K. Bloom ...Bookkeeper AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION George I. Christie, B. S. A., Superintendent Thomas A. Coleman Ass’t State Leader Field Studies and Demonstrations George M. Frier, B. S. A Associate in Charge of Short Courses and Exhibits Mabel L. Harlan. .A ss’t in Agricultural Extension ANIMAL HUSBANDRY John H. Skinner, B. S., Chief Chester G. Starr, B. S. A Acting Associate in Animal Husbandry Herbert E. McCartney, B. S. A Ass’t in Animal Husbandry Extension BOTANY Herbert S. Jackson, A. B., Chief George N. Hoffer, M. S Associate in Botany Luna E. Allison, B. S Assistant in Botany Edwin B. Mains, Ph. D Assistant in Botany Harry R. Rosen, M. S Assistant in Rust Work Grace O. Wineland, A. B., M. S Assistant in Botany DAIRY HUSBANDRY Ralph E. Caldwell, B. S., Acting Chief Howard W. Gregory, B. S Associate in Dairy Manufactures George Spitzer, Ph. G., B. S Associate in Dairy Chemistry Harry M. Weeter, M. S Associate in Dairy Bacteriology Turner H. Broughton, B. S Assistant in Creamery Inspection William F. Epple, Ph. G Assistant in Dairy Chemistry ENTOMOLOG l r James Troop, M. S., Chief Preston W. Mason, B. S... Ass’t in Entomology HORTICULTURE Laurenz Greene, M. S. A., Chief Harry A. Noyes, M. S Associate in Horticultural Chemistry and Bacteriology Joseph Oskamp, B. S Associate in Pomology Walter A. Huelson, B. S Assistant in Horticulture POULTRY HUSBANDRY Allen G. Philips, B. S. A., Chief Dwight C. Kennard, Ph. C., B. S Assistant in Poultiv Husbandry Lewis H. Schwartz, B. S. A Assistant in Poultry Husbandry SOILS AND CROPS Alfred T. Wiancko, B. S. A Chief Martin L. Fisher, M. S. Assistant Chief in Soils and Crops Samuel D, Conner, M. S ‘ Associate Chemist in Soils and Crops Clinton O. Cromer, B. S Associate* in Crops Sadocie C. Jones, M. S Assistant in Soils STATE CHEMIST Wm. J. Jones, Jr., m. S.. A. C . 3 State Chemist Edward G. Proulx, M. S.L. Acting State Chemist Reuben O. Bitler, B. S. 1 2 .. Deputy State Chemist Paul B. Curtis, B. S . 2 Deputy State Chemist Omar W. Ford, A. B . 2 Deputy State Chemist Mary J. Minton, B. S . 2 Assistant Microscop ist State Chemist’s Department Herman J. Nimitz, B. SA.Deputy State Chemist J. Howard Roop, B. S. 2 .... Deputy State Chemist Samuel F. Thornton, B. S . 2 „ _ Deputy State Chemist Otis S. Roberts, B. S . 2 Chief Inspector State Chemist’s Department Glenn G. Carter, B. S . 2 Inspector State Chemist’s Department Benjamin F. Catherwood 2 Inspector State Chemist’s Department VETERINARY SCIENCE Robert A. Craig, D. V. M., Chief David B. Clark, D. M. C... Associate Veterinarian Lawrence C. Kigin, D. V. M „ A _ Associate Veterinarian Rex A. Whiting, D. V. M Associate in Animal Pathology Carl H. Clink, B. S. ..Ass’t in Serum Production Leo P. Doyle, B. S... Ass’t in Animal Pathology Leslie R. George, B. S Assistant in Animal Pathology Fred L. Walkey, D. V. M Ass’t Veterinarian DETAILED BY U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Cereal and Forage Crop Insect Investigations John J. Davis, B. S.. Entomological Assistant in Charge John M. ALDRicH,Ph. D„ Entomological Assistant Walter H. Larrimer, B. S... Scientific Assistant Dean A. Ricker, B. S Scientific Assistant Chester F. Turner, B. S Scientific Assistant Seed Testing Anna M. Lute, M. A Seed Analyst 1 In charge of Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control 2 Connected with Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control 8 Died August 31, 1917 COST OF RAISING WHITE PLYMOUTH ROCKS A. G. Philips SUMMARY The object of this experiment was to find the various items of cost involved in producing and rearing broilers, roasters, capons and pullets of the White Plymouth Rock variety. The work was carried on with two flocks, one in 1916 and one in 1917, and the data from each were compiled and are discussed separately. The chicks were hatched and reared on the Purdue poultry farm under normal conditions, using a brooder stove colony house and permitting an abundance of range. The regular Purdue rations, involving only those feeds which were quickly available and could be used by any farmer, were fed. The prices of feeds charged were the same as those paid for feeds for all the birds on the Purdue farm, and the method of management was that which could normally be used with any similar flocks in Indiana. Some of the data given below show two figures on the same ques- tion. The first ones are for the year 1916 and the second ones for 1917. The costs during 1917 were higher, due to higher costs of feed. Based on nine and 10 weeks of life, it took from 4.8 to 5.6 pounds of grain and 6.5 to 8.5 pounds of skim-milk at a total cost of 12 cents to produce a two-pound White Plymouth Rock broiler. Based on 28 weeks to grow a White Plymouth Rock pullet, it re- quired from 30 to 27 pounds of feed and 22 to 37 pounds of skim-milk at a cost of $0.58 to $0.84. Based on 24 weeks to produce a six and one-half pound roaster, it required 27 to 24 pounds of feed and 22 pounds of skim-milk at a cost of $0.53 to $0.75. Based on 41 weeks to produce a nine and one-half pound capon, it required 64 to 67 pounds of feed and 62 to 79 pounds of skim-milk at a cost of $1.34 to $1.88. White Plymouth Rock cockerels grew more rapidly than pullets. White Plymouth Rock pullets hatched in March matured in six to seven months and weighed slightly over five and one-half pounds. Growth gains were very irregular from week to week, with chicks, pullets, cockerels and capons, regardless of feed consumed. Capons and cockerels grew with similar rapidity and retained simi- lar weights until they weighed six and one-half pounds. Capons responded to any radical change in ration and made big gains on fattening rations. The cost of feed to produce one pound of gain was directly pro- portional to the amount of feed consumed and at practically all times was less than the selling price. The cheapest costs were during the first 10 weeks of life. Cockerels made gains at less cost per pound for feed than pullets or capons. 4 The gross cost of rearing a White Plymouth Rock broiler to two pounds was $0.24 and $0.29. The gross cost, including all possible expenses, of rearing a White Plymouth Rock pullet was $0.79 and $1.03. The net cost allowing credit for all income from cockerels, of rear- ing a White Plymouth Rock pullet was $0.43 and $0.70. The gross cost of rearing a six and one-half pound White Plymouth Rock roaster was $0.80 and $1.04. The gross cost of rearing a nine and one-half pound capon was $1.66 and $2.32. Broilers and roasters were reared at as good a profit and capons at a small profit when all expenses were charged. It may be as profitable to sell surplus males for broilers as to keep them until they attain roaster size. White Plymouth Rocks were reared economically and profitably under the market conditions and at the prevailing feed prices of 1917. INTRODUCTION Reproduction of the flock is probably the most expensive problem of the poultryman’s business. Most farmers have no idea what it costs to produce a broiler, roaster or pullet ; neither do they know how much influence the sale of the male may have upon ultimate or net cost of the pullet. Commercial poultrymen used to believe that the sale of the male should pay for rearing the pullet ; at the present time it seems as if the male that is marketed becomes merely a by-product in the raising of pullets. Meat production is as essential as egg production, but how far this can be carried on with poultry, profitably and economically, is problematical. What is a fair price to charge for a White Plymouth Rock pullet when selling her in the fall and what did she cost, are ques- tions for consideration. If poultry producers knew how much feed a fowl consumed and how much labor it took to raise her, certain items of management would probably be changed with economical benefit, In Bulletin No. 196, December, 1916, of this station, figures were given to show the cost of raising Leghorn pullets and in order to follow up this work, a similar investigation for two years with White Plymouth Rocks was conducted. Some data are now available concerning Leg- horns but little is known definitely concerning the Plymouth Rocks, especially during the present time of high feed prices. Few people keep records of costs and so do not know the factors that may t be minimizing profits in their business. This experiment was inaugurated to find the cost of raising White Plymouth Rock pullets. This included questions concerning cost of feed, fuel, and labor, mortality, length of time necessary to raise a pullet and possible income from the males when sold at different ages. It involved the cost of production of males sold as broilers, roasters and capons. 5 TIME Duplicate experiments were carried on at different times as follows : Experiment No. i, March 24, 1916 to January 4, 1917. Experiment No. 2, March 26, 1917 to January 6, 1918. HOUSING The chicks were kept in a shed-roofed portable colony house, 10 feet long by 12 feet deep, heated by a hard coal stove. All the chicks were kept in this house up to 10 weeks of age and the pullets remained in it until the close of the experiment. The males were kept in colony houses of similar construction. Fig. 2. Young chicks should be started where plenty of shade and green sod is available YARDING The brooder was placed in a yard well sodded with blue grass and clover, until the chicks were divided into two groups. The two groups of males and females were then given two lots 150 feet by 150 feet, that were planted to young fruit trees and kept covered with oats or rye pasture. The yarding conditions were ideal, as shade, clean, sweet land and an abundance of green food were available at all times. STOCK The chicks were hatched from White Plymouth Rock hens and pul- lets kept on the Purdue poultry farm. They were selected chicks and possessed all indications of strong vitality. In Experiment No. 1, 200 chicks were used, and in Experiment No. 2, 250 chicks were chosen. With the exception of the numbers, it is not believed that there were any differences in the two flocks. 6 RATIONS The rations for both experiments were similar. In Experiment No 2, it was necessary that the mash pensive grains reduced in amount. The ration for Experiment No. Grain 5 pounds sifted cracked corn (fine) 5 pounds sifted cracked wheat 5 pounds steel cut oats 15 pounds total be somewhat simplified and the ex- 1 (1916) was as follows: Mash 1.5 pounds bran 1.5 pounds shorts 1.5 pounds cornmeal 1.5 pounds ground oats 1.5 pounds meat scraps .15 pound charcoal 7.65 pounds total Green feed, grit, ground bone, and skim-milk in abundance The ration for Experiment No. 2, (1917) was as follows: Grain 8 pounds sifted cracked corn (fine) 2 pounds sifted cracked wheat 2 pounds steel cut oats Mash 2 pounds bran 2 pounds shorts 1.2 pounds meat scraps 12 pounds total 5.2 pounds total Green feed, grit, ground bone, and buttermilk in abundance. As the chicks developed, the corn was fed as coarse cracked corn, whole wheat was substituted for cracked wheat and oats were elimin- ated from the ration entirely. In Experiment No. 2, whole oats and a prepared scratch feed were fed in late summer and early fall, as they were cheaper than cracked corn or wheat. PRICES OF FEEDS The feeds with the exception of wheat and oats were purchased at local feed stores at the regular retail prices. Wheat and oats were bought from farmers at threshing time. Meat scraps were purchased in large quantities direct from a packing house. The milk was bought from the Purdue Dairy Department. The following statement shows prices for the feeds during the two experiments. Every effort was made to buy feeds of good quality at as low a price as possible. 7 Range of Feed Prices — Minimum to Maximum — Per One Hundred Pounds Peed Experiment No. 1 1916 Experiment No. 2 1917 Whole wheat $1.71 1.50- $ L80 1.50- 1.80 $3.36-$3.48 2.10- 2.35 Cracked corn _ _ Dorn meal Wheat 2.00- 2,20 2.20- 3.55 Craeked wheat 2,80 4.00 Oats 1.50 Steel cut oats 3.25 4.26 Ground oats 1l7I5- 1.90 Bran 1.25- 1.55 1.86- 2.35 Shorts 1.35- 1.85 2.05- 2.85 Meat scraps 2.60 2.60- 3.75 Milk _ .30 .25 Prepared sera.teh fpprl 3.41 Ground bone 2.26“ 2.90 3.10 Coal 8.60 10.00 Straw - 7.00 (per ton) 7.00 (per ton) METHOD OF FEEDING AND CARE The chicks were placed in the brooders when about 24 hours old. They were not fed until 60 hours of age. The floors of the brooders which were of boards, were covered with one inch of sand and a thin layer of finely chopped straw or alfalfa hay. The temperature was started at 100 degrees and gradually reduced as the chicks grew larger. The first feed was of mixed grains fed on paper pie plates, five times daily. The amount given was about what the chicks would con- sume in 20 or 30 minutes. Milk was kept before the chicks from the start, but water was not given them until they were several weeks old. When three or four days old, the chicks would scratch the grain off the plates, at which time the pans were discarded and the grain scat- tered in the litter, thus compelling them to scratch for their grain. At about the seventh day, the mash was given in an open, flat- bottomed trough, covered with one-half inch mesh hardware cloth. At first it was given only twice a day after some grain feeding, and then only what would be eaten in a few minutes. At three weeks of age, the chicks consumed the grain and mash in the proportions mentioned in the preceding paragraph, i. e., about two to one. This kept the needed nutrients in about the proper proportion. The chicks enjoyed the mash and up until they were 10 weeks of age, there was a tendency to over, rather than under eat it. Grit and bone were available at all times. Either sprouted oats or chunks of sod were used as green feed, and while a plentiful supply was used, it was impossible to judge the value. Through an accident, it was found in Experiment No. 1, that the chicks enjoyed and would consume great quantities of the hard coal ashes taken from the brooder. After that, ashes were kept piled in one cor- 8 ner of the brooder at all times. From all appearances, they supplied the birds with something that the ration lacked. When the birds were about one pound in weight, the grain was changed to cracked corn and wheat. The grain and the mash were put into a large out-door hopper and made available for the chicks at all Fig. 3. White Plymouth Rocks — broiler size — drinking milk from an open pan with removable slatted cone top times and little waste was possible. Over eating did not occur as the birds were not tempted to gorge when they had free access to all they desired. They exercised a great deal and never were eating at the hop- per for a continuous length of time. Every effort was made to give the chicks all feed and care that they needed, but labor was reduced as much as possible. The birds were put on grass as soon as the weather permitted and the houses were cleaned when necessary. Sanitation was observed in the strictest sense. In Experiment No. i, the cockerels and culls were removed at nine weeks and in Experiment No. 2 at 10 weeks, and value credited as if they had been sold as live broilers on a wholesale market in Indiana. The best cockerels were saved and about half of them caponized. The pullets were kept in one lot and the cockerels and capons in another. When the cockerels were 24 weeks old, they were sold alive on the wholesale market. The pullets were considered fully mature at 28 weeks, as one-half or more were laying and were removed from the ex- periment at that time. The capons were considered full grown at 41 weeks of age and were sold at that time on the wholesale market. 9 During the summer months the grain rations were changed to meet feed cost conditions. For example, in 1917 when the prices for corn and wheat became so high, a prepared scratch feed was purchased in large quantities ; later, oats were used as the only grain. When new corn be- came available, soft corn on the cob was purchased at a reasonable price and used as grain. During the last three weeks of both experiments, the capons were fed a wet mash to insure a good finish. In November, 1917, the capons were not eating enough of the mash, so it was partly fed wet for two weeks. Practical feeding problems were met as they developed. WEIGHTS AND RECORDS A record was made of the feed when it was given to the chicks or put into hoppers for them. All that was weighed into vessels, that was not consumed, was weighed back every two weeks and charged in the next period. These amounts are called “weigh-backs.” The periods be- tween weighings were of two weeks duration. Subtracting the “weigh- backs” from the feed charged in, gave the actual consumption of feed per period. The chicks were weighed at the close of every period and if any were removed as dead or sold, the dates and weights were recorded. Daily records were kept of labor, litter and fuel. When the cockerels and culls were sold, credit was given the pullets for their price, weight and value. It was an easy matter to figure costs of everything except labor, and that was estimated twice daily. The chances are that it was under, rather than over estimated. Table I. — Cost of Chicks at Hatching Time Experiment No. 1 Experiment No. 2 Number of eggs per chiek 2: 2 Cost of eggs at 2 and 2.5 cents each $0.04 0.021 $0.05 Cost of hatching each 0.024 Total cost of one chick 0.061 0.074 Total cost of all chicks $12.20 $18.50 In Table I the cost of chicks at hatching time is divided into two parts, — cost of eggs and cost of hatching. The number of eggs to pro- duce a chick is taken from the hatching record of the seasons for White Plymouth Rocks on the Purdue Poultry Farm. The eggs set were valued at two cents each in 1916 and two and one-half cents each in 1917, which were about the average market prices received for eggs sold from the farm in the spring months. In figuring the cost of in- cubation for 1916 the following plan was used. 10 Depreciation of 390 egg machine, cost $40.00 at 6 per cent. for one-third year $0.80 Fuel at 4 cents per day — 24 days 0.96 Interest on $40.00 at 6 per cent, for one-third year. 0.80 Insurance on $40.00 machine at $0.003 0.12 Labor 20 minutes per day, 24 days at 20 cents per hour 1.60 Total $4.28 Cost of incubation per egg — $0.0107 For Experiment No. 2 in 1917, the cost per egg was $0,012. Fig. 4. Grouping of colony houses in orchard, after heat has been removed, saves labor II Table II. — Amount and Cost of Feed Consumed per Chick for Twenty-eight Weeks — Two Years Chicks Weigh- ing Average number chicks Grain, mash, etc., in pounds Milk, in pounds Cost of all feed Experi- Experi- Experi- Experi- Experi- Experi- Experi- Experi- period ment ment ment ment ment ment ment ment No. 1 No. 2 No. 1 No. 2 No. 1 No. 2 No. 1 No. 2 1916 1917 1916 1917 1916 1917 1916 1917 1 106.8 247 . 9 ' 0.288 0.355 0.65 0.54 $.009 $.010 2 103.0 246.0 0.628 0.537 1,08 0.8 .016 .016 3 193.0 243.3 1.093 0.877 ' 1.85 1.18 .024 .021 4 191.0 233.3 1.579 1.323 2.55 2.11 .034 .033 5 140 . 0 1 286.0 2.063 1.778 2.45 1.94 .043 .042 Total 5.661 4.87 8.58 6.57 $.126 $.122 Pullets 6 88.9 121.0 2.301 1.90 1.58 2.20 $. 044 ' $.056 7 88.0 120.7 2.601 1.990 1.29 3.37 .046 .062 8 88.0 120.0 2.174 2.010 2,46 3.98 .044 .064 9 88.0 120.0 2.388 2.068 1 . 80 ' 4.0 .046 .066 10 88.0 119.5 2.595 2.227 1.01 2.5 .046 .073 11 88.0 119.0 3.371 2.770 1.59 2.90 .061 .099 12 88.0 119.0 2.902 3 . 1(41 2.20 2,93 .054 .111 18 87.5 119.0 3.080 3.481 2.18 4.53 is .06 .108 14 ' 87.0 119.0 3.039 2.641 1.82 4.0 .059 .082 Total 30.111 27.125 22.55 37.16 $.586 $.843 Cockerels and Capons 6 76.5 83.8 2.355 2,016 4.07 1.50 $.052 $.058 7 75.8 82.0 3.217 2.430 2.07 2.20 .062 .071 8 75.0 82,0 2.643 2,803 2,97 1.86 .054 .08 9 75.0 82.0 2.816 2,387 2.60 2.83 .055 .069 10 75.0 82 . 0 ' 3.456 2.44 1,71 2.08 .065 .08 11 74.2 82.0 3.007 3.788 0.25 2.06 .052 .129 12 73.0 82.0 4.152 4.281 2.72 .07 .145 Total 27.297 24.910 22,29 21,95 $.536 $.754 Capons 13 35.0 39.0 3.52 4.02 0.56 4.17 $.066 $.128 14 35.0 30.0 3.42 4.95 5.3 3.21 .078 .149 15 33.8 39.0 3.25 4.0 3.43 4.66 .067 .124 16 33.0 39.0 4.15 1.9 4.47 3.87 .087 .041 17 33.0 38.85 3.95 5.41 2.76 8.29 .085 .112 18 33.0 35.0 3.73 5.3 3.0 6.3 .08 .126 10 33.0 35.0 3.58 3.52 2,24 3.63 .073 .102 20 38.0 35.0 4.85 5.48 4.71 11.06 .101 .151 20y 2 38.0 35.0 1.38 2.98 5.36 5.9 .041 .075 Total 64.778 67.349 62.65 79.61 $ 1.34 $ 1,884 1 Since in Experiment No. 1, the males were sold at the end of the ninth week the average number of birds is lower in proportion than in Experiment No. 2 12 In Table II are given the figures that show where the greatest item of cost of rearing exists. The number of chickens involved is sufficient- ly large to make the data really indicative of what might be expected under commercial conditions. The consumption of feed increased from week to week with the chicks, in regular order, but those in Experiment No. 2 — 1917 — ate less than those in Experiment No. 1 — 1916. The prices of feed were higher in 1917, but less consumption during the year made the cost per chick practically the same up to the time of marketing the broilers. The mortality among the pullets was extremely low, showing that they were growing normally. The consumption of feed, though irregu- lar from week to week, had a tendency to increase as the pullets de- veloped. During 1917, the pullets did not consume as much as in 1916, even though there was quite an increase in feed consumption during the twelfth and thirteenth periods. This was due to the feeding of the prepared scratch feed, which was more palatable than cracked corn or wheat. The milk consumption was very irregular, being controlled largely by temperature and the condition of the milk ; and was nearly 50 per cent, greater in Experiment No. 2 than in Experiment No. 1. In feed cost per chick, the amount was uniformly higher in 1917 than in 1916. Feeds during July, August and September were very high in price in proportion to other times of the year. The cockerels and capons were fed together, a fact that may not be exactly fair to either, but which was necessary under existing condi- tions. There was nothing to indicate that either the cockerels or capons ate more than the other, and it was assumed that they ate similar amounts while together. In both experiments, the feed consumption tended to increase each week, but in Experiment No. 2 it increased de- cidedly during the last two periods for the reason that the pullets ate more about that time. The feed consumption was greater in 1916 than in 1917; milk consumption was very irregular. The cost of feed was much higher in Experiment No. 2 than in Experiment No. 1, due to prevailing prices, but the total consumption was less. The capons, after the cockerels were sold, did not vary much from period to period in total feed eaten in Experiment No. 1. In Experi- ment No. 2, the consumption was more erratic and in period 16 it fell off greatly. No reason can be given for these varying appetites by the birds, because the oats were relished as well as the corn. More pounds of feed were used by the capons in 1917 than in 1916 making the total consumption as well as the cost considerably greater. It cost $1.34 to feed a capon in 1916 and $1.88 in 1917. i3 Table: III. — Consumption of Different Feeds in Pounds — per Bird Feed Experiment No. 1 — 1916 Experiment No. 2 — 1917 Chicks Pullets Cockerels Capons Chicks . Pullets Cockerels Capons Cracked corn 1.44- 2.3 4.7 Cracked wheat 0.1(9' 0.1 Whole wheat 1.25 8.44 7.75 10.5 0.92 3.4 2.6 2.8 Steel cut oats 0.19 0.1 Ground oats 0.24 1.1 1.35 0.77 1.32 Shorts 0.24 1.5 1.46 2.38 0.49 1.6 1.8 2.74 Bran 0.24 1,5 1.46 1.61 0.49 1.6 1.8 1.42 Corn meal 0.24 1.5 1.46 3,10 3.97 Meat scraps 0.24 0,8 1.14 0.91 0.24 1.0 1.1 0.8 Milk 7.6 17.0 15.87 31.7 6.54 30.6 15.4 . 50.5 Charcoal 0.08 0.1 0,10 0.09' 0.01 0.021 0.01 0.02 Grit 0.1 0.1 0,08 0.10 0.06 0.08 0.04 0.18 Ground bone 0.08 0.1 0.06 0.10 0,015 0.2 0.1 0.22 Corn 10:2 7.77 12.0 5.2 6.45 Prepared feed 7.45 7.0 2.8 Whole oats 1.89 14.76 Table III shows the consumption of the different feeds per bird un- der four different divisions. Under the heading “chicks,” the feed used by each chick up to the time the broilers were removed, is shown. Under the heading “pullets,” consumption per pullet is shown during the time they were segregated as pullets. These amounts added to those under “chicks” give total feeds from hatching to maturity. The cock- erels should have the number of pounds of feed under the “cockerel” column added to “chicks” to show feed used during their life time. The capons theoretically ate as much as the cockerels plus what is shown under the heading “capons.” The figures are given to show difference in consumption of individual feeds by the four groups in the experiments. The two experiments differed greatly because of the different feeds used. Fin. 5. A sod-bound orchard is an ideal place for rearing chicks, furnishing cheap feed and shade and destroys insects 14 Table IV. — Weights and Gains in Pounds — Pullets Period Experiment No. 1- -1916 Experiment No. 2- -1917 Weight at beginning Weight Gain Weight at beginning Weight Gain Part 1 0.085 0.088 1 0.228 0.188 0.204 0.121 2 0.46 0.287, 0.363 0.159 3 0.917 0.51 0.663 0,300 4 1.49 0,52 1.075 0.412 4 y. 1.84 0.35 1.719 1 0.644 1 Part 2 1.76 1.57 5 2.08 0.27 6 2.57 0.581 1.99 0.42 7 3.0/7 0.50 2.7 0.71 8 3.35 0.28 3.285 0.585 9 3.54 0.119 3.60 0.405 10 3.72 0.18 4.08 0.30 HI 4.21 0.49 4.680 0.609 12 4.9 0.69 5.11 0.421 18 5.21 0.31 5.61 0.5 14 5.56 0.35 5.78 0.12 1 In Experiment No. 2, the last period with the chicks was two weeks long and the fifth period is shown under the one numbered 4% This table is divided into two parts, the first running from the day the chicks were put into the brooder until the cockerels were removed and the second running from the end of the first period until the pullets were sold. The cockerels were sold at the end of nine weeks in Ex- periment No. i, and at the end of io weeks in Experiment No. 2. The gains increased rather regularly in both years in Part i, but the total weight was not as great at the end of Part i in Experiment No. 2 as in Experiment No. i. This is to be expected when the lessened con- sumption as given in Table II, is remembered. At the beginning of the second part, the pullet weights were not as great as the average weights of all chicks at the close of Part i. This is due to the heavier weights of the cockerels holding up the average. The pullets did not weigh as much to begin with in Experiment No. 2 as in Experiment No. 1, but they weighed slightly more at the close of the twenty-eighth week. The gains were very irregular, there seeming to be no correlation between the amount of feed consumed and the gains made. The apex of gains in 1916 was during the twenty-fourth week and in 1917 was in the twenty-second week, after which time the gains dropped off until in Experiment No. 2, practically no gains were made during the last two weeks. In Experiment No. 1, about half the birds, and in Experiment No. 2, slightly over half were laying at 28 weeks. The pullets started to lay about the twelfth period in 1916, and about the eleventh period in 1917. In other words, the birds matured about two weeks earlier in 1917 than in 1916, but no reason for this is known. The heavy gains in the twelfth and eleventh periods of Experiments No. 1 and 2 respectively, indicated that the birds would soon lay. It proves the supposition that pullets make big gains in weight just before they commence laying. i5 Table V. — Weights and Gains in Pounds — Cockerels Period Experiment No. 1- -1916 Experiment No. 2- -1917 Weight at beginning Weight Gain Weight at beginning Weight Gain Part 1 0.085 0.0183 1, 0.223 0.138 0.204 0.121 2 0.46 0.237 0.368 0.159 3 0.97 0.51 0.663 0.3 4 1.49 0.52 1.075 0.412 4% 1.84 0.35 1.719 1 0.644 1 Part 2 2.02 2.05 5 2.34 0,32 6 3.17 0.83 2.55 0.5 7 3.87 0.7 3.18 0.63 8 4.29 0.42 3.82 0.64 9 4.79 0.5 4.54 0.72 10 5.45 0.66 5.00 0.55 11 5.81 0.36 5.74 0.65 42 6.4 0.59 6.46 0.72 1 In Experiment No. 2, the last period with the chicks was two weeks long and the fifth period is shown in the one numbered 4 V 2 Part i of this table is the same as given in Table IV. At the begin- ning of Part 2, the cockerel weights were greater than the average weights of all chicks at the close of Part i. The cockerels in Experi- ment No. i weighed about the same at nine weeks as they did at io weeks of age in Experiment No. 2, but the weights at the close of the twelfth period, when they were sold, were practically the same. The gains were irregular, and the birds in Experiment No. 2 never equaled those in No. 1 until the twenty-fourth week, at which time the cocker- els weighed over a pound more than the pullets. Fig. 6. The com field is an ideal place for growing chicks with benefit to both and little damage to the corn i6 Tabee: VI. — Weights and Gains in Pounds — Capons Period Experiment No. 1- -1916 Experiment No. 2- -1917 Weight at beginning Weight Gain Weight at beginning Weight Gain Part 1 0.085 0.083 1 0.223 0.138 0.204 0.121 2 0.46 0.237 0.363 0.159 3 0.97 0,51 0.663 0.3 4 1.49 0.52 1.075 0.412 4% 1.84 0.35 1 . 719 1 0 . 644 1 Part 2 2.01 2.05 5 2.18 0 . 1:7 6 2,94 0.76 2.21 0.16 7 3.69 0.75 2,88 0.67 8 4.13 0.44 3.47 0.59 9 4.67 0.54 4.14 0.67 10 5.27 0.60 5.0 0.86 11 5.69 0.42 5.5 0.50 12 6.33 0.64 6.32 0.82 13 6.76 0.43 6.72 0.40 M 7.28 0.52 7.77 1.05 15 7.74 0.46 7.77 0.0 16 8.36 0.61 7.75 - 0.02 17 8.56 0.21 8,17 0.42 18 8.97 0.41 8.5 0.33 19 8.69 - 0.28 7.79 - 0.71 20 9.5 0.81 9.09 1.30 2oy 2 9.91 0.41 9.37 0.28 1 In Experiment No. 2, the last period with the chicks was two weeks long and the fifth period is shown in the one numbered 4% Part i of this table is the same as given in Table IV. At the begin- ning of Part 2 the average weights of the cockerels to be caponized were greater than the average weights of all chicks at the close of Part i. The capons at the start weighed about the same in Experiment No. i as in Experiment No. 2, although they were one week younger. They did not recover from the effects of the caponizing immediately but in Experi- ment No. 1 they resumed their growth in about a week. In Experiment No. 2 it took them two weeks to recover. This put the 1917 chicks practically two weeks behind and it took them until the twelfth period to equal the other lot. While the gains were very irregular from period to period, they continued in 1916 until the nineteenth period, when for some unknown reason there was a loss. This necessitated putting the birds on to a sloppy fattening ration, to which they quickly responded and finished out in nice condition at the end of 41 week's, weighing prac- tically 10 pounds each. In Experiment No. 2, the capons made a big increase in weight in the fourteenth, and made no gains in the fifteenth period. The large gain seemed inconsistent and hard to understand, but the lack of gain the next period seemed more erratic. The weights were checked and proved to be correct. The capons had a large range of clover, and corn, wheat and oats for grain. During the sixteenth period, oats were 17 fed as the only grain and again the birds failed to gain. In the seven- teenth period, it was decided that the mash consumption had been too low, and was the cause of the lack of growth, and so each morning a wet mash was fed. This brought the birds back into growth and they gained 0.42 pound each. In the eighteenth period, the wet mash was discontinued but new soft corn on the cob was fed each morning in ad- dition to the oats in the hopper, and the gains continued. In the nine- teenth period, the birds would not eat much and a large loss in weight was the result. Beginning with the twentieth period, it was decided that the experiment should soon close, so a fattening mash consisting of two pounds corn meal, one pound ground oats, one pound shorts and eight pounds of buttermilk was fed three times daily. The birds responded well and finished out in good condition, making big gains and weighing within one-half pound as much as the capons in Experiment No. 1. The erratic appetites and gains can not be clearly understood. Fig:. 7. Range feed hopper, which saves labor in feeding chicks and helps insure growth. Holds a large amount of feed i8 Table) VII. — The Gain, Amount and Cost of Feed to Produce One Pound of Gain Per Period (in dollars) Chicks Period Gain Pounds feed per pound gain Cost feed per pound gain 1916 1917 1916 1917 1916 1917 1 0.138 0.121 2.18 2,99 0.066 0.089 2 0.2817 0.159 2.65 3.42 0.07 , 0.10 3 0.51 0.3 2.14 3.0 0.042 0.074 4 0 . 52 ! 0.412 3.06 3.28 0.066 0.081 5 0.62 0.644 3.12 2.78 0.066 0.066 Table) Vila. — Pullets Period Gain Pounds feed per pound gain Cost feed per pound gain 1916 1917 1916 1917 1916 1917 6 0.581 0.42 4.46 4.54 0.086 0.135 7 0.5 0.71 5.15 2.88 0.002 0.088 8 0.28 0,585 7.68 3.48 0.165 0.111 9 0.10 0.405 12.39 5.01 0.24 0.16 10 0.18 0 . 39 ' 14.64 5.7 0.26 0.187 11 0.49 0.609 6.98 4.62 0.12 0.164 12 0.69 0.421 4.2 7.42 0.070 0.261 18 0.31 0.5 9.51 6.817 0.18 0.213 14 0.36 0.12 8.62 22.85 0.16 0.711 Table) Vllb. — Cockerels and Capons Gain Pounds feed per pound gain Cost feed per pound gain Period Cockerels Capons 1916 1917 1916 1917 1916 1917 1916 1917 5 0.67 0.52 6 0.88 0.5 0.76 0.16 3.00 6.45 0.067 0.186 7 0.70 0.63 0.75 0.07 4.54 3.75 0.088 0.109 8 0.42 0.64 0.44 0,59 6.11 4.55 0.12 0.18 9 0.50 0.72 0.54 0.67 5.43 3.36 0.10 0.10 lO - 0.66 0.55 0.6 0.86 5.52 3.5 0.10 0.115 ll 0.36 0.65 0.42 0.5 7.51 6.5 0.13 0.222 12 0 . 50 - 0.71 0.64 0.82 6.94 5.58 0.11 0.189 Table Vile . — Capons Period Gain Pounds feed per pound gain Cost feed per pound gain 1916 1917 1916 1917 1916 1917 13 0.48 0.40 8.10 10.19 0.16 0.32 14 0.52 1.05 6.58 4.71 0.15 0.14 15 0.46 8.89 no gain 0.18 16 0.61 - 0.02 6.70 loss 0.14 17 0.21 0.42 10.22 12.37 0.41 0.26 18 0.41 0.88 8.92 15.75 0.10 0.37 10 - 0.28 - 0.71 loss loss 20 0.81 1.30 5.96 4.24 0.12 0.11 2oy 2 0.41 0.28 3.30 10.32 0.10 0.26 19 The gains shown in Table VII — Vila, Vllb, and Vile are taken from Tables IV, V, and VI. The workings of nature are seldom in exact order and so the feed consumed to produce one pound of gain is as irregular as the gains. When gains are low, feed consumption prob- ably remaining about the same, the amount of feed to produce one pound of gain is high. This was not true until after the chicks weighed two pounds. In 1917, during the first 10 weeks the chicks ate and gained less, than in the year 1916. This made the number of pounds of feed and the cost thereof amount to more in Experiment No. 2. There be- ing no uniformity of gain one year with another, it is useless to com- pare them, but the cost is uniformly greater during the second year. This was largely on account of the increased cost of feed. The Tables Vila, Vllb, and Vile show the figures for the pullets alone ; the cockerels and capons together until the cockerels were sold ; and the capons alone. The pullets ate more feed to produce one pound of gain as they grew older and the cost increased with the consumption. The cockerels were somewhat erratic in their feed consumption per pound gain, but the cost kept rather uniform in Experiment No. 1 and only raised suddenly in Experiment No. 2, when the grains became so expensive. When no gain was made with the capons, no cost of gain could be figured for that period. It was automatically taken care of in the next period. Table VIII. — Cost of Raising a Pullet — Gross Experiment No. 1 1916 Experiment No. 2 1917 First period 200 chicks 250 chicks Cost. of baby shirks $12.20 36.04 47.24 3151.8 $ 0.184 $18.50 50.58 60.08 406.8 $ 0.17 Raising costs ....... Total cost Pounds of chicks Cost per pound _ Cost per chick $ 0.247 $ 0.202 Second period Pounds of pullets left from first period 157.00 $211.04 48.1110' 60.159 484.5 $ 0.142 87 $ 0.794 327-48 $ 0.146 1.76 5.56 190.32 $32.36 91.385 128.786 682.7 $ 0,181 110 $ 1.039 492.38 $ 0.166 1.57 1 5.78 Cost for first period Raising cost, second period _ _ _ _ Total cost _ Number pounds at close Total cost per pound Number pullets reared Cost per pullet Number pounds gained this period Raising cost per pound this period Weight at 9 weeks, pounds Weight at 24 weeks, pounds 1 Weight at 10 weeks 20 The gross cost of raising a pullet is one of the main objects of this experiment and in Table VIII the figures are divided into two periods, the first running from the day the chicks were hatched until the culls and males were sold, and the second running from the end of period i to the twenty-eighth week. In the first period, all cost items, including cost of cockerels were charged, except the cost of the brooder. The cost is greater in Experiment No. 2 than in No. 1, due to high cost of feed, it being $0,247 an d $ 0-292 per chick in 1916 and 1917 respectively. The number of pounds of pullets left from the first period after culling was charged at the beginning of the second period at the cost price per pound of period 1. All expenses except brooder rental, were charged in this period and added to the first cost. The total of periods 1 and 2, divided by the number of pounds at the close of the experiment, gave a growing cost per pound of $0,142 and $0,181 for the years 1916 and 1917. The number of pullets reared out of 200 chicks in 1916 was 87 and out of 250 chicks in 1917 was 119. This is an excellent percent- age and helps to reduce the cost per pullet. The gross costs per pullet on the basis of pullets only were $0,794 and $1,039 an d the weights were 5.56 pounds and 5.73 pounds for the years 1916 and 1917. Table: IX. — Raising Costs of Broilers — Gross Experiment No. 1 1916 Experiment No. 2 1917 Number pounds sold H94.6 215.48 Number eoekerels 79 23 86 Number mills 29 Raising cost per pound $ 0.134 160 $ 0.17 176.4 Number pounds cockerels sold Raising cost — broilers $26,076 21.44 $36.63 29.988 Raising cost — cockerels Selling price — gross 0.32 0.35 Table IX shows the cost of the broilers sold the ninth and tenth weeks. During both years there were some culls sold with the cockerels. The cockerels and culls are listed separately but the cost is lumped. The gross selling price should be reduced two cents per pound for express and shrinkage, but this still leaves a comfortable margin over the raising cost. 21 Table) X. — Raising Costs of Cockerels or Roasters — Gross Experiment No. 1 1916 Experiment No. 2 1917 Pounds of broilers left from first period 81.1 88.2 Number broilers 4)0 43 Cost first period $10.86 162.3 $14.99 189.9 Number pounds produced second period Raising cost second period $19.63 0.121 $30.00 0.158 Raising cost second period per pound Number pounds af, elose 243.4 278.1 Total cost $30.49 0.125 $44.99 0.161 Total cost per pound Selling price — gross 0.19 0.24 Number roasters reared _ 36 43 Cost per bird $ 0.80 2.0'2 $ 1.04 2.05 1 Weight per bird — 9 weeks — pounds Weight per bird — 24 weeks — pounds 6.4 6.46 1 Experiment No. 2 at 10 weeks Table X shows the final cost of the roasters reared, considering only the number saved to raise as roasters. In 1916, there were 40 cock- erels to start with and two died. In 1917, 43 chicks lived throughout the experiment. The cost per pound was slightly less during this part of the experiment than during the baby chickhood, thus keeping down the total cost per pound. The selling prices of $0.19 and $0.24 are gross and should be reduced 1.5 cents to pay for express and shrinkage, leaving a fair margin over the cost. The total cost per roaster was $0.80 and $1,064 and the final weights were 6.4 and 6.46 pounds for the years 1916 and 1917. Table: XI. — Raising Costs of Capons — Gross Experiment No. 1 1916 Experiment No. 2 1917 Pounds of capons left from first period 76.7 81.7 39 $13.89 0.158 246,7 165.0 $26.07 39.96 328.0 114.2 1 $ 0.36 41.634 Number capons 38. Cost first period $10.2)77 0.12)1 Raising cost second period per pound Number pounds at close second period 221.7 Number pounds produced second period 146.0 Raising cost second period $1)7.54 27.817 Total cost first and second periods Number pounds at close second period 32)7.3 Number pounds produced third period 105.6 Raising cost third period per pound $ 0.257 27.153 Raising cost third period Total cost first, second, third period 54.97 81.594 91.84 Total income for capons 81.82 Total profit for capons 26,86 10.25 0.248 2.05 2 9.37 $ 2.32 0.04 0.28 2.62 Total cost per pound 0.168 Weight per bird — 9 weeks (pounds) 2.01 Weight per bird — 41 weeks (pounds) 9.918 Total cost per bird __ $ 1.66 0.04 Cost of caponizing per bird ... . Selling cost per pound (net) 0.25 Income per capon 2,479 1 F'our birds stolen were counted out **10 weeks 22 Table XI gives the raising costs of the capons to 41 weeks of age. In Experiment No. 1, there were 38 capons to start with and five died. In Experiment No. 2, there were 39 capons to start with and four were stolen. The first period as used in the table, gives the raising costs from hatching time to the time the cockerels were removed as broilers; the second period was the time the cockerels and capons were together ; and the third period was the time the capons were alone. The number of pounds of capons after caponizing was multiplied by the raising cost per pound to date, giving cost of capons on day of caponizing. In Experi- ment No. 2, four capons were stolen and were recorded as being removed from the experiment at the beginning of that period and gains figured ac- cordingly. In the final profit, these birds lost with those that died, helped to reduce the income and consequent profit. The raising cost per pound was much greater in the third period than during the second, as gains were slower. The final weights of the capons were 9.91 and 9.37 pounds each, grown at a cost of $0,168 and $0,248 per pound or $1.66 and $2.32 per bird. They were sold at $0.25 and $0.28 per pound in the two years, realizing $2.47 and $2.62 each. The total profit was $26.85 i n Experi- ment No. 1 and $10.25 in Experiment No. 2. The capons were not as profitable in 1917 as in 1916, because feed was higher and selling prices did not quite keep up in proportion. Table XII. — Raising Cost of Pullets — Net Experiment No. 1 1916 Experiment No. 2 1917 Number of chicks to start 200 250 Number of pullets at end 87 1)9 Number chicks marketed 102 115 Total cost of hatching $12.20 35.04 $18.50 50.53 Raising cost first period Raising cost second period 48.119 91.38 Interest and depreciation on brooder 5.00 5.00 Total cost 100.369 166.41 Tricorne chicks sold (net,) 58.38 71.108 Income eggs sold 4.32 10.807 Total income 62.70 82.005 Total net cost Cost per pullet reared (net) 37.659 0.432 83.405 0.70 Cost per pullet, (gross) 1.153 1.39 Weight per pullet at end (pounds) 5.56 5.73 Table XII gives the final and net cost of rearing a pullet. It is figured on the basis* of the actual number of pullets reared, they paying for all expenses and mortality. The cost of hatching is added to the cost to time of caponizing and to the cost after separation, along with interest and depreciation on the brooder. From this is subtracted the income from sale of males and eggs laid, leaving the net costs of $37.66 and $83.40 for the two experiments. These divided by the number of pullets reared gives $0.43 and $0.70 as the actual net cost of rearing White Plymouth Rock pullets in 1916 and 1917. Neither of these costs 23 is abnormally high although it is greater in 1917. Sale prices of pullets were higher in 1917 than in 1916 and should take care of the increased cost. Table: XIII. — Influence of Time of Selling on Profit Experiment No. 1—1916 Experiment No. 2—1917 Week Weight Weight cockerels Price Income Profit cockerels Price Income Profit in pounds cents in pounds cents 9 81.1 $ 0.32 $ 25.95 $ 15.00 10 93.9 0.30 28.17 16.27 88.2 $ 0.35 $ 30.87 $ 15.88 12 127.1 0.29 36.85 21.38 • 100.8 0.33 36.23 17.56 14 154.8 0.27 41.70 23.33 137.1 0.28 38.38 16.43 16 171.9 0.25 42.97 22.15 164.6 0.28 42.70 17.10 16 191.8 0.23 44.11 20.70 195.4 0.25 48.85 10.99 20 218.0 0.22 47.96 21.58 219.1 0.24 52.58 20.81 22 226.6 0.20 45.32 17.32 247.2 0.24 50.32 20.53 24 243.4 0.10 46.24 16.82 278.1 0.24 66.74 21.75 Table XIII shows the relative prices, incomes and profits to be ex- pected from selling young cockerels at different ages and times of the year. The year 1916 was a rather normal one and prices decreased regu- larly from May to October. Even with the increase in weights as the males grew older, the price dropped so rapidly that there was nothing to be gained by holding males until fall. The greatest profit in Experi- ment No. 1 was during the fourteenth week. In 1917, prices were higher and did not drop as they usually do during August and September; the big drop came later than usual after these males were sold. In Experi- ment No. 2 the most profitable period was at 24 weeks, but the differ- ence between that time and six weeks earlier was negligible. The differ- ences between 10 weeks and 14 weeks were relatively small. Fortunately the mortality was low with the cockerels in these experiments. The longer the birds are kept, the greater the chances of loss and if the mar- gins of profit are not large it may not pay to hold males after they be- come broiler size. If feed is cheap and sale prices high, it will pay to hold, but not under other conditions. CONCLUSIONS None of the data contained in the foregoing discussions are abso- lute but they are indicative. Any poultryman rearing Plymouth Rocks, Wyandottes, or Rhode Island Reds could take the amount of feed con- sumed by the birds in this experiment, multiply it by the cost of feeds in his locality, and easily obtain a fair estimate of what it would cost to feed his birds during any period of growth. He could put his cost charges in place of those submitted and quickly figure the cost of hatching a chick. In other words, these figures will aid one in working out his own problems, by furnishing weights and amounts that can be applied to any local condition. With feed prices so variable, erratic and impossible of forecasting, no definite conclusions as to profits to be ob- tained in raising chickens can be worked out. The two years, 1916 and 1917, had such different feed and sale prices that they must really be considered separately. It is the amounts and weights that are the most indicative and definite. PURDUE UNIVERSITY Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 215 May, 1918 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS Published by the Station: LAFAYETTE, INDIANA PURDUE UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BOARD OP CONTROL Joseph D. Oliver, President, South Bend Fay S. Chandler, Indianapolis Charles Downing Greenfield John A. Hillenbrand - -Batesvuie Cyrus M. HoBB ^""""p-E';- ■sTONE7 A. r M.t e pL D President of the University Warren T. McCray Kentland James W. Noel Indianapolis Andrew E. Reynolds Crawfordsville William V. Stuart LaFayette ADVISORY COMMITTEE (Under Legislative Act of 1909) John G. Brown, Monon State Live Stock Association D. B. Johnson, Mooresville State Dairy Association tt t? Hone D - F - Maish, Frankort : ----- U. R. ASSOCIATION STATE CORN GROWERS' ASSOCIATION D F J heacock, Salem Indiana Horticultural Society ADMINISTRATION Charles G. Woodbury, M. S., Director Harry J. Reed.... Assistant to the Director Nellie Tracy Administrative Assistant Mary K. Bloom Bookkeeper AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION George I. Christie, B. S. A., Superintendent Thomas A. Coleman Ass’t State Leader Field Studies and Demonstrations George M. Frier, B. S. A Associate in Charge of Short Courses and Exhibits Mabel L. HARLAN-Ass’t in Agricultural Extension ANIMAL HUSBANDRY John H. Skinner, B. S., Chief Chester G. Starr, B. S. A — — r Acting Associate in Animal Husbandry Herbert E. McCartney, B. S. A - - Ass’t in Animal Husbandry Extension BOTANY Herbert S. Jackson, A. B., Chief George N. Hoffer, M. S Associate in Botany Luna E Allison, B. S Assistant in Botany Edwin B. Mains, Ph. D Assistant in Botany Harry R. Rosen, M. S., Assistant in Rust Work Grace O. Wineland, A. B., M. S ------- Assistant m Botany DAIRY HUSBANDRY Ralph E. Caldwell, B. S., Acting Chief Howard W. Gregory, B. S...-.- .... Associate in Dairy Manufactures George Spitzer, Ph. G., B. S. Associate in Dairy Chemistry Harry M. Weeter, M. S - ............. Associate in Dairy Bacteriology Turner H. Broughton, B. S - » ; Assistant in Creamery Inspection William F. Epple, Ph. G --- Assistant in Dairy Chemistry Hubert W. Fleisher, B. S. A Assistant in Creamery Inspection ENTOMOLOGY James Troop, M. S.. Chief Preston W. Mason, B. S., Ass’t in Entomology HORTICULTURE Laurenz Greene, M. S. A., Chief Harry A. Noyes, M. S Associate in Horticultural Chemistry and Bacteriology Joseph Oskamp, B. S.. Associate in Pomology Walter A. Huelson, B. S Assistant in Horticulture POULTRY HUSBANDRY Allen G. Philips, B. S. A., Chief Dwight C. Kennard, Ph. C., B. S Assistant in Poultry Husbandry Lewis H. Schwartz, B. S. A Assistant in Poultry Husbandry SOILS AND CROPS Alfred T. Wiancko, B. S. A., Chief Martin L. Fisher, M. S - Assistant Chief in Soils and Crops Samuel D. Conner, M. S Associate Chemist in Soils and Crops Clinton O. Cromer, B. S Associate in Crop: Sadocie C. Jones, M. S Associate in Soil: Ernest N. Fergus, M. Sc Assistant in Soils and Crop: STATE CHEMIST Edward G. Proulx, M. S. A. Acting State Chemisi Reuben O. Bitler, B. S. 1 2 .— Deputy State Chemisi Paul B. Curtis, B. S . 2 .Deputy State Chemis Omar W. Ford, A. B . 2 Deputy State Chemisi Mary J. Minton, B. S . 2 Assistan Microscopist State Chemist’s Departmenl Herman J. Nimitz, B.. SA. Deputy State Chemisr J. Howard Roop, B. SA— Deputy State Chemisi Samuel F. Thornton, B. S. 2 Deputy State Chemisi Otis S. Roberts, B. S. 2 Chief Inspector State Chemist’s Departmen Glen G. Carter, B. S. 2 Inspector ^tate Chemist’s Departmen Benjamin F. Catherwood 2 Inspector State Chemist’s Departmen William B. Tiedt 2 - Inspector State Chemist’s Departmen VETERINARY SCIENCE Robert A. Craig, D. V. M., Chief David B. Clark, D. M. C. .. Associate Veterinariai Lawrence C. Kigin, D. V. M Associate Veterinariai Rex A. Whiting, D. V. M Associate in Animal Patholog Carl H. Clink, B. S Ass’t in Serum Productio: Leo P. Doyle, B. S Ass’t in Animal Patholog Leslie R. George, B. S - Assistant in Animal Patholog Fred L. Walkey, D. V. M Ass’t Veterinaria Raymond A. Nehf, B. S. A Assistant in Horticulture DETAILED BY U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Cereal and Forage Crop Insect Investigation John J. Davis, B. S.. Entomological Assistant in Charge John M. Aldrich, Ph. D.. Entomological Assistai Walter H. Larrimer, B. S Scientific Assistar. Dean A. Ricker. B. S Scientific Assistan Chester F. Turner, B. S Scientific Assistan Seed Testing Anna M. Lute, M. A Seed Analy 1 Tn charge of Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control 2 Connected with Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS E. G. Prouex R. B. Deemer 1 R. O. Bitler S. F. Thornton O. W. Ford O. S. Roberts The Indiana Fertilizer Control law was enacted by the state legis- lature some 37 years ago, this state being one of the pioneers in safe- guarding the purchasers as well as the honest manufacturers in the han- dling and consumption of fertilizer. Two important changes have since been made in this law ; an amend- ment in 1899, to provide for field inspection^ and another amendment in 1901, to eliminate the useless analysis of samples submitted by the manufacturer, with the result, that at present the Indiana Fertilizer law is one of the simplest and most effective protective measures in the statutes of any state. Many new agents and consumers when interviewed by inspectors of the State Chemist’s Department, show that they have failed to familiarize themselves with the requirements of the fertilizer law or the benefits to be derived from its enforcement. Since the full text of the Indiana Fertilizer law and the working regulations of the State Chemist’s Department have been published in recent bulletins, it is deemed unnecessary to reprint them in full at this time. The full text of the law with explanations and rulings will be for- warded without cost upon request. In order that manufacturers, agents, dealers, distributers and consumers may familiarize themselves with the essential provisions and the benefits to be derived from their enforcement, the mam points of the law governing the sale of materials for mammal purposes in Indiana are summarized herewith. MANUFACTURERS Proper certificates of registration for each brand, accompanied by fees and an order for State Chemist’s labels must be submitted before any mammal substance, except barnyard manure, marl, lime, wood ashes and plaster, is offered, exposed for sale, sold or distributed in the State A change in guarantee can be made only by a distinctive change in the name of the brand, as the registration of a brand is permanent and is not subject to withdrawal or change. Annual filing of certificates is not required. State Chemist s labels must be attached at the time of shipment, to ail packages of 200 pounds or fraction, including sample bottles. Subse- quent delivery of labels, after making unlabeled shipments, does not meet the requirements of the law and makes the purchaser liable to prosecu- ion. n the case of bulk sales, labels must be furnished with each 200 pounds or fraction. The attached State Chemist’s labels fix the legal standard for the shipment and each plant food contained therein should equal or exceed in every particular the guarantee on the State Chemist’s 1 Resigned January 31, 1913 4 Ruling 12 A. Brands registered on forms 1902 must be free from acidulated phosphates and those registered under names indicating the use of animal by-products only, i. e., raw bone, ground bone, steamed bone, tankage, animal bone manure, bone and potash, bone and potash mixture, etc., must be free from acidulated materials, ammonium sulphate, nitrate of soda, rock phosphate, lime, all fillers, and contain animal sources of nitrogen and phosphoric acid only. There still seem to be a few manufacturers who have not complied with this ruling and in order that further misunderstanding may be avoided, those registering or desiring to register materials for sale under the fertilizer law should note that shipments made under the name of raw bone, steamed bone, ground bone, etc., must consist of animal by-products only, and that the use of nitrate of soda, ammonium sulphate, rock phos- phate, acid phosphate, gypsum, lime, salt, any other filler or material which is not an unacidulated animal by-product is prohibited by such rul- ing, violation of which, will necessarily lead to the cancellation of registra- tions of any such brands. However, reinforcing agents or fillers may be used if desired when offered for registration under names which do not indicate the presence of animal by-products only. Persons or firms wishing to register fertilizer for sale in this state will be furnished the full text of the law and the working regulations of the State Chemist's Department upon request. AGENTS, DEALERS, DISTRIBUTERS Persons offering, selling or distributing fertilizer in Indiana should secure a copy of the law from the State Chemist and familiarize them- selves with its provisions. They should represent companies with good records of inspection and require of the companies a clause in the con- tract or supplementary agreement guaranteeing them from loss for any penalties which may be assessed, due to the failure on the part of the company represented to meet the requirements of the law. The Indiana Fertilizer law recognizes only the State Chemist’s labels bearing the fac simile signature of the State Chemist (see reproduction, page 6.) Do not accept, offer or expose for sale, sell, deliver, distribute or have in your possession any sample, package or any quantity of any commercial fertilizer which does not have attached to the packages or available for bulk shipments, the State Chemist’s label for each 200 pounds or fraction. Labels must be attached to the packages of fertilizer or ac- company bulk sales at the time of delivery. The delivery of fertilizer with subsequent delivery of labels on the plea of oversight, hurry, accommo- dation, etc., cannot be accepted as an excuse for such violations. A prompt report of all such unlabeled sales will be made to the prosecuting attorney. The State Chemist’s label is always printed and any alterations thereon constitutes a violation of the law. Therefore, do not accept any sample, package or quantity of fertilizer with State Chemist’s labels showing alterations. When the inspection report of any sample in your possession is ac- companied by the advice that shipment be withdrawn from sale on account of deficiencies, it should be removed promptly and the amount and date 5 of withdrawal reported to the State Chemist. Failure to comply with such advice will necessitate a report to the prosecuting attorney for wilful violation. Manufacturers and their representatives frequently claim that a deficiency in a certain plant food is compensated in value by the excess in another plant food. Based on this claim, purchase of fertilizer would become merely a contract for so many dollars worth of plant food without regard to kind or quantity. Since each of the plant foods, nitrogen, pot- ash and available phosphoric acid has a certain function, peculiar to itself, to perform in plant production and cannot replace the other, such a claim is illogical. It is essential that the particular plant food desired and pur- chased he secured, and not an equal money value of another plant food if a profitable and economical use of commercial fertilizer is made. Comparative values are a means of comparing similar brands but should be used only for such purposes, and care should be taken to consider the method by which the values are derived. In many cases, through the use of untreated rock phosphate as a makeweight, it will be found that while on the basis of total valuation one brand may show much higher than another, when compared on the basis of the value of the nitrogen, potash and available phosphoric acid present, the excess value of one may be due to a large excess of insoluble phosphoric acid. Local agents are directly responsible for the fertilizer they ofifer for sale and should be careful to keep the fertilizer in a clean and water-proof building. Different brands should be kept in separate piles to prevent mixing if the bags are damaged. If labels become detached, secure an additional supply. When resacking, take every precaution to prevent mix- ing of brands or the addition of foreign material. Attach State Chem- ist’s labels as required by law. Do not guess at the composition of brands that have become mixed, but write the facts to the State Chemist before offering it for sale. A reduction in price will not excuse deficiencies or failure to attach labels. If shortweight shipments are suspected, notify the State Chemist at once and do not accept them until an investigation has been made by an official inspector. The satisfying of plant food needs according to the special soil and crop requirements, together with proper cultivation and the application of other principles of good farming and not the application of so many dollars worth of fertilizer without regard to kind or quality, are the es- sentials of maximum crop production. CONSUMERS Through observation, experiment, and consultation with the Soils and Crops Department of the Experiment Station, determine the plant food required by your soil to produce profitable results and purchase on the basis of the price of the ingredient or ingredients desired and not on the filler used or the price per ton. High grade fertilizers, while more costly per ton, almost without exception furnish plant food at a less cost per pound and from more valuable sources than lower grade and cheaper per ton fertilizers. 6 Do not accept fertilizer without State Chemist’s labels attached to packages or accompanying bulk sales, (see reproduction, page 6). The printed guarantees should agree with those on sample bottles or in con- tract at the time of purchase. The law requires that the person or per- sons selling the fertilizer furnish the amounts of plant food guaranteed on the State Chemist’s labels accompanying the shipment; hence it is essential if you purchase fertilizer guaranteed on the State Chemist’s label to contain 1.6 per cent, nitrogen, 2.0 per cent, potash soluble in water and 8.0 per cent, available phosphoric acid that the official labels contain this guarantee and no other. Do not purchase resacked fertilizer at a bargain or under any cir- cumstances, unless certain that it has been stored in such a manner as to prevent deterioration and bears official labels showing composition desired. The furnishing of proper plant food in amounts needed by the soil and crop, together with proper methods of cultivation and cropping, and not bargain sales, are the things needed to produce profitable results on deficient or unproductive soils. Cooperate with this department by purchasing from companies whose records of inspection show they are maintaining their guarantees and by notifying at once the prosecuting attorney of your district when reports are received showing that fertilizer purchased does not meet the require- ments of the law. THE STATE CHEMIST’S LABEL ACCEPT NO OTHER No. 6010 JOHN DOE & COMPANY, of Columbus, Ohio, Guarantee this SNOWFLAKE FERTILIZER to contain not less than 2.4 per cent, of total nitrogen, (N), 10.0 per cent, of potash, (K 2 O), soluble in water, 8.0 per cent, of soluble and reverted phosphoric acid, (P 2 O 6 ), and 1.0 per cent, of insoluble phosphor 1 ' c acid, (P 2 0 5 ). Purdue University Agricultural Experiment Station, LaFayette, Indiana. Acting State Chemist 7 Inspectors annually report many agents and consumers who seem to be unacquainted with the State Chemist’s label and its functions, hence the reproduction on page 6. It fixes the legal guarantee for the fertilizer to which it is attached or which it accompanies, and is the only label recog- nized under the Indiana Fertilizer law. It is the guarantee of the manufacturer and not of the State Chemist as to the analysis of the fertilizer. It is the duty of the State Chemist to see that the manufacturer lives up to his guarantee. The law thus protects both the consumer and the honest manufacturer and furnishes a foundation for the accurate and intelligent use of fertilizer to increase crop production. HOW TO USE ANNUAL REPORTS Purchasers, agents and dealers will derive the greatest value from the annual fertilizer bulletins by following the suggestions offered : Determine the formula you wish to purchase. Consult Table VIII to ascertain the manufacturers having fertilizers of the desired composition registered for sale. Consult Tables II, III and IV to ascertain the inspection records of manufacturers selected from Table VIII. If details of the inspection of any particular brands are desired, con- sult Table VI and for additional information write to the State Chemist. Purchase of manufacturers whose records of inspection are such as to justify the belief that they will deliver fertilizer as guaranteed. The index to each report is so arranged as to enable the preceding suggestions to be followed with a minimum expenditure of time and labor. ADMINISTRATION The administration of the Indiana Fertilizer law is in charge of the State Chemist, who is assisted in carrying out the provisions of the law by a staff of deputies and inspectors. The latter are on the road each working day, collecting samples of fertilizers and feeding stuffs which are forwarded to the laboratory where they are analyzed by the deputies. The revenue from the sale of State Chemist’s labels is used to carry on the work of inspection. All fees should be made payable to the State Chemist. The accounts of the Department, including all receipts and expenditures, are audited at intervals by the State Board of Accountants. The large number of shipments into the State makes it impossible to obtain a sample from each shipment, nor is this necessary to secure ade- quate inspection and protection. The inspectors are instructed to secure two samples of each brand in the spring and fall in different parts of the State, and in the case of brands having large sales and companies with poor records of inspection, the number is increased so as to give additional assurance that the results of the inspection are representative of the fer- tilizer sold in the State each year. The inspection of 1917 shows that one sample was secured for each 141 tons and one sample analyzed for each 142 tons sold in the State. Requests for special inspection are almost in- variably complied with. The only samples analyzed are those taken by our regular inspectors from goods properly labeled on the open market. Do not forward samples 8 for analysis, but write to the State Chemist stating the manufacturer, brand, official number (which is always at the top of the official label), amount of fertilizer on hand and any special reason for desiring the in- spection. If the amount on hand is sufficient to give a representative sample and a number of samples of the same brand or brands has not already been secured, an inspector will be sent to take an official sample without expense to the person desiring the inspection. The rule that only samples secured by inspectors of the Department will be analyzed, must be rigidly adhered to for the following reasons: i — the analysis of a sample of fertilizer is of value only when drawn in such a manner as to be representative of the entire shipment. Such a representative sample can only be taken by persons with special training, using a sampling tube which takes a full core of the entire length of each package sampled ; 2 — representative samples are the only ones whose legality can be sustained in the courts ; 3 — the only funds available for the work of inspection are those received from the sale of labels; therefore the number of samples which can be analyzed is limited by the revenue and the staff available. All samples received from the inspectors are analyzed and the results reported and published unless error in connection with the taking of same by an employee of the Department can be shown. TJie inspection samples are analyzed in the order in which they are received at the laboratory and by what is known as the blind system : i. e., the analyst is not in possession of the name of the manufacturer or brand which he is analyzing, but works solely by the laboratory number assigned to the sample upon its arrival. In case of samples found below guarantee, before report is made, at least two analysts make independent determinations on different portions of the sample and in case of disagreement, these results are checked by a third analyst on another portion of the sample. The results of the inspection of all samples are reported to the man- ufacturer, agent and persons from whom samples are obtained. In the case of deficient samples, the manufacturer is given 10 days in which to file objections and review the work, for which purpose a portion of the official sample is furnished if requested, after which a duplicate report with comments pertinent to the inspection is forwarded to the agent and persons from whom the sample was secured. Unless some exceptional reason exists, requests that inspections be reported within a certain time limit cannot be granted. Under the most favorable conditions, we cannot report more than 150 samples of fertilizer per month, and the only regulation fair to all concerned is to analyze the samples in the order of their arrival. Therefore, consumers should pur- chase not on the basis of a certain time limit but with the proviso that if inspected and found deficient, the manufacturer will refund on the basis of the State Chemist’s analysis. The manufacturer’s interests are fully protected through the advance notice of 10 days which is sent him. Attention is requested to the fact that the prosecutor of the district in which the violation occurs and not the State Chemist is charged with the enforcement of the penalties for violation of the law and any citizen of the State may call violations to his attention. Since reports of the re- sults of inspection are made to all parties to the transaction, it is expected 9 that purchasers of fertilizer will assist in protecting their own interests by reporting violations. A copy of this bulletin is sent to each prosecutor and a certified copy of the analysis of any inspection sample will be promptly forwarded to any prosecutor on request. The official duties of the State Chemist are restricted to the inspection of fertilizers and feeding stufifs and the settlement of disputes between coal oil dealers and inspectors. The official work required takes the en- tire time of the staff of the Department and no miscellaneous work, either gratis or for pay, can be undertaken. Analyses of fertilizers and feeding stuffs must be restricted to samples secured by the regular inspectors. Analyses of water, soils, rocks or similar materials are not made by the Department. SAMPLING INSTRUCTIONS FOR INSPECTORS All samples received from the inspectors are analyzed and the results reported and published, unless error in connection with the taking of same by an employee of the Department can be shown. Notice of such error or negligence on the part of an inspector came to the attention of the State Chemist during the past year. Investigation showed that this inspector failed to secure all his samples according to the official instructions of the State Chemist, and his connection with the De- partment was severed immediately; none of the samples collected by him during the year are given official record and standing. Sampling. — The sampler should be inserted into the package with slot closed and down. When it extends the full length of the package, open slot, turn over, fill, close slot and withdraw. Samples from Packages. — Full cores are to be taken from 20 pack- ages if that number is present. If 20 packages are not available, full cores are to be taken from each package and sufficient additional cores from packages present until the amount necessary to furnish a sample of the size of 20 full cores is secured. The whole sample so taken is to be shipped to the State Chemist. Samples from Bulk. — Full cores must be taken from not less than 20 separate places in the pile and the entire amount secured should be shipped to the State Chemist. Special care should be taken to get a sample that fairly represents the lot inspected and extra precaution should be taken in the case of mixed fertilizers and those containing potash, to take full cores from each package. Final Sample. — Place inspector’s blank in sack, tie securely, seal, mark official number of sample on top of sack and ship collected samples every two or three days to the State Chemist. Mark the boxes plainly, put the name of the town from which the shipment was made on the box, ad- dress to the State Chemist, shipping charges collect, and if possible secure the express company’s receipt for shipment. Forward receipt with the daily report. Agents and consumers are requested to witness in person the draw- ing of samples and to sign the inspector’s slip. Information showing fail- ure on the part of any inspector to observe these instructions will be grate- fully received and thoroughly investigated. 10 GENERAL TERMS Plant Pood. — “A plant food may be defined as a substance which sup- plies any constituent necessary for the nourishment of plants and in a form suited to promote their development, or capable of being; changed by nat- ural processes into such a form .” 1 In connection with commercial fertil- izers, this term is used to designate the plant food ingredients, nitrogen, potash and phosphoric acid which are the three essential plant foods us- ually deficient in soils and which commercial fertilizers are designed to supply. Available plant food. — An available plant food is one that is in such form or combination as to be immediately utilizable in the growth of the plant or in such condition as to become promptly utilizable through natural processes. Unavailable plant food. — An unavailable plant food is one in such form or combination as not to be capable of utilization by the plant in its growth or which becomes utilizable too slowly to be of appreciable value in crop production. Direct fertilizer. — A direct fertilizer is one which supplies an es- sential plant food in condition to be utilized in the growth of the plant or to become available for this purpose through natural processes. Indirect fertilizer. — An indirect fertilizer does not furnish a plant food but influences the growth of plants by beneficial effects on the soil, such as improving mechanical conditions, promoting aeration, rendering plant food already in the soil more available, correcting acidity and similar conditions. Commercial fertilizer. — A commercial fertilizer is a material or mix- ture of materials containing one or more of the plant foods, nitrogen, pot- ash and phosphoric acid, which through manufacturing or mixing pro- cesses have been rendered suitable to aid in the growth and development of plants. Under the Indiana Fertilizer law, “A commercial fertilizer is any and every substance imported, manufactured, prepared and sold for fertilizing or manurial purposes, except barnyard manure, marl, lime, wood ashes and plaster.” Complete fertilizer. — A complete fertilizer is one which supplies all three of the plant foods, nitrogen, potash and phosphoric acid, which are essential to crop production and most commonly deficient in cultivated soils. Incomplete fertilizer. — An incomplete fertilizer is one which supplies only one or two of the plant foods, nitrogen, potash and phosphoric acid. High grade and lozv grade fertilizers. — The term high grade fertil- izer is used to designate fertilizers which have plant food present in large quantities, as compared to low grade fertilizers which have a small amount of plant food present. The terms are also used to designate the availabil- ity of plant food in fertilizers. If the plant food is in available form they are termed high grade and if in unavailable or slowly available form they are termed low grade. It is extremely difficult to fix a satisfactory line of demarcation be- tween high, medium and low grade fertilizer since a high grade fertilizer 1 “Fertilizers and Crops” II for one crop or section is not necessarily a high grade for some other crop or section. In general, the division is made on the basis of the total content of plant food or on the retail price. The majority of authorities consider a high grade as one having a sum total of ammonia, potash and phosphoric acid not less than 14 per cent. ; a medium grade as one having a sum total not less than 12 per cent., and a low grade as one having a sum total less than 12 per cent. Wet mixed fertiliser . — Wet mixing as originally practiced, consisted of mixing all the materials used in the fertilizer, including potash salts, and adding sulphuric acid to the entire mixture. At present, two methods are in use ; in one, the rock phosphate is thoroughly mixed with sulphuric acid and the organic materials containing nitrogen added to the mixture ; in the other, rock phosphate and materials containing nitrogen are first thoroughly mixed and the sulphuric acid added to the mixture. By the wet process, the unavailable nitrogen as well as other plant food in many materials is rendered more available. Dry mixed fertiliser . — In this process, two methods of procedure are followed, the first of which combines to some extent wet and dry mixing. In the first, rock phosphate is thoroughly mixed with sulphuric acid and partially seasoned, but while still hot and before all free acid has dis- appeared the nitrogenous materials are added, and in the second, the rock phosphate is treated with sulphuric acid and thoroughly seasoned, after which the proper amount is mixed with the nitrogen and potash containing materials to give the desired formula. While agents use the method of mixing as a selling point, if the basic materials are in proper condition, there is no reason why satisfactory mixture should not be obtained by either the dry or wet mix method. The available plant food is just as valuable for plant production from one process as from the other, although in the latter dry mix method, the original material must contain the plant food in available form. Fillers and driers. — Any material, which does not contain appreciable quantities of nitrogen, potash or phosphoric acid, added to high grade fertilizer primarily to reduce the percentage of fertilizing ingredients, and secondarily to improve its mechanical condition, is called a filler. Mate- rials containing appreciable amounts of any or all of the plant foods can not properly be called a filler. Driers may be either fillers or low grade fertilizer materials. Low grade fertiliser materials . — The term, low grade fertilizer mate- rials, is used to designate two distinct conditions in the fertilizer trade : in the first case, to define a material in which the amount of plant food present is much less than that contained in other materials known as high grade, and in the second case, to indicate that the plant food is of low availability. Many manufacturers, in order to overcome the necessity of using fillers, use low grade materials to reduce high grade materials to a lower per- centage of plant food. These low grade materials serve not only as make- weights or diluting agents and driers, but also as sources of plant food. Hence to use the word filler in connection with dried peat, muck, rock phosphate, dried manure, tobacco stems and similar materials is incorrect. 12 Per cent . — This term is used to indicate the number of pounds of ingredients in each ioo pounds of fertilizer. For example, a fertilizer guaranteed to contain 2.0 per cent, of nitrogen, 2.0 per cent, of water soluble potash and 8.0 per cent, of soluble and reverted (available) phos- phoric acid, is guaranteed to contain two pounds of nitrogen, two pounds of water soluble potash and eight pounds of available phosphoric acid in each 100 pounds. Formula . — This term is used to express the composition of a ferti- lizer. For example, if we say the formula of a certain brand is 1. 6-2-8, it means in Indiana that the minimum guarantee for the fertilizer is 1.6 per cent, of nitrogen, 2.0 per cent, of water soluble potash, and 8.0 per cent, of available phosphoric acid. In the general trade, the nitrogen is usually expressed in terms of ammonia and is followed by the percentage of phos- phoric acid and potash respectively. Thus, in the advertising matter of fertilizer manufacturers, the above formula becomes 2-8-2, i. e., 2.0 per cent, of ammonia, 8.0 per cent, of available phosphoric acid and 2.0 per cent, of water soluble potash. While at the present time some 81 elements are known to exist, only 14 (calcium, carbon, chlorine, hydrogen, iron, magnesium, manganese, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, ’potassium, silicon, sodium and sulphur) seem to be generally present in plants, and of these 14, only 10 are prob- ably essential to their growth and maintenance. Of the 10 which are essential in normal plant production, only four, nitrogen, potassium, phos- phorus and calcium are liable to be deficient in the soil to such an extent as to impair its productiveness and only three, nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus, (the latter two generally designated in fertilizers as com- pounds under the name of potash and phosphoric acid) are considered in the manufacture and use of commercial fertilizers. CHEMICAL TERMS Nitrogen is a gas and therefore cannot be utilized directly in the manufacture of commercial fertilizers. It is always present in combina- tion with other elements usually as nitrates, ammonia salts or organic nitrogen. The nitrogen in the inspection samples has been separated into different groups and appears in Table VI, under the following headings: Nitrates and ammonia salts is that portion of the water soluble nitro- gen in the fertilizer derived from nitrates and ammonia salts such as: nitrate of soda, ammonium sulphate, etc. Nitrogen in these forms pos- sesses a high grade of availability and can be readily utilized by the plant in its growth. Water soluble organic nitrogen is that portion of the water soluble nitrogen in the fertilizer derived from organic materials, and although it is probably not as readily available for the use of plants as nitrates and ammonia salts, it possesses a high degree of availability. Active zvater insoluble organic nitrogen is that portion of the organic nitrogen insoluble in water but rendered soluble or liberated by the alka- line potassium permanganate solution used in the C. H. Jones method. The determination is a measure of the quality and not the quantity of the water insoluble organic nitrogen. High grade organic materials such as 13 dried blood, tankage, etc., will show a relatively higher percentage in the “active water insoluble organic” column than in the “inactive insoluble organic” column. Those deriving their nitrogen from low grade organic materials such as peat, garbo tankage, leather, etc., will have the larger percentage in the “inactive organic insoluble” column. Inactive water insoluble organic nitrogen is that part of the organic nitrogen insoluble in water and not affected by the alkaline potassium per- manganate solution and \yhen compared with the active water insoluble organic nitrogen is of value in ascertaining the quality of the water insol- uble organic nitrogen. Total water soluble and active nitrogen is the nitrogen present in the fertilizer and may be considered as in such form as to be readily used by the ordinary crops during the growing season. In other words, it is all the nitrogen in the fertilizer except the inactive water insoluble organic. As explained in a previous report, the total water soluble and active col- umn is not of general use but has been adopted by the State Chemist’s Department in the hope that it may offer a simple method of comparing the amounts of utilizable nitrogen present in various brands inspected. Total nitrogen is the entire amount of nitrogen contained in a fer- tilizer and is the guarantee required by law. The data at present available on fertilizers sold in Indiana do not justify general deductions on the nitrogen determinations, but the detailed results are published in Table VI and can be advantageously used by fer- tilizer purchasers. The principal sources of the nitrogen used in the com- mercial fertilizer sold in Indiana are: packing house by-products (dried blood, tankage, bone), nitrate of soda, cyanamid, ground tobacco stems, garbo tankage, and ammonium sulphate. Potash , K 2 0 , containing the plant food potassium, is a compound of potassium and oxygen in the proportion by weight of 78 parts of the for- mer to 16 parts of the latter and as used in this bulletin, means the total amount of the compound present which is soluble in boiling distilled water. Neither potassium nor potassium oxide can be used directly in manufacturing fertilizers and hence like nitrogen, this plant food is always present in combination with other elements. Consumers should carefully save wood ashes, cob ashes, straws, tobacco waste, garbage, corn stalks and other carriers of potash in order to conserve this valuable element to the fullest extent. Phosphoric acid, P 2 0 5 is the compound recognized by the law and in general by the fertilizer trade as containing the plant food phosphorus, and is composed by weight of 62 parts of the former to 80 parts of the latter. This compound known in the trade as phosphoric acid, occurs in most fertilizers in combination with lime but in some cases is combined with iron and alumina. Available phosphoric acid is the amount of phosphoric acid present in the fertilizer readily available for the use of the plant and consists of two forms : soluble, which dissolves in cold water and reverted, which while insoluble in cold water, is soluble in the soil solvents and is deter- mined by digesting two grams of the fertilizer, from which the water sol- uble phosphoric acid has been removed, with 100 cubic centimeters of neutral ammonium citrate solution, specific gravity 1.09, for 30 minutes 14 at 65 degrees C. The soluble phosphoric acid is combined with lime to form mono-calcium phosphate, CaH 4 (P 0 4 ) 2 and the reverted is in com- bination with lime as di-calcium phosphate (Ca 2 H 2 ) (P 0 4 ) 2 . The principal sources of available phosphoric acid in the fertilizers sold in Indiana are: acidulated rock phosphate (acid phosphate) ; packing house by-products, acidulated and non-acidulated ; spent bone black from sugar refineries and other manufactories; precipitated bone from glue factories, and basic slag which is sold in limited quantities. Insoluble phosphoric acid is the amount of phosphoric acid in the fer- tilizer not soluble in water or ammonium citrate solution. This form of phosphoric acid, which exists in combination with lime to form tri-calcium phosphate Ca 3 (P 0 4 ) 2 , is not readily available for the use of plants in their growth. The phosphoric acid in the unacidulated rock phosphates utilized for fertilizers and also the insoluble in acidulated rock phosphates used in this state, is tri-calcium phosphate. Distinction should be made, however, in the case of insoluble phosphoric acid from rock phosphate and from animal products, such as bone, tankage and other slaughter house waste, since the latter decays rapidly and becomes available much more quickly than the former. Total phosphoric acid is the sum of the soluble, reverted and insol- uble, i. e., all the phosphoric acid in the fertilizer. GUARANTEES By the term guarantee is meant the minimum amount of plant food which the person or firm responsible for the sale of the fertilizer, certifies it to contain. While under the Indiana law, the guarantee must be made in terms of nitrogen (N), potash (K 2 0 ) and phosphoric acid (P 2 O s ), other states have dififerent requirements and in many the guarantee for the nitrogen- ous ingredient is required in terms of ammonia (NH 3 ), a compound of nitrogen and hydrogen in the proportion of 14 parts by weight of the for- mer to three parts by weight of the latter. To convert ammonia into nitrogen, multiply the percentage of the former by 0.822, and to convert nitrogen into ammonia, multiply the per cent, of nitrogen by 1.22. In the case of potash, the requirements in some states call for the guarantee to be made in terms of the plant food element, potassium. To convert potassium into percentage of potash (K 2 0 ), multiply the per- centage of the former by 1.21 and to express potash (K 2 0 ) in terms of potassium, multiply the percentage of potash by 0.83. In a similar manner, some states require that the percentage of phos- phorus and not phosphoric acid be guaranteed. To express percentage of phosphorus in terms of phosphoric acid, multiply the percentage of the former by 2.29, and to convert phosphoric acid into phosphorus, mul- tiply the per cent, of phosphoric acid by 0.436. Calculation of formulas. — While to many the calculation of fertilizer formulas is mysterious, in reality, it is a very simple matter and resolves itself into ascertaining the number of pounds of plant food desired in a ton or any given quantity of fertilizer by multiplying the amount to be prepared by the percentage of plant food desired in the finished product i5 and dividing this result by the guaranteed percentage of the plant food in the raw material from which it is to be obtained. For example, if we wish to manufacture one ton of i. 6-2-8 fertilizer from dried blood con- taining 14 per cent, of nitrogen, western potash containing 22 per cent, of water soluble potash and acid phosphate containing 14 per cent, of available phosphoric acid, we proceed as follows : 2000 pounds (in ton) x 0.016 = 32 pounds nitrogen 32 pounds -T- 0.14 = 228.5 number of pounds of dried blood required ; 2000 pounds (in ton) x 0.02 = 40 pounds of potash 40 pounds -r- 0.22 = 181.9 number of pounds of western potash required ; 2000 pounds (in ton) x 0.08 = 160 pounds of available phosphoric acid 160 pounds -T- 0.14 = 1 142.9 number of pounds of acid phosphate required ; Filler or dryer required to make up to ton, pounds required 446.7. Total, 2000 pounds. If the use of filler is not desired, the more concentrated material can be used in smaller amount per acre. If 200 pounds per acre of 1. 6-2-8 fertilizer are required, the equivalent amount of the mixture without filler to be used, can be ascertained by the following simple proportion. 2000 pounds : 1553.3 pounds :: 200 pounds : X = 155.3, number of pounds concentrated mixture required per acre. ACTION OF PLANT FOODS In considering the part played by the plant foods, nitrogen, potash and phosphoric acid in the growth of the plant, it must be kept in mind that the effect of any element is largely dependent on the other elements necessary to plant growth being present in normal amounts, that all the elements working together are essential to maximum crop production and that even when these are present the results obtained by their use are often very materially affected by cultural and climatic conditions. It is generally conceded, however, that : Nitrogen exerts its greatest influence on the amount of foliage, the flowering process, maturing, color, growth, quality and disease resisting power of the plant. If sufficient available nitrogen is not present, there will be a lack of foliage, stalks or stems will be short, leaves or blades small, color yellow- ish, weight of foliage, straw and grain or fruit less than when the re- quired amount of nitrogen is available. If excessive amounts of available nitrogen are used, the growth of foliage will be out of proportion to the grain or fruit, the growth, de- velopment, and maturity of the crop retarded, a tendency to softness of the tissues and apparently less power to resist attacks of fungous diseases. Potash is apparently essential to the formation and transference of starch and other carbohydrates, has an important part in the development of leaves and woody parts of stems, stiffens the stem, stalk and straw, assists in the development of the fleshy parts of fruits and makes the plants more resistant to the attacks of fungous diseases. i6 Lack of potash results in weak plants, while excessive amounts delay the maturing of the crop. Phosphoric acid in available form favors rapid development of the young plant, hastens maturity, increases the proportion of grain to straw, assists in developing the grain and is necessary to the development of protoplasm without which there could be no plant growth. SPECIAL INVESTIGATION INJURY TO CORN CAUSED BY BORAX IN FERTILIZER On June 4, 1917, the attention of the State Chemist’s Department was called to a field of corn near Francesville where a Double-Five Fer- tilizer (5 per cent, potash and 5 per’ cent, available phosphoric acid) had apparently injured corn. An immediate investigation of this field and others in the vicinity was made and the following conditions found : That some of the corn had come up white and later, part of it acquired a green color. Thaj; some of the corn had come up green, turned white and later, part of it regained its color. That some of the hills were all green, some were all white, and some had both white plants and green plants. Borax was suspected as being the injurious material and a sample of an unused portion of the fertilizer, that had apparently caused this con- dition, was taken and an analysis showed this sample of Double-Five Fertilizer to contain 1.63 per cent, borax. Other samples of Double-Five which contained much less borax produced no apparent injury. The survey of these fields on the following week showed improve- ment in color but the plants were not making a normal growth. Some fields were disked and replanted because of the poor stand, but replants in the same row were not affected. The type of soil on which the plants were most seriously injured was a loose sandy loam, the heavier, more solid types of soil showing the least injury. Much of this Double-Five brand did no injury. The fertilizer from some cars worked greater damage than that from other cars, yet from the same car, some fertilizer caused injury and some did not. This fertilizer was all drilled in the row ; amounts varying from 50 pounds to 150 pounds per acre. Where injury was done, the heavier the application, the greater the injury. Some injury resulted from use of fertilizer containing only 3.0 per cent, potash. The borax which was present in the potash purchased by the manu- facturer and which was analyzed by him only for its potash content, injured the plants in the following manner: By the bleaching effect and by the prevention of chlorophyl forma- tion in the blades. By destroying tissue of the shoot or root in whole or in part. By seriously impairing the stand of the corn. By reducing the vigor of the corn so that insects worked greater injury. By checking the growth, thus shortening its growing season. 1 7 On June 13, 1917 the Chief Inspector of the State Chemist’s De- partment made a trip to Cincinnati to present these conditions to the company and to request that they send their representative to Frances- ville to procure information direct, of the extent and amount of injury resulting from the use of their Double-Five Fertilizer. After a thorough discussion of the conditions and the responsibility of the company, assurance was given that the company would protect its customers. The chemist of the corporation, accompanied by the Chief Inspector, made a thorough investigation of all of the fields and investi- gated all complaints. Additional trips were made during the growing season to observe the progress of the corn and hear additional complaints, if any. It should be remembered that the season of 1917 was abnormal and that a large portion of the corn crop, either with or without fertilizer, failed to mature. Undoubtedly the injury produced by the fertilizer con- taining borax was greater in 1917 than it would have been in a normal year. Adjustment of the damage claims was made in November by two of the company’s officers and the Chief Inspector of the State Chemist’s Department. By this adjustment, made with each individual farmer who had suf- fered injury from the fertilizer used, the International Agricultural Cor- poration, who manufactured the fertilizer, paid the several farmers in and about Francesville, Indiana, the agreed damages amounting to $8000.00. In the opinion of the State Chemist’s Department, the Inter- national Agricultural Corporation has been very fair in making these adjustments and certainly made good its promises given to the Chief Inspector earlier in the season. Slater's Slag . — Much confusion exists in the minds of many con- sumers in Indiana regarding Slater’s Slag as manufactured by the Ameri- can Basic Phosphate Company of Leatherwood, Tennessee. Two ship- ments of this slag, 30 tons each, were found and inspected in Indiana in I 9 I 7- All sacks were labeled No. 7010, The American Basic Phosphate Company of Leatherwood, Tennessee, guaranteeing Slater’s Slag to con- tain not less than 18 per cent, total phosphoric acid. In addition to determining total phosphoric acid, available phosphoric acid was ascertained by both the neutral ammonium citrate and the 2.0 per cent, citric acid method, the latter being official for basic slag. The fol- lowing summary contains the analysis of Slater’s Slag, also the average analysis of five known basic slags and one untreated raw rock phosphate (Brown Tennessee Rock), which are given at this time for the purpose of comparison. Total phosphoric acid, per cent. Phosphoric acid soluble in 2 per cent, citric acid, per cent . Phosphoric acid soluble in neutral ammonium citrate, per cent. Found comparative value per ton Basic slag 17.7 14.0 10.8 $15.93 Slater’s Slag __ 16.2 2.3 1.4 4.86 Untreated rock phosphate 29.3 5.7 8.79 i8 The much higher solubility in 2.0 per cent, citric acid of basic slag and also of the untreated raw rock phosphate over Slater’s Slag, shows that no injustice has been done the American Basic Phosphate Co., when the State Chemist assigns the same comparative value, 30 cents per unit to Slater’s Slag as to untreated rock phosphate. The preceding two inspections of Slater’s Slag which appear in our main inspection table (Table VI) were settled by the manufacturers re- funding agents the total cost on the two 30-ton shipments of slag. Mr. Sla- ter, chemist and part owner of the American Basic Phosphate Company, 'claims these two shipments were sent from the factory in his absence and were not intended for the fertilizer trade in Indiana. No shipments of Sla- ter’s Slag have since been found in the State and consumers will confer a favor on the State Chemist by notifying him promptly when a shipment of Slater’s Slag is received. FERTILIZER MAP The fertilizer map on page 25, now contains 1181 towns where fer- tilizer is known to be on sale as compared with 544 towns in 1905. Towns Added to Map in 1917 County No. of town on map Name of town Benton 15 Chase Brown __ 10 E'ruitdale Carroll _ 11 Burlington Clinton 15 Edna Mills Howard 5 Oakford 6 Sycamore Jackson 19 Reddington Kosciusko 13 Shakespeare Lake 17 Dinwiddie 18 Dyer County No. of town on map Name of town Madison 10 Lapel Miami __ 9 Macy Newton _ _ 12 Beaver City 13 Elmer Porter 12 Chesterton Pulaski 9 Oak Steuben 11 Steubenville Tippecanoe - 11 South Raub Wabash — 11 Roann ESTIMATED SALES IN 1917 COMPARED WITH THOSE OF 1908 AND 1916 As there is no provision in the fertilizer law requiring a report of sales, absolute data as to the amount of fertilizer purchased annually cannot be secured. However, based upon reports of sales received from a large majority of manufacturers, reports from inspectors, tag orders and similar sources of information, it is estimated that 196,186 tons of fertilizer with a total retail value of $5,064,987.05 were sold in the State in 1917. Compared with the sales for 1916, this shows an increase of 63,562 tons and an increase in expenditures of $1,821,170.52, while a decrease of 22,953 tons and an increase of $119,107.90 in expenditures is shown when compared with 1914 sales, the year the European war began. Compared with sales of 1908, 10 years previous, a gain of 93,877 tons equivalent to 92 per cent, with $2,607,581.05 increase in expenditures is shown. The reasons for the increase in 1917 over 1916 sales may be sum- marized briefly as : the Government’s campaign for increased crop produc- tion, and increase in prices for farm produce. The variations in formulas, prices and total values are set out in de- tail in the following table : 19 Comparison Sales and Formulas, 1908-1916-1917 Class of fertilizer Estimated sales, tons Average retail price per ton, dollars 1908 1916 1917 1916 1917 1. Acid phosphate, 20 per cent, available phosphoric acid _ 3 715 20.00 23.50 2. Acid phosphate, 18 per cent, available phosphoric acid 2,379 2,010 23.46 19.61 3. Acid phosphate, 16 to 18 per cent, available phos- phoric acid 42 17,775 32,706 20.30 20.22 4. Acid phosphate, 14 to 16 per cent, available phos- phoric acid — _______ 6,733 6,160 7,041 19.74 19.79 5. Acid phosphate, less than 14 per cent, available phosphoric acid 1,117 209 47 18.00 6. Acid phosphate and potash, (K 2 O), below 1 per cent. 160 33 25.00 7. Acid phosphate and potash, (K 2 O), 1.0 to 2.5 per cent. 5,562 1,523 2,653 24.56 25.89 8. Acid phosphate and potash, (K 2 O), 2.5 to 5.0 per cent. 3,336 478 285 31.81 30.75 9. Acid phosphate and potash, (K 2 O), 5.0 to 7.5 per 1,806 618 29.80 37.62 10. Acid phosphate and potash, (K 2 O), 7.5 to 10 per cent. 855 11. Acid phosphate and potash, (K 2 O), 10 to 12.5 per cent. 313 14. Acid phosphate and untreated rock phosphate _ 250 2,145 22.00 22.55 15. Ammoniated acid phosphate 1,182 32,578 67,820 23.30 25.69 16. Complete fertilizer, nitrogen below 0.5 per cent 7,443 15,416 27,121 25.77 27.97 17. Complete fertilizer, nitrogen 0.5 to 1.0 per cent 26,534 8,815 27,751 25.27 28.32 18. Complete fertilizer, nitrogen 1.0 to 1.6 per cent 12,878 22,913 4,657 26.64 28.16 19. Complete fertilizer, nitrogen 1.6 to 2.5 per cent.. 16,569 11,404 7,366 30.20 33.23 20. Complete fertilizer, nitrogen 2.5 to 4.0 per cent 1,229 150 228 29.81 29.75 21. Complete fertilizer, nitrogen 4+ per cent.- 65 1 120.00 23. Peruvian guano __ __ 15 165.00 24. Complete fertilizer, (K 2 O), below 1.0 per cent.* 259 7,601 13,470 25.26 25~82 25. Complete fertilizer, (K 2 O), 1.0 to 2.5 per cent.* 44,720 48,020 49,029 26.48 28.72 26. Complete fertilizer, (K 2 O), 2.5 to 5.0 per cent.*.. __ 12,361 2,986 3,497 33.26 33.96 27. Complete fertilizer, (K 2 O), 5.0 to 7.5 per cent.* 4,142 1 227 49.45 28. Complete fertilizer, (K 2 O), 7.5 to 10 per cent.* _ 2,006 1 29. flmnplete fertiliser, (TfofD, 10 tn 12 .5 per pent* 1,230 31. Raw bone — - - 5,523 ” 3^669 "i’284 31.98 35.83 32. Steamed bone __ 6,267 2,404 5,050 30.71 33.59 33. Ammoniatwl hnne 475 91 30.00 32.00 35. Acidulated bone 27 34.00 37. Bone and potash 1,524 329 165 27.25 29~00 39. Tankage - — _ 520 607 300 25.00 40.35 40. Tankage and potash 370 104 27 27.33 41. Basic slag - __ _ _ _ 34 63 7 23.25 42. Rock phosphate . . 432 3,272 2,424 7.78 7.86 43. Rock phosphate and low grade slag 305 60 28.65 30.00 45. Nitrate of soda __ - 121 159 93 82.50 75.00 46. Dried blood _ _ 34 4 3 47. Muriate of potash _ _ 660 48. Sulphate of potash 86 49. Manure salts - _ _ 50. Kainit 828 51. Tobacco stems 50 144 2 43.00 40.00 52. Manure ash __ _ _ _ 33 2 53. Dried manure 855 420 34.43 33.92 55. Garbo tankage _ _ 66 5 16.15 19.00 56. Muck or peat _ 33 37.00 Totals 102,309 132,624 196,186 Not included in addition for totals 20 Comparisons of the spring and fall sales both as regards formulas and retail values are shown in the following: Class of fertilizer Estimated sales, tons Average retail value s, dollars Spring Fall Total Spring Fall Total 1. Acid phosphate, 20 per cent, avail- able phosphoric acid 413 302 715 9,705.50 7,097.00 16,802.50 2. Acid phosphate, 18 per cent, avail- able phosphoric acid 1,188 822 2,010 23,296.68 16,119.42 39,416.10 3 . Acid phosphate, 16 to 18 per cent. available phosphoric acid 13,712 19,084 32,796 277,256.64 385,878.48 663,135.12 4 . Acid phosphate, 14 to 16 per cent. available phosphoric acid 2,427 4,614 7,041 48,030.33 91,311.06 139,341.39 5. Acid phosphate, less than 14 per cent, available phosphoric acid__ 30 17 47 547.50 310.25 857.75 7. Acid phosphate and potash, (K 2 O), 1.0 to 2.5 per cent. 1,178 1,475 2,653 30,498.42 38',187.75 68,686.17 8. Acid phosphate and potash, (K 2 O), 2.5 to 5.0 per cent. 285 285 8,763.75 8,763.75 9. Acid phosphate and potash, (K 2 O), 5.0 to 7.5 per cent. 602 16 618 22,647.24 601.92 23,249.16 14. Acid phosphate and untreated rock phosphate 974 1,171 2,145 21,963.70 26,406.05 48,369.75 15. Ammoniated acid phosphate 23,883 43,937 67,820 613,554.27 1,128,741.53 1,742,295.80 16. Complete fertilizer, nitrogen below 0.5 per cent. 9,527 17,594 27,121 266,470:19 492,104.18 758,574.37 17. Complete fertilizer, nitrogen 0.5 to 1.0 per cent. 15,405 12,346 27,761 436,269.60 349,638.72 785,908.32 18. Complete fertilizer, nitrogen 1.0 to 1.6 per cent. 2,901 1,756 4,657 81,692.16 49,448.96 131,141.12 19. Complete fertilizer, nitrogen 1.6 to 2.5 per cent. 4,695 2,671 7,366 156,014.85 88,757.33' 244,772.18 20. Complete fertilizer, nitrogen 2.5 to 4.0 per cent. 149 79 228 4,432.75 2,350.25 6,783.00 24. Complete fertilizer, (K 2 O), below 1.0 per cent.* 6,803 6,667 13,470 175,653.46 172,141.94 347,795.40 25. Complete fertilizer, (KsO), 1.0 to 2.5 per cent.* 22,498 27,431 49,929 646,142.56 787,818.32 1,433,960,88 26. Complete fertilizer, (K 2 O), 2.5 to 5.0 per cent.* ___ 3,230 267 3,497 109,690.80 9,067.32 118,758.12 27. Complete fertilizer, (K 2 O), 5.0 to 7.5 per cent.* 140 81 227 7,219.70 4,005.45 11,225.15 31. Raw bone 199 4,086 4,284 7,130.17 146,365.55 153,495.72 32. Steamed bone ___ 824 4,226 5,050 27,678.16 141,951.34 169,629.50 33. Ammoniated bone 25 66 91 800.00 2,112.00 2,912.00 37. Bone and potash 9 156 165 261.00 4,524.00 4,785.00 39. Tankage 165 135 300 6,657.75 5,447.25 12,105.00 40. Tankage and potash 17 10 27 725.50 426.80 1,152.36 41. Basic slag _ 7 7 201.95 201.95 42. Rock phosphate 748 1,676 2,424 5,879.28 13,173.36 19,052.64 43. Rock phosphate and low grade slag 60 60 1,800.00 1,800.00 45. Nitrate of soda 73 20 93 5,475.00 1,500.00 6,975.00 46. Dried blood 3 3 300.00 300.00 51. Tobacco stems 1 1 2 40.00 40.00 80.00 52. Manure ash 1 1 2 30.00 30.00 60.00 53. Dried manure 353 67 420 11,973.76 2,272.64 14,246.40 55. Garbo tankage _ . 3 2 5 57.00 38.00 95.00 Totals 79,797 116,389 196,186 2,068,353.21 2,996,633.84 5,064,987.05 * Not included in addition for totals Comparison of sales of 1917 with those of 1916 shows that of 29 classes available, 11 show an increase in sales ranging from 78 tons in complete fertilizer containing 2.5 to 4.0 per cent, nitrogen to 35,242 tons for ammoniated acid phosphate, while 18 show a decrease of from one ton for dried blood, to 18,256 tons for complete fertilizer containing 1.0 to 1.6 per cent, nitrogen. In the matter of prices, 18 of 25 classes show an increase varying from five cents for acid phosphate, 14 to 16 per cent, available phosphoric 21 acid, to $15.35 f° r tankage, while seven show a decrease varying from six cents for complete fertilizer, nitrogen 2.5 to 4.0 per cent, to $7.00 for nitrate of soda. Considering the complete fertilizer on the basis of potash guaranteed, four of five classes show an increase in sales ranging from 226 tons to 5779) while all show an increase in price ranging from 56 cents to $2.24. The sale of brands containing an excess of 5.0 per cent, of potash was practically eliminated in 1916 but shows a substantial increase during 1917. At present, indications are that more potash will be available for the 1918 fertilizer trade. To illustrate the variation in prices which have prevailed since the war began the following summary of average spring and fall prices for classes available is published. Class of fertilizer Average retail 1916 1 price, dollars 1917 Spring Fall Spring Fall 1. Acid phosphate, 20 per cent, available phosphoric acid 20.00 22.33 27.00 2. Acid phosphate, 18 per cent, available phosphoric acid 24.00 23.06 19.27 23.00 3. Acid phosphate, 16 to 18 per cent, available phosphoric acid— 19.72 20.60 18.77 22.30 4. Acid phosphate, 14 to 16 per cent, available phosphoric acid— 20.02 18.66 18.07 22.20 5. Acid phosphate, less than 14 per cent, available phosphoric acid __ _ 18.00 7. Acid phosphate and potash, (K 2 O), 1.0 to 2.5 per cent 24.78 22.84 25.25 26.70 8. Acid phosphate and potash, (RoOO, 9.. 5 to 5.0 ppr cent. 31.50 32.33 30.75 9. Acid phosphate and potash, (K 2 O), 5.0 to 7.5 per cent 29.80 37.62 14. Acid phosphate and untreated rock phosphate 22.00 21.00 22.94 15. Ammoniated acid phosphate 23.04 24.04 23.14 28.17 16. Complete fertilizer, nitrogen below 0.5 per cent 26.13 25.34 26.09 29.99 17. Complete fertilizer, nitrogen 0.5 to 1.0 per cent 26.79 23.69 26.86 31.26 18. Complete fertilizer, nitrogen 1.0 to 1.6 per cent 32.24 21.96 26.70 35.00 19. Complete fertilizer, nitrogen 1.6 to 2.5 per cent 31.14 28.89 31.94 37.64 20. Complete fertilizer, nitrogen 2.5 to 4.0 per cent— __ — 30.13 29.50 29.75 21. Complete fertilizer, nitrogen 4+ per cent. _ 120.00 23. Peruvian guano 165.00 24. Complete fertilizer, (K 2 O), below 1.0 per cent. 26.45 23.80 24.54 28.31 25. Complete fertilizer, (K 2 O), 1.0 to 2.5 per cent. 27.17 25.20 26.84 31.54 26. Complete fertilizer, (K 2 O), 2.5 to 5.0 per cent. 32.99 33.76 33.10 38.83 27. Complete fertilizer, (K 2 O), 5.0 to 7.5 per cent. 49.45 31. Raw bone 33.50 31.79 32.33 36.42 32. Steamed bone _ _ 28.34 29.77 32.31 34.15 33. Ammoniated bone 29.67 30.33 32.00 34. Precipitated bone ___ 34.00 37. Bone and potash _ _ _ _ 27.00 27.44 26.00 30.50 39. Tankage _ _ _ _ 33.13 30.00 33.56 51.67 40. Tankage and potash 27.33 41. Basic slag _ ___ 21.50 25.00 42. Rock phosphate ___ _ ___ 5.08 7.12 ~ 7~.89 7.78 43. Rock phosphate and low grade slag _ 28.65 30.00 45. Nitrate of soda 82.50 75.00 51. Tobacco stems _ _ 40.00 44.50 40.00 53. Dried manure __ _ 29.38 100.00 28.70 60.00 55. Garbo tankage _ 16.15 19.00 56. Muck or peat _ — 37.00 22 PURCHASING FERTILIZER The necessity for conservation in all practical affairs at the present time leads us again to emphasize the important fact we have been endeav- oring to impress upon purchasers of fertilizer for many years, namely, that low price per ton does not necessarily and in fact rarely ever means low price per unit of plant food. Economy and profitable results in the purchase and use of fertilizer demand that the purchaser: (i) decide upon the plant food or foods required by the soil and crop, and purchase such plant food or foods, and no other; (2) decide upon the form in which such plant food or foods should be used; (3) purchase the plant food or foods in the form desired, at the lowest price per unit of plant food and not on the basis of cost per ton. COMPARISON OF STANDING OF MANUFACTURERS Those desiring to compare the relative inspection standing of the various manufacturers are respectfully referred to Tables II, III, IV and VI. The first three summarize the results of the inspection and should always be considered in conjunction with Table VI, which contains the details from which the summaries are compiled. Purchase from companies which maintain their guarantees. REPORT OF INSPECTION MADE IN 1917 The inspectors of the State Chemist’s Department visited every county of the State in the spring and fall of 1917 and secured 1390 sam- ples, each county being represented in the inspection. In the spring, 781 samples representing 422 brands and 67 manufac- turers were secured in 225 towns of the 330 towns visited, and in the fall 609 samples representing 351 brands and 67 manufacturers were secured in 168 of the 220 towns visited. It should be noted that the use of the word tozvns in this connection, means that not only the town itself but surrounding territory was inspected. Four hundred fifty-one samples are omitted from record in this bulle- tin. These samples represent the work of the inspector referred to on page 9. It was shown on investigation of information brought to the atten- tion of the Department that in certain cases the inspector in question had failed to follow in all respects the official instructions as to methods of sampling. The inspector was immediately dismissed and although there was no reason to believe that his failure to follow instructions applied to any large number of samples, yet in order that there might be no possi- bility of any samples being reported which might not have been repre- sentative of the shipments from which they were drawn, all samples taken by this inspector were withdrawn from official record. This leaves 919 samples, the analyses of which are reported in this bulletin. 23 The 919 samples reported in this bulletin were divided as follows: Class of fertilizer Spring Fall Total 1 . 2 . 3 1 4 10 1 11 3. 52 35 87 4 ^ 14 10 24 7. 11 5 16 8 . 2 2 10 10 14. 1 4 5 15. Ammoniated acid phosphate __ _ _ 138 142 280 16. Complete fertilizer, nitrogen below 0.5 per cent 72 69 141 17. Onmplpte fertilizer, nitrogen 0.5 to 1.0 per nent. 113 59 172 18. Complete fertilizer, nitrogen 1.0 to 1.6 per cent. _ _ 14 4 18 19. Complete fertilizer, nitrogen 1.6 to 2.5 per cent. _ 49 14 63 20 . Complete fertilizer, nitrogen 9.5 to 4.0 per eent. 2 2 24. Complete fertilizer, potash below 1.0 per cent.* __ 42 22 64 25. Complete fertilizer, potash 1.0 to 9.5 per pent.* 171 118 289 26. Complete fertilizer, potash 2.5 to 5.0 per cent.* 34 6 40 27. 31. Complete fertilizer, potash, 5.0 to 7.5 per cent.* 3 3 Raw hone 3 19 22 32. Steamer! hone 8 18 26 33. Ammoniated bone . __ 1 1 37. Rone anri potash 1 2 3 39. Tankage _ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ 5 3 8 42. Rock phosphate - _ _ 6 4 10 43. RopV phosphate anri low grarie slag 2 2 45. Nitrate of soda __ _ __ 1 1 51. Tobacco stems __ ... _ _ _ __ 1 1 53. Dried manure _ __ 8 1 9 55. Garbo tankage _ _ 1 1 Totals . __ _ 525 394 919 * Not included in totals Manufacturers’ guarantees, names and addresses of persons from whom obtained, and detailed results of the analyses of the samples above summarized will be found in Table VI, which shows the manufacturers’ promises and how they were kept. Summary of Inspections for the Past Eighteen Years Year Number of samples reported Number equal to guarantee in every particular Number equal in value to guarantee Number within 10 per cent . of value of guarantee Total number equal and with- in 10 per cent, of value of guarantee Number not within 10 per cent, of value of guarantee Number with one or more ingredients 20 per cent, be- low guarantee Number with one or more ingredients 30 per cent . be- low guarantee Number with one or more ingredients 50 per cent, be- 1900 468 76 206 99 305 163 214 * * 1901 592 281 469 85 554 38 103 * * 1902 679 335 564 98 657 22 112 * * 1903 674 286 492 139 631 43 138 * * 1904 643 248 451 148 509 44 122 65 21 1905 734 312 528 158 686 48 148 77 21 1906 879 374 642 176 818 61 136 64 25 1907 793 265 481 210 691 102 177 75 29 1908 901 391 683 171 854 47 134 51 8 1909 969 417 720 215 935 34 138 52 12 1910 1118 441 834 242 1076 42 169 75 9 1911 1095 527 896 189 1076 19 98 22 2 1912 1220 636 1034 175 1209 11 63 18 3 1913 1204 714 1021 178 1199 5 41 12 4 1914 1396 727. 1152 239 1391 5 51 14 2 1915 1368 684 1145 214 1359 9 92 31 6 1916 1367 870 1183 168 1351 16 102 40 6 1917 919 622 830 76 906 13 60 22 5 Totals 17019 8206 13331 2966 16297 722 2098 618 153 low guarantee 24 Summary Comparing Inspection, Spring and Fall Samples, 1917 Spring Fall Spring per cent. Fall per cent . Tear per cent. Number samples reported __ 525 394 57.1 42.9 Number equal to guarantee in every particular 354 268 67.4 68.0 67.7 Number equal to value of guarantee __ 467 363 89.0 92.1 90.3 Number within 10 per cent, of value of guarantee 31 25 9.7 6.3 8.3 Number equal and within 10 per cent, of value of guar- antee __ 518 388 98.7 98.5 98.6 Number not within 10 per cent, of value of guarantee 7 6 1.3 1.5 1.4 Number with one or more ingredients 10 per cent, below guarantee _ __ 81 71 15.4 18.0 16.5 Number with one or more ingredients 20 per cent, below guarantee 26 34 5.0 8.6 6.5 Number with one or more ingredients 30 per cent, below guarantee _ . 9 13 1.7 3.3 2.4 Number with one or more ingredients 50 per cent, below guarantee 2 3 .4 .8 .5 Number less than $1.00 per ton below value of guarantee.. 37 15 7.0 3.8 5.7 Number $1.00 to $2.00 per ton below value of guarantee 11 10 2.1 2.5 2.3 Number $2.00 to $3.00 per ton below value of guarantee 2 2 .4 .5 .4 Number $3.00 to $4.00 per ton below value of guarantee 2 1 .4 .3 .3 Number $4.00 to $5.00 per ton below value of guarantee 3 1 .6 .3 .4 Number $5.00 to $6.00 per ton below value of guarantee 1 .3 .1 Number $6.00 to $7.00 per ton below value of guarantee 1 .2 .1 Number $7.00 to $8.00 per ton below value of guarantee 1 1 .2 .3 .2 Number $12.00 to $13.00 per ton below value of guarantee.. 1 .2 .1 Number $1.00 or more per ton above value of guarantee 368 281 70.1 "nT 70.6 Number above value of guarantee per ton _. . ... .. ._ 458 354 87.2 89.8 88.4 Average deficiency per ton “Within 10 per cent of value samples” dollars .71 .97 Average deficiency per ton “Not within 10 per cent of value samples” dollars 6.24 4.06 The preceding summary shows that the 1917 inspection compares favorably with past inspections, especially as regards the percentage of samples “up to guarantee in every particular,” there being 67.7 per cent, as compared with 64.1 per cent., the previous high record in 1916. Compared with the inspection of 1916, that of 1917 shows better re- sults as regards samples up to guarantee, 67.7 per cent, against 64.1 per cent. ; samples “equal to value of guarantee,” 90.3 per cent, against 86.9 per cent. The number of samples less than $1.00 per ton below value of guarantee and the number $1.00 or more per ton above value of guarantee were decidedly better in the 1917 inspection, and manufacturers of fertiliz- er should be credited for the high standard they maintained in 1917, when it is considered that they were forced to manufacture their products under extremely adverse conditions caused by the shortage of raw materials, labor, burlap bags, lack of adequate number of freight cars and transpor- tation, and extreme shortage of sulphuric acid. While in the past years, the fall inspection has been superior to the spring inspection of the same year, no such difference exists in the 1917 inspection. Both spring and fall inspections were very similar throughout. 25 FERTILIZER MAP TABLE I. — Summary of Inspection on the Basis of Composition, Guaranteed, Found and Retail Values 26 8 8 g g 8 g 88 ^ & £ k & 53 53 53 8 3 (M CO liJ, 8 8 S88S888 1888 OQ 5 P COW^^COON 1 d O O CO LO CO CO ^ ^ LO CO ICOCOH 8 8 §£8S3^g^ a gal-o .£©02 a m cs 03 g a ^ 2 - 2 ^ Q T< +5 03 G ” 03 G 5 ft! n^oo 0 O s_ G Q a ft ft 3 8 & ci w ci + + I + ++ &Ht<55-*©in©eoc3 eo eo e<5 eo ■«* co 1-1 pun in co co >infti>in^inaooocoinco 8 CO cvl n ^■S'S 53 ft ft 03 M punoy CO CO CD r* rH 00 CO tH (M 00 co in co tM in 05 i-H rH HMOH X> |H Ci l> 00 ,q £ S5 S-t 2 go^-s *§ f? M 3 a M o o Wo * g M- Ph ® o a " punoy # 00 O N H 1 I^OOCO NHHOHMHCldlfl I llfl(N ^ ’I.) ! ft "3 ft *3 „ jy ■ ^3 i'O « • ft .ft -ft I « •*-! 45 to P 0 ! +5 M GOGoao .2 S a3 > , Oa3 , aaj'a^Sgg ft o ft *3 ft‘3 ft n o o < < <3 <50 O ! ga^ tn O !-< o3 01 CO l> 00 Ci LO CO 27 Classification of Brands which Did Not Equal in Value the Guarantee Class of fertilizer Number within 10 per cent, of value of guarantee Number not within 10 per cent, of value of guarantee 3. 4. 7. 16. 17. 19. 31. 32. 33. 42. 43. Spring Fall Total Spring Fall Total Acid phosphate, 16 to 18 per cent, available phos- phoric acid 8 Acid phosphate, 14 to 16 per cent, available phos- phoric acid 3 Acid phosphate and potash, K 2 O, 1.0 to 2.5 per cent.- 2 Acid phosphate and potash, K 2 O, 5.0 to 7.5 per cent.- 6 Acid phosphate and untreated rock phosphate Ammoniated acid phosphate 6 Complete fertilizer, nitrogen, N, below 0.5 per cent.— 8 Complete fertilizer, nitrogen, N, 0.5 to 1.0 per cent... 8 Complete fertilizer, nitrogen, N, 1.6 to 2.5 per cent... 7 Raw bone Steamed bone 1 Ammoniated bone Rock phosphate 2 Rock phosphate and low grade slag 2 10 1 1 1 2 1 4 5 6 1 1 i T 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 4 1 1 1 Totals. 51 25 76 7 6 13 Classification of Brands in which One or More Ingredients were not Within 10 Per Cent, of Guarantee Class of fertilizer Number with one or more ingredients be- low guarantee Number with two ingredients below guarantee Number be- low guar- antee in 10 to 20 per cent. 20 to 30 per cent. 30 to 50 per cent. 50 or more per cent. 10 to 20 per cent. 20 to 30 per cent . 30 or more per cent. 2 in- gredi- ents 3 in- gredi- ents 3. Acid phosphate, 16 to 18 per cent, available phosphoric aeid 2 2 1 1 7. Acid phosphate and potash, K 2 O, 1.0 to 2 5 per cent. 6 3 1 1 4 9. Acid phosphate and potash, K 2 O, 5.0 to 7.5 per cent. 1 2 14. Acid phosphate and untreated rock phosphate 1 1 15. Ammoniated acid phosphate 18 5 "*1 ’T 16. Complete fertilizer, nitrogen, N, below 0.5 per cent. 49 27 10 1 1 11 2 17. Complete fertilizer, nitrogen, N, 0.5 to 1.0 per cent,. 44 12 5 2 3 11 0 18. Complete fertilizer, nitrogen, N, 1.0 to 1.6 per cent. 2 19. Complete fertilizer, nitrogen, N, 1.6 to 2.0 per cent. 18 6 3 5 3 32. Steamed bone 2 33. Ammoniated bone 1 1 37. Bone and potash 1 39. 43. 53. Tankage Rock phosphate and low grade slag Dried manure 2 2 3 " 2 " 2 1 — — — 1 — Totals _ _ 152 60 22 5 5 38 8 The brands listed above were deficient in fertilizing ingredients as follows : Number below guarantee Ingredient 10 to 20 per cent. 20 to 30 per cent. 30 to 50 per cent. 50 and over per cent. Nitrogen 15 3 1 1 Potash . . 47 28 15 4 Available phosphoric arid 23 6 1 Total phosphoric acid 13 1 Totals 98 38 17 5 28 RESULTS OF INSPECTION A slight decrease of 0.3 per cent, is shown in the “equal and within 10 per cent column” when compared with that of 1916. However, there is an improvement shown in the percentage of samples in the “20 per cent, column,” there being 6.5 per cent, in 1917 compared with 7.4 per cent, in 1916. When compared, item for item, the 1917 inspection shows a slight superiority over that of 1916. The inspections for the past 18 years are compared in the following summary : Year Per cent . equal and within 10 per cent, of value of guarantee Per cent, with in- gredients 20 per cent. below guarantee Year Per cent, equal and within 10 per cent, of value of guarantee Per cent, with in- gredients 20 per cent. below guarantee Year Per cent . equal and within 10 per cent, of value of guarantee Per cent, with in- gredients 20 per cent. below guarantee 1900 65.2 45.7 1906 93.1 15.5 1912 99.1 5.1 1901 93.6 17.4 1907 87.1 22.3 1913 99.6 3.4 1902 96T 16.5 1908 94.8 14.9 1914 99.6 3.7 1903 93.6 20.5 1909 96.5 14.0 1915 99.4 6.7 1904 93.1 18.9 1910 96.2 15.2 1916 98.9 7.4 1905 93.4 20.0 1911 98.3 8.9 1917 98.6 6.5 The results in Table I show that of 29 classes available for com- parison, 22 equal or exceed guarantee in every particular and 25 are above the average guaranteed value, with a range of 38 cents for class 7, (acid phosphate and potash 1.0 to 2.5 per cent.), to $17.60 for class 51, (tobacco stems). Four classes show a lower found value than guaranteed value, ranging from 46 cents for class 43, rock phosphate and low grade slag, to $5.73 for class 27, complete fertilizer, potash 5.0 to 7.5 per cent. One class was below guarantee in nitrogen 0.1 per cent., three classes be- low in potash respectively 0.1, 0.1, and 1.1 per cent., two classes below in available phosphoric acid 0.5 and 0.1 per cent., and two classes below in total phosphoric acid 6.1 and 1.8 per cent. It is very gratifying to the State Chemist’s Department that in the annual summary, it was necessary to print only one company’s record in bold type. The American Basic Phosphate Company had 50 per cent, of the samples inspected not within 10 per cent, of the value of guarantee. As mentioned in the discussion on page 17, only two shipments of the material of this Company could be found by the inspectors of the Depart- ment and hence only two samples were taken for analysis. PRICES USED IN SECURING THE COMPARATIVE VALUES OF FERTILIZERS Owing to the uncertainty of prices of fertilizer materials in the open markets, many fertilizer control officials have omitted fixing values for fertilizer ingredients the current year. Since these values as used by the Department are not for the purpose of fixing the commercial values of fertilizers but for comparative purposes only, it has been decided to con- tinue past practice and the values which appear later have been decided as fair on the basis of present market condition after consultation with manu- facturers, agents, dealers, market reports and information collected by the inspectors. 29 These values will not give the prices at which fertilizer should be sold at all points in the State and should not be used for such a purpose. They are for use in comparing the value ‘of inspection samples with manufac- turers’ guarantees and can be used advantageously by fertilizer purchasers in calculating the relative values of similar brands offered for sale by dif- ferent manufacturers. The following prices were used in securing the comparative values of samples reported in this bulletin. Nitrogen, 25 cents per pound; $5.00 per unit. Potash soluble in water, 30 cents per pound ; $6.00 per unit. Soluble and reverted (available) phosphoric acid, six cents per pound; $1.20 per unit. Total phosphoric acid in bone, tankage and basic slag, four cents per pound ; 80 cents per unit. Total phosphoric acid in rock phosphate, one and one-fourth cents per pound ; 25 cents per unit. Insoluble phosphoric acid in mixed fertilizers containing nitrogen, two cents per pound ; 40 cents per unit. Insoluble phosphoric acid in precipitated bone, four cents per pound ; 80 cents per unit. Insoluble phosphoric acid in mixed fertilizers containing no nitrogen, no value. For use in determining the comparative values of fertilizers inspected in 1918 the following prices have been adopted : Per pound cents Per unit or per cent, dollars All fertilizers Nitrogen (N) 271/2 30 5.50 Potash (K2O) soluble in water 6.00 Soluble and reverted phosphoric acid (P2O5) 7 1.40 Mixed fertilizers containing nitrogen Insoluble phosphoric acid (P2O3) 2 0.40 Precipitated bone Available phosphoric acid (P2O5) 7 1.40 Insoluble phosphoric acid (P2O5) 4% 0.90 Animal by-products, bone, tankage, etc. Total phosphoric acid (P2O5) 4^ 0.90 Basic slag Total phosphoric acid (P2O5) 4V 2 0.90 Rock phosphate (floats) Total phosphoric acid (P2O5) W 2 0.30 Rock phosphate and low grade slag Total phosphoric acid (P2O6) 1% 0.30 Mixed fertilizer, acid phosphate, etc., containing no nitrogen Insoluble phosphoric acid 0 0.00 30 In order to ascertain the comparative value of any fertilizer in 1918, proceed as follows: In acidulated fertilizers containing nitrogen: Multiply $5.50 by the guaranteed per cent, of nitrogen. Multiply $6.00 by the guaranteed per cent, of potash soluble in water. Multiply $1.40 by the guaranteed per cent, of soluble and reverted (available) phosphoric acid. Multiply $0.40 by the guaranteed per cent, of insoluble phosphoric acid. Add the numbers thus obtained, and the sum is the estimated com- parative value of a ton of the fertilizer. If no nitrogen is guaranteed, the multiplication of 40 cents by the per cent, of insoluble phosphoric acid and the addition of the product thus obtained should be omitted. Example : If it is desired to ascertain the estimated comparative value of an acidulated complete fertilizer guaranteed to contain 2.0 per cent, of nitrogen, 2.0 per cent, of potash soluble in water, 8.0 per cent, of soluble and reverted (available) phosphoric acid and 2.0 per cent, of in- soluble phosphoric acid, the calculation becomes : $ 5 . 50 X 2 = $n .00 — nitrogen 6.00 x 2 = 12.00 — potash 1 .40 x 8 = 11 .20 — available P 2 0 5 0.40 x 2 = 00.80 — insoluble P 2 0 5 Estimated comparative value per ton — $35.00 To secure the estimated comparative value of a steamed bone guar- anteed to contain 1.6 per cent, nitrogen and 27 per cent, of total phos- phoric acid, multiply: $5.50 x 1.6 = $8. 80 — nitrogen 0.90 x 27.0 = 24.30 — total P 2 0 5 Estimated comparative value per ton — $33.10 To secure the estimated comparative value of a so-called Half and Half fertilizer, when same is composed of approximately equal parts of acid phosphate and untreated phosphate rock guaranteed to contain 10 per cent, available phosphoric acid and 12 per cent, insoluble phosphoric acid, multiply : $1.40 x 10 = $14.00 estimated comparative value per ton. To secure similar information for a high grade acid phosphate guar- anteed to contain 16 per cent, soluble and reverted (available) phosphoric acid and 2.0 per cent, of insoluble phosphoric acid, multiply : $1.40 x 16 = $22.40 estimated comparative value per ton. REFUNDS The payment of refunds does not wholly meet the requirements of the law and the State Chemist does not recognize such payments as nulli- fying the right of any one in the State to call cases of deficiency in all samples to the attention of the prosecuting attorney. 3i It often happens that manufacturers make shipments into Indiana in good faith, supposing same are up to guarantee in every particular and when analysis made by the State Chemist’s Department shows the mate- rial to be deficient, the manufacturer often makes settlement to consumers on the basis suggested by the State Chemist. This settlement shows that the manufacturer is willing to protect his agents and customers and may indicate that he has no intention to defraud. A few manufacturers, however, refuse to refund when their material is found deficient and the State Chemist is considering the advisability of classifying these manufacturers in a separate list in future bulletins of the State Chemist’s Department. Refunds in 1917 were made to agents and consumers, not only for fertilizer found deficient in nitrogen, potash and phosphoric acid, but in addition shortweight, poor mechanical condition and injurious effect on plants. Ten manufacturers representing 20 shipments refunded $9,172.63 to agents and consumers of Indiana in 1917. Where refunds are made to agents they are required to prorate same among purchasers, to secure receipts and file same with the State Chemist, showing that proper distri- bution has been made. SHIPMENTS WITHDRAWN FROM SALE Darling & Company — BB 7007. This shipment was withdrawn from sale on April 10, by W. O. Henderson & Co., Ft. Wayne, on account of absence of labels and was certified on April 13 as being labeled with official labels No. 6258. BB 7413. This shipment was withdrawn from sale on June 23 by Edw. F. Goeke Co., Evansville, on account of absence of labels and was certified on July 5 as being labeled with official labels No. 6258. BB 7724. This shipment was withdrawn from sale on March 13 by Geo. Rupp, Milan, on account of deficiencies of 0.1 per cent, potash and 1.5 per cent, available phosphoric acid and will be used by the agent on his farm. Empire Carbon Works — BB 7762. This shipment was withdrawn from sale on September 27 by Carl S. Culbertson, Vevay, on account of being misbranded and was certified on October 3 as being relabeled with official labels No. 6815. Federal Chemical Company — BB 6781 and 6782. These shipments were withdrawn from sale on March 28 by Waldron Supply Co., Wal- dron, on account of disagreement between guarantee on sacks and official labels. Jarecki Chemical Company — BB 6687. This shipment was with- drawn from sale on June 19 by J. Y. W. McClellan, Auburn, on account of 0.6 per cept. deficiency in available phosphoric acid. Jones Fertilizer Company — BB 7630. This shipment was withdrawn from sale on September 19 on account of absence of labels, and was later certified as being labeled with official labels No. 5171. Louisville Fertilizer Company — BB 7628. This shipment was with- drawn from sale on September 19 by August Arnholt, Columbus, on account of absence of labels and was later certified as being labeled with official labels No. 5987. 32 Swift & Company — BB 6750. This shipment was withdrawn from sale on March 24 by Jacob Finkle, Warren, on account of absence of labels and was certified on April 7 as being labeled with official labels No. 4871. BB 6925, 6926, 6927, 6928 and 6929. These shipments were with- drawn from sale on April 4 by John A. Sheets, Kitchel, on account of absence of labels and were certified on April 17 as being labeled with official labels Nos. 6370, 5369, 5174, 5791 and 6199 respectively. Virginia-C arolina Chemical Company — BB 7447. This shipment was withdrawn from sale on August 31 by F. C. Shera, West College Corner, on account of absence of labels and was certified on September 6 as being labeled with official labels No. 6500. Shipments Returned Manufacturer Inspec- tion No. BB Date Amount ■returned tons Agent Armour Fertilizer Works Federal Chemical Co. 7713 6760 Feb. 28 June 11 1 Osgood Hdw. Co., Osgood C. H. Billman & Sons, Shelby ville A. D. Toner, Delong Fpripral Ohpmipal On. 7106 Nov. 30 Fpdpral Chemical Co. 7107 Nov. 30 __A. D. Toner, Delong Rasin Monumental Co. __ 6985 Oct. 11 1.75 Fing- Crain Cn , W^hash MANUFACTURERS’ COMMENTS CONCERNING VIOLATIONS OF RULING 12A Federal Chemical Company — BB 6769. Under date of June 8, Mr. Crady advised that this shipment, found in the following table, was pur- chased from one of the large bone producers, who was unable to account for the foreign material in this product. They advised the customer to return material to factory. Tennessee Chemical Company — BB 7657. Mr. Stewart wrote, under date of February 1, that this shipment was purchased from Texas and he can in no way account for the presence of sand, unless fiom the fact that Fort Worth Raw Bone was made from country bones which had been col- lected from the plains of Texas and Mexico, and that whatever sub- stances outside the raw bone went into the goods, must necessarily have been from the dirt on the bones. He is confident that no filler whatever was used. Sold Under Names Indicating Use of Animal By-Products Only, but Containing Foreign Materials in Violation of Ruling 12A Manufacturer Inspec- tion No. BB Foreign material present Amount approx- imate pounds per ton Agent Federal Chemical Co. Globe Fertilizer Co. Hirsh, Stein & Co. Hirsh, Stein & Co. F. S. Royster Guano Co f?wift. Xr. Cn . 6769 7560 7653 7635 7377 7500 7657 Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand [Salt j Gypsum. _ [Egg shells Sand 62 128 136 144 130 36 1 66 [ J 88 C. H. Billman & Sons, Shelby ville Boonville Implement Co., Boonville ..Edwin Wedeking, Dale A. Graves Sons, Tell City J. C. Barrett, South Bend _ Abe Bossert, Brookville Tennessee Chemical Co. . Ben Bolte, Ferdinand 33 SAMPLES SENT TO MANUFACTURERS— COMPARATIVE RESULTS BY MANUFACTURERS’ CHEMISTS Portions of 16 official samples were furnished to manufacturers who wished to review the analytical results secured by the State Chemist. On account of lack of space only a few are given herewith. International Agricultural Corporation Inspection No. BB 7000 Guar- antee Indiana State Chemist Mfr’s Chemist Nitrogen, per cent. - __ - - 0.8 0.9 0.86 Potash, soluble in water, per cent. _ 1.0 1.4 1.28 Available phosphoric acid, per cent. . . _ 10.0 9.5 9.25 Insoluble phosphoric acid, per cent. _ _ - __ 1.0 1.6 Total phosphoric acid, per cent. 11.0 11.1 Rasin-Monumental Co. Inspection No. BB 6783 Guar- antee Indiana State Chemist Mfr’s Chemist Nitrogen, per cent. __ _ _ _ 0.8 1.2 1.13 Available phosphoric acid, per cent. . _ 13.0 13.0 13.15 Insoluble phosphoric acid, per cent. Total phosphoric acid, per cent. 1.5 14.5 2.0 15.0 1.95 15.1 Virginia'Carolina Chemical Co. Inspection No. BB 6728 Guar- antee Indiana State Chemist Mfr’s Chemist Nitrogen, per cent. __ 0.8 1.1 0.97 Potash, soluble in water, per cent. 2.0 1.9 1.86 Available phosphoric acid, per cent. __ _ __ _ 8.0 8.8 8.79 2.03 Insoluble phosphoric acid, per cent. 2.0 Total phosphoric acid, per cent. __ 10.8 10.85 SPECIAL INFORMATION The potash shortage is somewhat relieved, since about 126,577 short tons of an average of 26.4 per cent, pure potash (K 2 0) were produced by manufacturers in the United States in 1917, this being over three times the amount available in 1916 and about 13 per cent, of the normal con- sumption of potash in the United States during the years immediately preceding the war. The average selling price of these potash materials at the point of shipment was $426.00 a ton. Indiana consumers are fortunate, in that brands of fertilizer contain- ing 5 -° or 6.0 per cent, of potash was sold in certain sections of the State as opposed to the 3.0 per cent, potash fertilizer, which seems to be the limit in many of the eastern states. Experimental data show that only small areas of Indiana soil need a high per cent, of potash, and the mere fact that potash is short does not mean that every consumer must attempt to purchase potash. Consumers would do well to communicate with the Experiment Station and ascertain the requirements of their soils, and by adopting the most approved methods of cultivation, crop rotation and 34 fertilization, be in a position to fulfill the crop requirements of the country- under war conditions. The State Chemist estimates that 196,186 tons of fertilizer were sold in Indiana in 1917, being 63,562 tons in excess of 1916. Of this amount 42,609 tons were sold as acid phosphate with an average guarantee of 16 per cent, available P 2 O s . The equivalent of 2325 tons of 16 per cent, acid phosphate was sold in mixtures as acid phosphate and potash; 1073 tons of 16 per cent, acid phosphate were used in so-called Half and Half ; 50,865 tons were used in ammoniated acid phosphate; 40,948 tons were sold in complete fertilizer, making an approximate total of 137,820 tons of 16 per cent, acid phosphate sold in Indiana in 1917. Consumers of the State were fortunate in that their orders for fer- tilizers were in the hands of agents and manufacturers in plenty of time to ofifset delay in shipment caused by labor conditions and congested traffic, so that very few instances have come to the attention of the State Chemist where consumers failed to receive their fertilizer in time for planting. No relief, however, as regards shortage in freight cars can be expected in 1918, and to ofifset delay in shipment and tie-up on freight lines, the consumer will do well to get his order in early, specifying imme- diate delivery. Manufacturers are expected to overload freight cars 10 per cent., which means that a 30-ton car must be loaded with 33 tons of fertilizer; a 40-ton car with 44 tons, etc. Dealers and consumers should bear this in mind when forwarding their orders to the manufacturer, thus enabling the shipping plant to fill the orders properly with a minimum of inconvenience. Wherever agents and consumers are so situated that they can handle fertilizer in bulk, they should secure quotations from the manu- facturer for bulk shipments as the supply of burlap bags is very limited and manufacturers or agents should be in a position to quote prices $4.00 or $5.00 a ton less. Consumers may expect to receive their fertilizer in 1918 in 200 pound bags, as indications are that the Government will desig- nate this sized container as a minimum. Wherever it is possible to handle fertilizer in bulk shipments, it should be done, in order to conserve sacks and to effect a saving in the cost of the fertilizer. EXPLANATION OF TABLES In considering the results and summaries of inspection, it should be noted that in the case of deficient samples, manufacturers were given 10 days’ advance notice and opportunity to request a portion of sample and time for review of the results by their chemists. Table I summarizes the results of the inspection of samples for the year 1917, according to composition. Table II summarizes the results of the inspection of samples secured in the spring, 1917. Table III summarizes the results of the inspection of samples secured in the fall, 1917. Table IV summarizes the results of the inspection of samples for the year 1917. In Table IV manufacturers having 20 per cent, or more of brands inspected “Not zvithin 10 per cent, of Value of Gziarantee ,t are given in bold type. Table V summarizes the results of the inspection of samples for the year 1917 by counties. 35 In Tables II, III, IV and V an extra column showing the number of samples having $1.00 or more excess comparative value due to the pres- ence of excess insoluble phosphoric acid, has been made necessary by the increasing use of untreated rock phosphate as a makeweight. In reach- ing conclusions regarding comparative values as shown in the summaries, this fact should be kept in mind and the analytical results in Table VI consulted. Table VI contains the details of the inspection of samples from which Tables I, II, III, IV and V are compiled together with the name of the manufacturer, brand, guarantee and found composition and the names and addresses of persons from whom samples were obtained. In Table VI ingredients guaranteed i.o per cent, or less showing a deficiency of 20 per cent, of the total guarantee and ingredients guaran- teed over 1.0 per cent, showing a deficciency of 0.3 per cent, are printed in bold type. If deficiencies are shown by all the ingredients, such results also appear in bold type. Total phosphoric acid deficiencies are only so marked in fertilizers in which the available phosphoric acid is not guar- anteed. In comparing the standing of manufacturers, Tables II, III and IV should always be used in connection with Table VI. Table VII contains results showing the mechanical condition of rock phosphate samples. All siftings reported in this table are made by the dry method. Table VIII has listed the brands of fertilizer certified by manufac- turers as being on sale in 1918. The registrations being permanent, any registered brand may be legally sold at any time without regard to its publication in this list, provided a correct State Chemist’s label is attached to packages and furnished for bulk shipments of each 200 pounds or fraction. ATTENTION— FERTILIZER PURCHASERS To cooperate with the Experiment Station and the State Chemist to the best advantage, observe the following: study the Experiment Station bulletins as to plant food requirements and amounts of fertilizer advo- cated for your type of soil. Do not accept any fertilizer unless State Chemist’s labels are furnished as required by law. (See reproduction, page 6). Consult Tables II, III, IV and VI and purchase from companies which maintain guarantees and do not have brands in the “Not within 10 per cent, of value” or “20 per cent, of value” columns, and which do not have frequent bold faced figures in the inspection table. Note that prosecutions for deficiencies are not a part of the official duties of the State Chemist. The facts are given in the fertilizer bulletins (which are sent free by the Experiment Station to any citizen of the State on request), and it is for purchasers to decide whether they will purchase of manufacturers whose inspection samples are below the legal guarantee in composition or show carelessness in mixing by having a large number in the “20 per cent.” column, or cooperate with this department and pur- chase from manufacturers whose inspection results show guarantee uni- formly maintained. Having decided on the brands of fertilizer desired, place your order early. Inasmuch as the Government has included fertilizers on the pri- oritv order, cooperate by unloading the cars promptly upon arrival. TABLE II.— Summary of Results of Inspection of Samples Secured in the Spring, 1917 36 s O s -( o o © o £©«-*©© H N © O H 1 N rt H rt ,,N H r,H O3O303©e3©©rH©tno3T»< CO- © © © © rH © © © © © © © ©©©©©©©©© r-, © © © © © © © C © © © ©03©©©©©©© ©©© ©©©©©©©©© ©©©©©© © © © ©©©©©©©©© ©©© ©©©©©©©©© ©©©©©© uoj jad aajuB -jBnS jo anjBA Aioiaq 00 ’ 3 $ oj 00 'I$ jaguin^ uoj jad aajuB -jBnS jo anjBA Avoiaq O 0 'I$ UBgj ssai jagnintf aajuBjBnS Aioiaq •jnao jad os sjuaipajjgni ajoui jo ano gjiAi jagnm^r aajuBjBnS Moiaq •jaao jad 08 sjnaipajSui ajom jo ano gjtA\.jaqnm\r o © © ©©©©©©©©© © © © © © © rH © © © © © ©©©©©, 03 © © © © © © © r-| © rH © ©©©©© ©©©©©©© ©©©©©© O © ©’ © 03 © © © rH © rH © ©( © © © rH 03 © © rH © © © CO ^ rH © © © © © ©©©©©©©©© 0 c ©©©©©©©©©© ©©©©©© © rH © © © rH © © © ©©©©©© rH © © 03©© ©©©©©© aajUBjBnS Mopq •jnaa jad os sjnaipajSui a join jo ano gjiAi jaqnin^ aajnBjBnS Aioiaq •juaa jad oi sjuaipajSm ajotn jo ano gjiAi jagging aajuBjBuS jo eniBA jo -jnao jad ot tiiqjiM- jon jaqinntf aajnBjBnS jo anjBA jo 'juaa jadot nigjiAi jaqtnn^; aajnBjBnS oj anjBA ui [Bnba jaginn^j © © ©eo©©©o3©©© ©©©©© © CO © rH CO © © © rH © © © © © ©t~ © © © CO 03 03 © © 03©©©©©©(MeO©© © © 03 © © 03 © © © ©eo©©©©©©© © © © © ©©©©©rH©© © © © © © © 03 © © © 03 © © © 03 © 03 © ©CO© ©©rHCO©©rH©© © CO h* rH © © 03 w ^ rH CO 10 CO 03 rH CO 03 rH CO © © rH © © 03 © CO © © ■ JBinaijjBd AjaAa ui aaj nBJBnS oj iBnba jaq'inn^ g «©rHQD©O3C0©rH CO © 03 rH CO © 00 rH rfl © rH © CO CO © rH b- pajjodaj SaidniBS JO jaqnrn^ 8 flSl 8 COt-O3rHC0rHeOrH©GC>O3© e0©©03i-H0> Q 0 \g s _ So rH ^ r O W -a 03 p, 03 r 03 o o • , « 03 45 o o® tSooO , 03 • ^ 3 o JtJo M u, a bicc ppp^ 3 noS 2 < < ©© ©©©©r-(T-l(M©©©©©©©©'- '- , 0 ©r-l'©i-l©'^©lftr-l©©©^^eolNr^oO©r-l©oo©t-I-l 1 -^eo© 30 co a a ■ a tj cSfi o 2 .So, - 00 |oj •> ft Z • w ~ o " 9 2 S° 6 p 2 . 1 g! ZJ ^ •2 r 3 03 E 2 o ?s.g s- 2 .s ■ 2 |c -S q §” 5 ®^ £ 2 ? a* 1 * « >-n gh g w ,2 a> n aJ S §3 rn S-| a S 2 go t a sfs| fef> ps o-s-s^iisslfe s s-glff 2 £©a = a 5 ';? 9 -£""SH« i 5' 8 b-S '3 s as -r p “ ers " © ft hjt-Sl-sWWftSSS^kPHf^KWMKl^MGOCQGQGQ&H&^^^F TABLE III. — Summary of Results of Inspection of Samples Secured in the Fall, 1917 38 S 0 R (M HtH©COlft-3©lftlOg5©^JrH© CO to CM (N - 5 03r1«^« ^ o >.El h g hQ 1 Sfl 5^5 ,§5 ^ 3^*,^ pssfjsSs.s'Sis^ghofe U S u n “ a « i> u.E3 S n ’£ 03 75 m ’35 73 p 73 2 ’33 35 *J3 33 bflGG be os be a bo bor-< os ■? •% 23 cjf-toSSJoS'SoScoOSWoS^i—,, O^ogoUoDU .Oa'gfe few feo feS fe£ feS fe § * a a a a a a as «3 2^iI^°a.s^a a .i-§' 66 ^ Oj ®SnS - —1 w A4 -S3 ?, U 3! fefl^H Wo^SsScSq’Sm" fe'^NHlB « ^ ^ © "2 5 ^ ^ © « 5 g '-g o' 5 ^i-a^^ogo^^olfe^^wg S© Jj 2 S® 1 1 SO^'g g 0 ® bo_-~ | slsl c3 | ©OHO ©rHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO © © © O © rH ©©©©©©©©©©©© O © © ©©©©©© © © ©©©© ©©©©©©©©©0©00©©©©©©©0©©© © ©©©© ©©©©©©©©©©©rH©©©©©©©©©©©© © ©©©© © (M ©©©©©©©©©©©©© rH ©© CO ©©©© © ©©rH© © rH ©©© rH ©©©©©©©©©© rH © rH ©©© ©O O © © © ©#00 05 ©. CO CO rH 00 rH r* QD rH rH ©©© CO rH rH 05’ ! 05 rH CO © 00 © I © tr ©© rH © i— I © 00 rH rH ©© 05 CO rH 05 © •>* CO 05 CO 05 © 00 © o .O O a • 5 -H <5 « 2 So O xfl S3 p a o o ftz: 5 83 § p O 6 i rrO ' g n: an h a.s Sa°® r.„W 6 o oo So ft .w on 02 ft M >> ® Wfio ®g ©i '5 o | aj r rn£ r - f. o ^ ■r U S C L, H i. =3 «3 ft ® S ® 5 £ ^ a ph •- =3 'g . . O $ 00.2 -H «g|| ©P ft II ^ a a a; S .MW 0 |°'Ep- 3*2 O <2 O .2 83 « fc ft 3 M ft ft ft - P r ® « 3 a aft o -3 oj | a g .3 ■sSmooJS n ^ r rgQ s > “ft Eh to o a o.a go p . So ftO .SP 3 CJ tyC 2 -~ a P S3 os a v ft qp ^ Sift oO H O ■ 6 83 "3 ’O Sfg o • - 1 1 ^ .a -3 p "S a a p 03 c 3 qj O p O «Wo2 ll’S 8 £ <1 C . M O ,t+2P a §5 COOJCO •r fl « & « 3 1 co ch Eh a Ise js-s TABLE IV. — Summary of Results of Inspection of Samples Secured in 1917 I 4C s 0"d[ aiqrqosm ssaoxe oj eap eniBA jo gjoui jo oo'i$ qjpa. aaquinH © tH © © o OOCOONHONHnfi © rH © © © © =g © © © © UOJ J9d 99JUB -jranS jo onpA eAoqB ©join io oo - i$ jaquinrc Oi j © © © © © ©©©<5©© 99jasjBnS jo anp?A jo -JU90 J9d oi uiqjiAY jon jgqmnfj O © © o © ©*— CO©©©©©©©©© © © © © © © rH © © rH © © 99JUBJUnJg JO 9UJBA JO 'jn9D J9d oi ntqjiAi j9qmn>j 03 © © o © ©^!©©©©©©eOi-l(NI© HCOH©©HH(©HN©0 99JUBJBnS OJ enjBA ui jBnbo jgqmnjsj CO CO CO CO - e> CO - CiONHHNrtlHNrtlCDH IO rH tH 03 Ci CO CO rH 00 O H H H Ci H tH0DtHCDrHtO03TH03 tH rH tO tH CO s o so : w ■ w m w 1 o « pq o SBlslbS. „ C3 „ CQ O r fl.: OfeOtJOao|C5ao.6 aj§ i-1 i-H ^ — 1 Sr-cO o *2 sos«sg i3i)) , a B»s«sa'S«g^g^|§t ) g gfi g- g i h vj . ^ • cj os a also! 1 « S «n « a “ « ®-S c o S f-c G sSm'S^mP’S ® Cj 53 •§ 00 a in)H 6oOJ ba cs fcfl bo bod 3 M u o+3 ◄ 8<«JgH|£ W SiS«S £ 5 .5? a « 9 +-> 2 H C 3 03 CO 03 ^ o « O d ' »° o « ®o ja^ld 13° ^ o J axq ■»-t • ca w O o a) - , 'S'§ 0 §g^ : 6o1|^68|o ^ 0 o-S^g T ,'3oO°3 tuc^^O .2 e _ w 2 ,N _N «>03ticS?c3.C(S5caW» t ,_^ O 2 rt v.kJ! - | - ) t " oiiSs 2 .S.S « « « .£ o^Jg s bcS § 2> w £ £ S|,g fcfflSuQSOeo^cu^fcS ’ft d c3 C3 oS ( tq H ^ Ph Ph F»h ft O C 4 i o HNHOHQ ©i-H©©i-H 05 ,©© 0 ©©©©©©©OHO O OOOOOO I-I O O I-I O O 03 O O O O O O O O O I-I O eClrH 05 rHrH 03 ©(MCO©i 2EH OQ o .2 *** x c 3 EhoqO O i q Q . o . .0 •«o M i?°§ 62 % h. •pCC m 3) -2 a,' a « ios C 5 M WWW o C 3 bo 1 r* £&< \S 6 .S g© — ■ a o Hpq do ^ oo° fH fH OJ • a) ai m ' N 3 « o o o5*« ■a O.W « w a 1 2 >M o' to g a a §*.2 T 3 X} +H a a a « o 1 • - 7- x, ;flga OS 3 a >5 2 H C 3 MS S-a £ 2 . o +s W *6 f-» a; 02 S3 Nr;, ft 0-2 M m s:e «Q “a b $5 S-P 3 fl 3 Si 05 O WWW «o O 03 w o Wc n WX3 g lo ** 00 £ r w WGQ rfeW . ~-go O i-S® 0 Q rt a ^-2 Q .a a a-S cs 1 ^ 2 0 g 1 33 . g«2 00 h w, 3 « « ga d d°° 0-3 3 . (h N pg a 3 U *d <30 bo (h .2 N ! w a 05 a, M 34 a» a, S S s w w w w :PH 3 1 . ^3 a* O r -1 a, O l .2 -a T 3 9 H «5 33 1-3 > 5.0 : s a ® o 3 hB5«KKK 335 ; I a o. t»cea2< ; os O (3 O a 30 T) „ 2 o WO . . OS — 1 o o bo g 0 0 £ § °6 °8 -2 ^ ^ .H2 03 02 o» CD a S *3 fl ? -H .2 3 2 « 33 00 - g jq a; *r; o P +-> -m qPh 2 £<3 3 £ w oooooc>o©oooooooc>i-hoc uoj jad aajuB -jbhS jo anjBA Avojaq 00J# oj O0‘S$ Jaquinj* ©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©rH©©©©T-H©©©©©©© © © © © © © uoj jad aajuB -JBnS jo anjBA Avojaq 00'8$ oj O0’S$ jaquinM ©©©©©©©© ©©rH©©© © rH © © © O © rH © © © © © ©©©©©©© uoj jad aajUB -JBnS jo aniBA Avojaq 00’S$ OJ 00' 1$ Jaqranjsj ©(N©©rH©©eq©©©©©©©©H0^(N0(NTMC^HCC aajnBJBnS jo aniBA jo 'juaD jad 01 uiqjiAY jou jaqninjsj ©(M©©©©©©©©(N©©©rHrH©©©©©©©©©©©©©©rH(M©© oajuBjBnS jo anjBA jo 'juaa jad oi uiqjiAV jaqmn^ © CO © © rH © © 03 rH © © © © © © © 03 © © © PI CO 03 © © © rH © rH CO rH 03 © 03 aajuBjBnS oj aniBA ui jBnba jaqran^ lrt00 03COP3!Or*l>inTH©©rHaQ©©©tr000300030>©-#03r*rH©eOeOrJ<©© 03 rH 03 I- rH rH rH rH rH M rHN jBjnoijjBd ^jaAa ui aaj -ubjbuS oj jBnba jaqranj^; W(MCOHC500W(MHl>^N(MCONlftOi(MONOOONrjN00lNginHO-H(NinHO<0U5®Or ©©©©©C0©®3rHrHt~©COM©0£>©Ht<©©CO©^tr®3trO3rHC0rH©03 00© Suijdg in^NMMM^NWMHaiOlI3t'O5HMaMMNU>l>e0NiaM©J>WlO!ONM rH CO rH rH OHr County Allen Bartholomew _ ___ Benton Blackford _ Boone Brown Carroll __ Cass Clark Clay Clinton Daviess Dearborn Decatur Dekalb . Dubois Elkhart Fayette Floyd Fountain Franklin Fulton . Gibson Grant . _ Greene Hamilton Hancock . Hendricks Henry Huntington Jackson Jasper _ Jefferson Jennings 43 inONOO»OOOOOOOlOOiflOHCiOONOM«!DlflHOOHHMOHHOHOMM^HOO 108 eoOHNrlNONOOOHNOi'MNMOHNONMMMH^NOHHHOOOeoOHOO^^NCOO a 5 1 649 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOi-lOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOrH "1 OOOOOOC>OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC>OOOOOOOOOOOOOOi-iOOOOOOO CO oooooooc>ooooooooooooooot-iooooc>oooooooooc>oooooo rHOOOOOOOOOOOi-HOOCJOr-IOOrHOOOOi-IOOOOtNOOOOT-IOOOOCXMOrHO OOHOONOOOOOONOOMHOOOOHOMMTjMClOHHONOOHOOOT-'OH.'Ofl s OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOrHOOOO00 in' OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOrHOlMOOOOOOOOOi-lOOOOOOOOfMOOO 03 03 OC>©©©rH©©©©©©rH©©'Hti©©rH § NONOOHOCOOOO'#HHiiOMOONHlflMNMflOHMHOHHHOlOMOOMiaSHM 03 LO ©OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOr-tOOOOCOOOOCOOOOOrHOOOOOON CO g _ 1 8 a 5> HOHOOfNOOOOOOCOOOMHHOOHHO^MlflMOOHMONOONOOOHOMHHH ©H*t--e0eOl>rHme«3H*iJ>H»ir-iQ0;Dffl)H}3 00rHe0b-COe r-( r-1 rH CO i—l HrtMlSHH HHNH HHH M^®HMT)iHMHN®'!tl®0'ii^e<50MN100Sl>«ONC>(NK510HL01fl00 05 N5SINt'HHMOH!Dni ^ rH CO 03 03 r“H rH rH rH rH rH t-H t-Tjioocoeo05THifleO'#i^'^i^ioo«o^mc^'^iccit-NM©gJ05©t-QOcoOimej©giOiC»5 05r-i^it^Oi«ciO© NOCOC4'OiMHMOMXinHlflON005N©OJ(MTjllOi-lTtieOI>r-llO©eONC005 rH r-1 1M r-l r-1 r-l rH rH rH rH 525 | Johnson - ___ -- Knox __ __ Kosciusko .. — Lagrange __ Laporte Lawrence - Madison .. _ _ _ Marion _ Marshall _. __ _ — Martin Monroe _ _ — - Morgan - — _ - Newton _ . _ Noble _ . Ohio _ __ _ __ ___ Orange Owen _ Perry _ Pike - - __ Porter Posey _ Pulaski . Putnam . - Ripley Rush . _ . . Scott _ ___ Shelby Spencer _ _ St. Joseph _ _ _ __ Starke . Steuben _ _____ Sullivan __ __ ... Switzerland Tippecanoe Union ._ _ _ Vanderburg _ _ _ _ Vermilion ___ Wabash Warren _ _ Warrick ______ ___ Washington _____ Wayne _ Wells __ White Whitley Totals I TABLE VI. — Report of Inspection of Fertilizers Collected in 1917 44 &?■ •juao aad o. §2 A O Hi ctf •41100 jad ‘aiqniosuj CO CO 00 Oi N H ^ ( H H H H N (N M i 00 05 05 dod HNO (M CO tO CO H H rH t-H t— I C<1 05 c<] to OHH •}uao aad ‘pa^jaAaj puB aiqniog OO®ONO>WC0Ot'0>t'ONr~OIMOHOOO^OOO'#'>J(O'#'#OONt>ONI tO^dt'tOt'ffltOt-OOOOaOOMUnPldHOHOHdHCOOONdNtOMNdHHodH •}uao aad ‘aai'BM. ui aiqnios ‘o s X ‘qsB^oj; OOHfflOi •juao aad odoho^o* OHHHNNl aoNtooocoooooifflooooaooHOo HNNHHHNHHHHHHOHHrH •}uao aad •aAijo-e puB aiqn -los aa^-BAi. ibjoj. 1 1> ! d d d i J> os J> odd •}uao aad ‘oiubS -ao ajqniosui ja}-BM. aApoBuj co in ! d d d ^ 00 GO C0 1 d o d d i •^uao aad ‘s^bs BIUOUIUIBpUB Sa^BJ^ -iu ui aiqnios aa^B Hioa « m A =3 p w > p PI rS ^ S3 bjo Pi p S' © .2 • V S c a Ora <5-5 3 C0I>CMlOtO00O5C0 riWf " — - - - - 00 o ■ CO t- J a © © i ooPh t> 'di^ OH^ l ^ ■ 00 CO CO I to • Jt>» t— I J>» I 00 1 © n 'd ^ n o 2 8 o 3 pi © 02 'T' £3 S 0 OO O 33 o w 6 d3 o£ . ^ CM CO O ^ C5 LO CO CO > i>- |> J> P P3 os a: > ^ p£ 09 +* 4^03 w Ah pq ■3 0h 1 X {h 0 i 09 35 c3 i> 00 00 I CM JO CO •ON COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOJC- toioio. co co co < JO l> JO c i£ioIoIOLOLOtocbcbcbcbcocbcbcbcb< > co co co co co c m s 5 « O u 00 X EH . „ o &a g° ft.„“ II Cr> fl , 0 ’S o 2 ^ p ti Pm ’o E-s a '3 09 £ O W t>> <1 5 3 g ^ cj • ^ a 2 ^ a a .vg 0 §sa r o.3§ o'' fn c3 ‘ opq^i-s 53 Ph > ^PQ 0 d t o, g§l QQ W „ bjo © > G P >l 09 Oi?r £l:^ |o 6 • Iw^Wod W|o o* aq 09 ^ • P 3 09 S3 , O'-sc O “P <3 P > J CO 09 . fe’H be c: „ - S 2 g £ O tS H9 ■“ M °§ = -J W rn W ~ . °M I 09 ^ Ah P * o pq . x R or . . . . W'6i> O -X <3 Pd pq sq id ^ K rjt 0 0 to ocooooooocooco O 05 OHOOH *p 0 )J 0 A 9 J pu'B ©iqnios GO 00 GO GO 0 0 oc-o oi CO C -0 CO c 00 to tri JU99 J9d ‘J9}BM. UI 1 0 0 ! ! O O O r- < 30 03 OH C> 00 1 1 1 O O O rH O rH O O inios ‘o s N ‘qsBiOd 1 r- 1 1 l 1 I- 1 1 1 1 < c > (N rH r— < rH d d d i-i •^U90 a9d 00 8 00 00 0 CO 05 to to i>* 1 LO ! to •gAijoB puB 9iqn 00 00 to rH CO 00 to 1 to 1 i> -108 J9^BM. lB}OJ, rft rH d d d d r^r^r^ d rH ! d 1 d ■}U99 J9d ‘OIUBS (M CO CO O to rH 0 1 CO l 03 J9^B AV 9Ap0y d d d d d d d d rH d d » d ! d •}U99 J9d ‘otuBSao 05 00 CD to r-H to 0 0 to CO S§5S to 83 1 0 1 co 9iqnios J91BM d d d d d d odd d d ! d ! d •^U90 J9d ‘S^BS T* 00 00 co Tjl O to 00 CO CD CO rH CO 1 0 1 co BlUOlUUIBpUB S9^Bjq (N rH rH CO O 03 ZO 1 C3 -rii ur 9xqn^os J9 ^b^\ d d d d d d odd d d 1 d ! d aa '°N uoijoadsui •ON IBPIJJO © © \% 4 I I ft I ft I I - „ -i r a r d53 r do3 , a , o _ ftoftoftooftoftOOO tuo=ft tuo4=! suo=s4h &<)=« bo4^^«M a 03 T3 « ft ft Q fcflift 33 ^ 33 *ft 'ft ^ 'ft 3i *ft “ftftftftftftftftft ftoftoooftofto fcuo 4 =i teH tuo >3 £ o © o a> eo 03 rH 1—1 c£> t-t- ,£S iftS ) © *H iQO © w Zs ^ X tifl 03 S 3 ^ bflOH ££ £ S 3 <33 03 ojz;^ (NO5 00 > zo CO CO CO CO < J>]>- O O g ft 33 m ft 33 tj ^ M M 2 dx os tScn os °o ft a _• 3 -ft ® s ,s? a 2 «3^ 3 23 5 I a o ft 63 a«- ■2 a^ § So -ft oq • 1111 | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cxj 1 1 1 1 i ^3 1 1 ^ 1 1 1 1 ^ 1 1 l+f 1 IQ 1 14-3 1 1 1 1 . , 1 I 1 O 1 1 Z 1 1 Ah iiii^iiin,i | »ii© ! 1 1 1 1 » 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1111 o O ® ; - • ft A ! © CO Ur o g ft £2 SM ft ft! ao oi o3 3J W ft § W o M ’-ft t« 5 33 q ft S o ft .5 "tg S^sg ftjodW a^* 33 o (ft O |3 *b S3S ft-S M § ooM ft3 -ft ft" is O - S£i Is' ft 03 T3 ^ TI3 ^ ft ^ ft ft 2 ft 2 ft ft ft o ft o o tUOfti 6u0«ft.ft 2 5 03 ft PhO hmmm I -^< „PP s >» S «J ft o3 ft W ft ft b <3^W. g 2^5 BO < >> ft X2 a! s ^ 8 *f o eQ ft S ft" 9- Pi o a la pftol •g bflQ o ^ ◄ a .S£. PI OS^J®^ gg-o?- .S X3 <30 g.£tf C < 47 O 03 in NOIH NNW ,M^H 010 '#lBOWOl(OWOHOO®OHMOfflOOTllT|(l>lflfflON 01 t«l>OOOt; 0'#00 ddddn os l U 03 WWW I a 2 >a I o a o \B%8 I 23 & 'WOhDQ i 2 > O I 03 © P ;wt>w 3 ^ ■ft © “.a 8 03 A~i Ah ^ ’S m I Cl CO O £ Cl I 03 a •£ o 83 15 g 8 £2 I > S-,.2 M iO W WWO li 03 rj 3 o tUOH-l O03OM O O O 00 CO O CO 03 N d CO CO 00 00 2 a s 2 cs S 3 o O a O &fld -a i © © I CO 03 S3 S3 Pk fL, MOM 3 S 3 SS J> J I O 05 I GO 00 - j CO 00 ■ J> ■ CO CD (M ilOHN » i"H 05 > J> x> 05 C 5 C 5 00 00 00 G 0 OOOOOT-HrHT— ICOCO^^tJ''^^^|-Ol 010 lOjDlDLOLOCOCOI>^-g 5 lgjO :iiii§SS§§§§§!§iSi!iiIi§!!!i36&ssfesssfc o<% §1. ■§?! 'aj W O . 5 ? o • .C^W Cj * * 3 « O C/i d 4- ^ OJ “ O Gk tlCG S’S’ilS* Q 3 W Q ^.3 m O . oo m 3 § « § d 3 o H bu t- © .a W * o * * I 72 P SS w3 . 03 o & a cc a * o* o W W ®-W .H . axs 2 .03 o O d ^os; * l|il|laiii §>mfMsgf£j . S • Ok O • O . wo 2£; o* * *■ ®* W P 1> 05 05 i|!{|©J§ ) CD c 3 <^3 H C 5 g .2 a ®h 4 h S'oSmV gi-jgflO o* o* W W W , M- 03 k Ol .. ’ © as E-'-a*' o ^ 9 g 2 £n O ri o S _ o. ca a .Si o 3° « 83 o « -o a i— i ft rj a . « a S © O ‘S hH ^o ^ ft >, a a „ a .2 o -o o a Sips sl!&§ O HH> Q . •c 8 £ 3^ <1 a rH 35 S o d o « ©2 ‘3 a © a 03 x 3 cq © U jv gS5f i«§i a cd r2 C3 S»Ph >, •s ©H H >>UH tU) © © « £ a © * 3^ a a r © - 3 o, S? d w ftW Q w .S w d -a k a 2 ‘3 § 1H ° rrH ©O'© Ci H 8 CO © _© c 3 Oft O g s $ cj a a 02 72 W * t- ® TABLE VI. — Report of Inspection of Fertilizers Collected in 1917 (continued) 48 so •}U9D J8d TB*?£ CCSr- 06 to CO cinoco •;uao J 8 d ‘aiqniosui ooniflffiONON o®OMooO'#oooo»®ooo!Cie NHNOHIMriNdwHOdd'icid •JU 0 O aad •p9}J9A8J puB ajqniog ooaowoaoco OrHrHOrHddoN oiooaoooHi'OMOHUL'iMo odr- ; '#^'#odcdo 6 r-^o 6 o 6 ododr^dt^o 6 . ‘}U0D J0d ‘J9}T3M. UI ©iqnios ‘o s X ‘qsB^oj; © o> IO IM ©OOrH'^©CMrH©«a-^r-eICOI.NioO •}U80 J9d TBJOJL Ht< t* rH Os CO d CO cd N pi H cot'-ooioooo>©oooiinooco HnnHododondd •}U00 J 8 d ‘ 8 Al}OB pUB 9iqn -ios j 0 ;bai ibjoj, 00 B 5 00 J> CO t* tJI IO rfl H* © o H* rt< © © © © rH © © • 4 U 00 J9d ‘oiubS -jo ©iqniosui J0}BA1 8AIJ0BUI CO CO 00 rH odd © rH in 10 00 r* 00 d d © © © © © © © © •}U0D J0d ‘OIUBS -ao Biqrqosui J84BA\. 0AIJ0Y © 10 CO © CO IO rr CO odd© ©©©©©©© •}U80 J0d ‘oiubSjo Biqnjos J 91 B M •^U00 j0d ‘S^JBS BIUOUIUIB PUB S0;Bjq -iu UI ©jqrqos j9^ba\ I> J>- C 5 (ON © © d IO © odd rH © 00 ag PhOQ 8 S3 ©3 0 •s I g* £Wc i !o | ! 1 1 ! ! « j S 3 ' j ! |§T 3 ' bo d ! 0 2 © 9 1 § 0 0 ’? tS 3 d ! d f> lop W ■ ow 'OgW Q .2 o •gs fl’sl'g □ r-w if. rA u fH 5 0 X 3 m 0 0 .S ^ O M CO O ^ O M O OMOW WOk iioioao I 2 fr 1 01 co 05 00 p 00 Ci .. nt» 00 JD^OO rc l: da o o O O O O ooooooooo ^Tjtrti^cpcOOOCOOOOOOOOOOCOOOO O C O O O 1 O O O' C^> rH r- < i-H r— 1 r— 1 t— ' 1— H t — 1 i-H 1— < r- ' rH ojaaQO^aojc^aoiooictnoLTLOLOLoift (M(N(N(M(M^IM(M(NN(N(N(MOOWWCOWCCWCC d'o <3 1 ©5 ^ ft C 3 Q) S^.s O 3 33 OKU , © d.dW o c. a § « Hi S m /e ■ o gol d - H 52 css fc ©^ Ew O ® O ■g'Ojg® g"|fe % 83 **?"“°" pH C 3 S o gw d c Wo <3 W.d i oe * c3 1 W O (3 3 03 - . d © . W w . © w bo o •EL) d 13 2 og imOSc ; •So. 1 l-. d O j ~ o tut- ‘ . L W . :hj^oC 4860 49 ONCOO r- ^ os h V, « /M lOHNHW^00 05Hl0HHW^(Nl£500 00WiOWHMOlOI>l>NWN- -W00O(MOOtOOM i rHOOO00HMinO(MNi odincodoioidoNNdooooooooi^cJooddddoioor^co^dHdoro^n- fMOOwdcoiM-^-f ’f i OMNOOO' OOr-HONO^WOONN O o o o 00 00 00 O 05 00 r dodrlddi CO 05 C5 C O O 05 05 00 O 1 HHOcdrii lOOCOOOCOOQOOCOOOOO 00 05 H O H 00 O O i ddHHHOHHi ^NOC5 i o r— lo oo oo lo i dodo ! © © 00 CO o d o d loo oo co 03 lo CO J>» LO CO d d do J>» LO IQ odd o o o o CO 03 CO 03 d d d d CO LOGO odd 05 CO rH OHri H H CO CO l 03 CO d d d o iod MOO odd O O 03 rH ddod I O CO ! o d odd .^-^0 ( LO LO ■ odd odd LO 00 LO -H H CO H CO d do d IO H H lO H CO O 03 dodd 8288 ddod CO CO LO 03 rH CO O O d odd 00 O Jt>- rH 03 rH odd CO 03 GU LO d d 05 HH lO J>- H lOCO H dodo S 2 8 6oo 00 O rr CO d d CO r-l CO CO dodo «oo^ dodo O <© d d A . c3 ^ TU T3 a a a ^333 ?oo° 73 73 d 73 73 73 73 d ng 73 S^r- ■ I * —a I I I I I I I I I I I I M I I M I I I M I I I I M I I I M I w • w • w • w c3 'O c3 p O r O r O c3 , O r O r O r O ^ dddd^dd^ea^add^dddd^ddd^d 33«3333233“33«33323333“3 0 5H, 0000 H, 00 E 00 5, 000 B, 0000 E° *H «+H tuQ«4H «4H «+H «+H tU0«4H«4H tUQ *+H MH 6fl«4H MH «+H &0 HH «+H '■M 'HH tUO 'H— I p; y ^ r) rJ p p -wOOpOOOO bflS4H<«q-l .2? ddj3 03 W ^3 ocsS >» >> i^73°° dddd ! > d d d i >> d bo bo ! d rp "d p I'pd ;g§ 1 P M O f-c ! » d ! Sw i|l I O O d o . P o +» >> i M 73 I'p 03 -s ■ > 4H rrt ^3 !^”§S ill 'coWOPM >> 6 d - 2 a d m 2 pge 73 P d O > 3 OWE II Pd CP 02 S g o -2 rO-B O g ! “ I c^d ! d £ 3 ! O O =3 ■Cf^M oco 05 i co * co in £$! CO Jt- I H CO 03 LQ I CO 05 ONOtH iohh 05 CO LO LQ I 05 03 LO COJNN N * CO t>- i>* © LO LO LO LO LO I ■ GO 00 00 GO GO < CO CO CO CO CO CO « » 05 05 05 ■ • t"» J>> ( 1 H H ' £— !>• JH 1H J » CO CO CO CO CO CO co cO c o o 0 o 5 * gf=H Cl S2£ as^ SSogo <0P C3 c dd.« g-d S » 43 .5 ^ S ’S3 ^ p 3 2 53 7/vW ® d3 d5 7 « w • d Id 73 M ^ Pq O § Ofl’3 O® I aS’S’Stn^^r. P & d* d* d**d < <1 -7 d « isl III -a®, 0 S 02 ^ O . SW<1 ; « o ® J-ao b 2 ‘-5 bn 2 , sh d •P r^’d P ' pH d ® , d bu' r-i d d fr 02 _ O „ T3-*. S-oOpn SwWW^I d * Po ca q d s v O •a ® O d H d^ifi .2^ 0,2 id|> . ® 02^1 h ® EsO 5 d 73 shwk; g §3 d C | SSlS; d O m O bfld £* - — , a CLi c ^02 a 1:3 X! " O M S' 3 d ^ d f o3 -£73 , md O® I'd t> P-i ^ "ifo Sjj.1 CZ2 dg « 03 SM 2 Purchased from Edw. Billman 15 Purchased from W. F. Myers 13 Sample to Mfr. Refund (see page 30) is Returned to Mfr. (see page 32) 14 Refund (see page 30) TABLE VI. — Report of Inspection of Fertilizers Collected in 1917 (continued) 5 ^ Phosphoric acid, P0O3 •^uao aad ‘I^oa, 14.0 23.4 14.0 17.9 20.0 21.1 28.0 31.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 1 » 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l l l 11 l l 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 •ju99 aad ‘aiqniosui toto^cocototnr^ dddddn do i 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O GO O CO tO 00 1 1 (NNHWNCO l l 1 1 OOOO^COOCOHOCD COHdCOtOcicOCOHN •juao aad ‘p 9 }a 9 Aaa pup aiqniog 14.0 14.3 15.3 13.6 14.7 14.1 12.0 11.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 oooH^cooamoooooooojotfl oooooocoo-*d^odrQo6ododi>Good 1 1 •JU 90 J 9 d ‘aOVBAV UI aiqnios ‘o s >I qsB^Od; 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 II O T* 11 to to 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i KM^MtCMNOO 1 1 l 1 1 idddoHOrirH 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 •;u8D aad ‘lejoj. COOlQOOlr-iai'^lO ddddriddo in co co in Irt 00 < Cd Cd © ! •}U80 J9CI ‘SAipB pU'B 9iqn - [os aa}BAV ib;ox }U90 aad ‘oiwe3 -ao gjqniosui aa}T 3 AA 9 Apo^ui •}U90 aad ‘oiiveS -ao giqniosut aajPAi. 9 A l} 0 v •^U90 J9d ‘aiucSao giqnjos j 9 }b.m. •;u90 aad ‘s^bs nruouauBpuB S9 ^bj^ -iuui ajqnjos aa^w lOWONlO do odd CO Cd Cd CO CO ddodd © © © © © CO O (M CO © © © d 00000 00 00 Cd Cd dod in to co odd m cd Nhh odd 1 1> © I d d odd SS 3 o o O) od r O p CJ r O p O r O 73 a) 5 33 s o tuoS 2 33 3 o bl)S a ; 1 S3 T3 S3 T3 fn a ^ a * 3 « 3 ^0^0 fcuO«M fcJO'w CO |> J> Ci o d d d 00 00 Cd i-h o d c3 TD S 33 3 o bcS PI T3T3 S3 ^ *0 o3^^3 c3 332232332 oo?oo?oo? m-i «w bx)^— i 1 bfl«H» >» I «H o Ol 'PH COCO 1 in x— cd IHHOO I t> t- 3 3 O O a a >> >> 3 be o 1 .a a * & 'Hco 3 I 3 beg 0 a a : a ^ >j 1 >> 'w 'ON repIJJO iHHHHHlfllfl 1 CO CO CO CO CO GO 00 I 00 OD 00 00 OJ Oi Oi 88 CO co 1 10 to , zo CO LO to • i>j>LOtototototocDcocoir^i MM . . ,^ r CO CO J>» I> 1 JLOlOlOtOtOCD^OCOCOCO' 'tototoiototototo 0> V Sa fn & * „N pq a? 3 £ O £ Pi F=H C3 s s *S 6 So >> 3 ~ C3 S3 ^ °D 3 u 3 ^ a s 2n ^n p 5 2* 03 S3 O an « 1 a? ^ o o QQ o o QQ f-i u ao a) N N 5 f-H P-H J3 P-H S-l 1 cd o)^ a) a) .H o .73 Fh £ 0 ao PH n 'h l ao g ao a> a 2 o II a=n 3 « 3 3 W 3 3 ?q.acifln_,cqfl * 03 * * S * o on feoa >.n O bj O r^, a pq w -“pq^.S H pq Eh ^ H H M 5 i o ' 03 O 00 05 • cd cd o co o o o 00 CO H (N M 0 «-;OH O ICWIOIOIO OlOOCOOJOHOCOOOMN cDNwcoHoioiooodooH OlftOOON •^lO^INCO OWOOlf3»"OCMOMX)O^OOlM ^LOOCDOO)CO)HHOOOCOWO) i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i ! 000 1 i i i i ; ; ; ; i ; ; ; ; j MrH ; i i i i i i i i i 1 1 i i i i i i i i i i i 1 0(0 CO P- 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I T— CD O O i i i l i 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l l 1 l | i 1 l I | | tot-ao ' ' ! oo o in ?o oo oo i ioonn- ^ co odd 1 1 1 1 1 05 I CO 00 1 I 1 1 CO CO 1 00 CO l 1 1 1 LO rH l O O i i l l rH 1 l i 1 | 1 III 1 1 i © cd i i i i © 00 1 CQ 00 iii^r-iiOlCOiOCOO i T-l ic3c» >> ill • H <3 •Ooq I LO i lo r- I LO O) c ° 5 *-• b w <35^-- w o O cs 0-2 QWO ) 00 00 CO co CO I N N Ol 05 05 ) LO LO CO CO CO W (N 00 00 00 00 00 l> N 00 00 (N Cl (M CO g5.OiLOLOLOLOLOLo CO^CJ(MOJW(MI-N^NNN COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO E? as 03 C3 Oh} LO ol Jt>* CN 3> iv J> J 'O'O S3 a o o o « ss I O fH S O) a I >sh a !.S o SD I LO Tft :§S8§8 'COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO' opq >:£ a a S3 Q. a co ° I r i I. S 3 .S O g S3 a> O.-^ .a .m£*s 83 M S^ssts hC^BW £* * s* * s« 2at;g 2“ n ®m „ a o a 2 a '5^ <13 «W!> bjo o o go o o H.2 - a t»X3 a a a w a 2 a£ cH O a > %§ o g2S1s|g Q«£o^g tr^lriSs^ .2flO * * .5?* I. MOo £ bXJM a fe® ^«8 >» *H a g a £ a o IS °s a a l§J a . £ “ j2> a i§* .T3 j§ a a o * pq a 83 fi-3 & ® 2 NSW -jal . -*> p^k H M Hi a .S^£ a'O 4 a ‘5 o O OO a o.aa •rH CG *^h 4-> o +* +* H H H CO fn CO 05 O) a2 fl S3 "* » ® N M2 . .2 o .a g h w ^ im W * ’£ ^ o 5 *5 *5 ft c td h'O -j- ^S^gg>SSgS^. ^o ao^oo^o ® o a "S OH iH(N OOJQOWOOOOOlflOl CDOOf^COCOCiOiOrHI^OOr lOHOJNOOOOrft^OONN lOOOHOOOOXOiOHNO CO O CO O 00 i c *}U00 JOCl Ul oiqnios ‘o c :i ‘qs'cioj tMO O LO 10 i I OX rl ndrldo i iwdd •}UO0 J0CI XNINOOO^M 00 O O Ori H ^X^HOXOXNOXH inohhhohohooh •}U00 *10Cl ‘0AI}0T3 PUT3 0iqn -\OS J0}T3Ai o o o o oo oo in dod *^U00 aocl ‘oiiruS -ao ©iqnfosui joit3ai ©ai^o'bui r- co lo d d X OX (M CO CO I ZD ■'H rji o o i d d d o o NM tJi dod nu30 J0d ‘OTUtjS -ao 9iqn{osui J0}T!A\ 0AI}0y dodo dodo CO X H i d d d -H 03 d d '}U00 J0CI < 0[U'b5jo oiqtqos J0}T2A1 LO O O (M dodo CO "H 00 H WOWO ddod '11100 jod ‘S^ES 'CIUOUIUIT] put? S0;i?j; ■in ui oiqnjos J0 ?t?a\ d o o o o o HNNH dodo jn- in i os io in rd d3 d d3 d) dJ d 'o d d! d3 d d3 d3 d3 dcasHadddridddd^addd^dd^dda^g^dd^ddd ®33S333PS3333®3333®33“33353“335333 sJooSoooo^ooooSoooogoogooosJogoogooo bn-d «i-j ’■n'-H %-< bn- m ^ «_( bQ«d bfltM tw m bfl'd he'd 9 s S 3 3 O 1:3 O ^ O fcX'HJ tuO«4H hjQ *H LG! ’Ojsj; uono0dsui ft c3 II -a'^S 5 o3 > Mp^ww ngco • ode? .2 O ■m d42 ®®43 c3 W Wcocc S ft ft ^ 03 1 ?-( 1 0 43 IdJ o Iftce lO t- N- t- t- P Hi dS° MOW O O N JNMN >» 5 « « S d o w CO N- N- O 9 u o © d 'C a os d SSrd 'ON I^toujO ■ i c 8'2 oIh .Sos „ an Tr'l -O M ^ -P C3 4J CO CO o o CO co 00 00 co CO (M * O P-q ft d 'O |o^®W|5 Jr-5 . w -2 M « “ > - w r • N?- 05 > H O w OH S bjo o’ §■ ® bfl bo 1 * 1 o ® ®d - t^d®--5 42ri^d . ® C'dO^W^ftOPnCdW-ftccO * * fH**tH+* M+Nl* Q d 1 - 31 i bo d d ' d Q ft o«< xfl ° *1 ® § S « 2 JsssSsa .2 . §^! d t? ^ • d > c«ft 00 1 CO 1 CM 1 1 ^ 1 1 \*: | *1 00 co 1 1 1 1 OCOH o in M O H O CO IM LO O CO O IO i c 1 tH ! CM rH tH CM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 rH rH 1 (M 1 rH l 1 1 ! CO CO i i i 1 i i 00 rH CO 00 i 000500000 C 005 1 1 1 1 1 1 eO©-^H©rH 00 ©© 00 ©lt> 00 © O O O O O rH o co d l l i O rH rH rH 1 1 1 I 1 l i i i O O O rH rHrH rH rH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 ©©rH 03 ©©rH©rH*-©rH ! o l CO i | -+» i i CO i r- o 1 LO io ! 05 i i i i i i i i i m 1 1 — i i i i i © ij> i ! cm ! oo co 1 CO l lo co co l 1 LO 1 ^ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IHO I-# lftrf <00 ICO l 00 i in in i co i -h< © -hi i © i in ! o 1 i ! d 1 i d d 1 CO i 1 1 1 1 © 1 rH 1 1 1 1 l i i Id i o o o i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 lOO 1 rH IO©© 1 © [© 1 ! CO 1 1 1 CO 1 1 CM ! co o 1 LO 03 1 1 05 1 CO 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 LO 1 05 1 1 1 1 rH 1 O i i i i i l 00 i co 1 CM IH fM -H CO CO 1 1 LO 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ffl, © 1 © i © © 1 LO CO 1 (M CM 1 1 CM 1 °°. till 1 1 l i I I "H i LO 1 l I 1 I - i I s — LO 1 (N O 1 l CO 1 C 5 till l l III l O i l l l l I CO • 00 I i i 1 lO i O 00 co l CO 1 CO CM CM I LO 1 LO 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CM -H 1 CM 1 O rH | 1 i— ' ! Uull WUUV/V/U - | f onnrt guaranteed- found guaranteed. found.. __ guaranteed- found found guaranteed- found guaranteed. found found guaranteed. found guaranteed. guaranteed. found guaranteed. found guaranteed- found found found guaranteed- found guaranteed _ found found guaranteed- found found-- guaranteed- found guaranteed- found found. found guaranteed- found guaranteed- found. > CO 0 ) O ^ Ji © Syl g J? ftW eS a fSS 1 ^ O «M § +-> w h ® 5 § ® ap g p, sggs M Ph S 02 ft | a o 3 w «w 05 05 3 3 > C CO ;_l co g 2 5 §2 So 05 £ S ° > Q 3 ft s o.S O Sh PPAh 05 > 05 g d-O O > Ph O Q5 O PAt>PA i> x> cm o *5 05 TH - ■Cl?!' 5 CO CC CM CM J> Jt- lo lo 0105(J 5 05C 50000 HH(MN O CO o H H N (M (N CM CM CM CM ^ S Pi cd o o &gf §2 O •£ o '43 W ft c3 ft c3 03 A '3 A o q ft S ft £ Ph « j 2 « is - TJ £ £ 0 < W 2 ^ xji *E ^ id coo a P hO-s «m 3 B®h'o, £ft-< . a . nSw-g c W -§*.S 3 £§ ids! e_i 0 ■ 2 S o§ S bx> 05 CJ ftf=HH o ™ft g«| 1X1 s3Ah * >. 5 «as 03 g .^■c r/ 2 05 . 2 a Oft <5 a H s oM 03 oO^ Ph Ah’S . o O cd ® a« 2 ^ ® 3 Ph C . . Ph O ftCOOfthA a a w w 3 05 O ‘ 05 S +3 -2 02 02 1=1 fl X 5 X 3 o o ft^>^ S 3 * ’S. AA a o 02 >,T 3 (N Pg •« 03 1-1 O ft -^-P § ft-^ 03 o 03.2 ftftj OX O “ ° o 3 ifta^W ^ . • S | 0^3 SrJ X ft CO rj CD tfi fl o P „ o® o «02 a 1-1 t>> ft_ >>_ . 05 tD 'O 05 'O 53 2 ^ ‘ 05 hJ'^O ! ■P 1=1 p ft 2 1-1 a 2 as ft .3 Ah 55 g s' M= 3 ^co^ ^ Si'-jA^ °« . 03 . . . 23 P * * p 03 03 05 W H Ah 05 N o .O® ph ^°3 05 i— i >> c 3 >, 2 ' 3 ^ 2 ®^ 05 ft O r=lo 2 o CD 02 . p . £< 2 * od B W > * t3 * be bo c3 c3 ft ft -b 23 05 05 ■X 3 P m co 05 0 ) 6 & poo CD S3 a 17 05 £ ^ W p g g 05 >b 23 &D .S55 a 'gSS s > ” 0.68 1.07 LO o 88 d 1.82 1.19 0.90 0.73 0.75 CO o ShS o d CO 0d 00 05dddrH05OO oio omoominc^i coco ^ oo od oo oo cc »w r Oo 3 , 73 r O ^ ^ ^ ^ w ^o^oo^o^o^o bjQ«W bfle+-<« 4 H 5 fl« 4 -l tlJ 0 «M tlD e H — ( O O O © O 03 H pH 0 53 ^ S'O'd pSrjS-jOnjd-jlSo^ o^o^o^o^o^oo i«t-i bDu-i b£q-i bom tuo • 4 —i «*— i a 03 'O *2 a o 3 T 3 ^3 T 3 'C Jjcjjdcc'je 2. © 5. o o o g, e bfl«M bfl. >» +5 +i 55 i®§ , ilfl il I O CD 53 l S3 'OPH® ' CO q,a *on uonoadsui •ON I'BIOIJJO t- CO ^ J>- t-ir- I CO H CO iCi OJ> I^COCi CDCDLOLOIOIOtH^t^t^COCOCO COCOOOQOOqCTLOlOJ^t-*- LO lO CO CO CD CO CO CO CO f — CiONNM> 0 QC OiOlHHHrHOOC H H 00 00 00 00 r CO CO ^ ^ CO C s £-5 2 P S u S © X X o> © a a e ' < I f * c (^73 a a '3 S 0 - ^ cs >» ® « a «-*> © fz 5 ts fl >> O fl _ ,Q gawS^fe ftL) d ^ C3 .»2 . S la** «»id!w £sl ■§ Q. <3 HH as w CO gCG 03 i—i © W-“ ® *g ff.S 8 riK? © © £ £ tfl 3 a os a g o H'S-U-O q ©GO bfl © 'P CO w x^°8«5 p W.C .a II Itg PS* O bfl W « © ®P4 tm.Sc .a & o a-r ■ CO > ! o <® _ © . _ Ph © w 03 w >0 ie ©•r © ^ © w£w os 3 2 fl c : s 03 a .2 1— • ll a a ^ o 8°|h 0(S> © © « C © © © * 3,2 ^-5 © & B a _. o ^ 1 „ a=“ g Is ^ © caO? sz W > bo IS E S3 w S3 © C3: fa ,03 S'— ' w © > S>^ ►-§ 3 3 ©W © Pd £pt| qW 03 io lo ddddo lo h< oq co ^CO H W dodo lo co cvi CO CO CO CM o d d d co lo CO d lOCOOOLOmOhOCOCOOHO^OHOHCO (M (M LO LO (M O CO »N O d Cl (M O O 00 00 (N (M Cl OO rH (M r- -( cj 03 3S 03 33 3o3o bfl<4-. SD <4-4 X5 I d 33 o3 X3 Pi 3 P) 03,0 m tUD<4— i I'g !'§ a? a? I ■ ■ i ■ ft i ft i ft i •— i i i— i • r C5 r O p d r O 0373 ft ft T3 ft 73 ft T3 ftftsua^a^ft^ft^ft^ft oooo^o^o^o^o^o ... ... V,r.X K/3.y. K/3.X Kn.X !2 I'g | a> Id ! a 2 ^ I 3 o bC* 3 I PI T3 d

o 02 in 9 03 d 3 A! >> a a) B O 3 OOKQ WO c c 3 « >> o w B O jj h fi 3ft ► g 3 m p 03 — ps OQ!>OQ 1 00 GO O rj I 03 !SS8 1 LO 1 CO rH GQ 1> CO 1 05 1 l 00 1 1 rH I O GO l CO I CO 1 GO l 00 O 1 O Oi 1 o GO (M CO IHCOOiO) 1 00 .IS l (M H GO 03 CO i oo r- Oi l GO 1 **+ 1 00 1 o i o 1 00 1 rH I o 1 (M 1 o l LO l 00 GO 105 I J>- Jb»l> 1 GOi> l GO Jt> X> X> 1 GO 1 S K I J> 1 IH 1 GO i r- l GO 1 GO X> 1 iH I> > a >> a 33 03 *33 & -C « coM dS £ d N SO to tD 03 03 x>» J>* J>- I''- J>- M < OOClfMCl^TTiTti^-t’tCDGOGOGOOgGOGOC *“ ~ - - • - “ - ■ - lOlololololololoi i^TMOLOlOlOLftlOlOlOiCiOi COGfiNNN00 00 0505 00HHH(MN(M ^0HHHHHHHOJNIMN(M(MN(M ilOLOCOCOGOGOGOGDGOGOGOCOCDGOCCGDGO go O W Q) U ft §o^ ft.S 4J4J pft C3 *3 8*03 5 W S 3 22 'O • .* o 3 W a 3 d m 5 O* 3 H .© W — o * s§ . TO I§°a 'O PI S3 2d CO 05 O 03 g . O JH t>. M jr* 2 ^ CL, 03 * 2 M >> W a 03*' 5 o. >co -Be o o MO ft QJ Sf! 'O PI ^ bn ^ a? a 03 □■OH u ... ! . oft >* 5-2 a cl £J'S 03 S "2 J3C3w2sh23 ■ § o S 03 03 > !*|^i il L O O '"tl . • L-, *-3 t-s<4-4 Ph M MOM I * S * O W fl.2 S S S a M02 S c3 a a . 2 &fl+3> co 3 r- 03—1 o oMMOl-, • pq csM osp a qj + >1 L >»* 03 03 Q O few to d' U-H® 3 3 S £ Lh 3 ^ i— Dg|S o3 5 « M !w £^-® . £q«0 >» , * O) _ M bo 2 co 03 d ~ WrCOfl n S «. u ; 2 hj Ah : wS - 1 03 C3 dOJ'3 tuo* cu W ft W CG a s 03 p ft's n d.2 fe fe 2 g d > ^ H 83.8 C5 > «3 X ^ d o ° rt o o • 2 ° Ah ©< I 0 05 10 iodrit- lONINlOOWOOlOMrSCO^lC^Oi IrHrHrHOOOrHrHOOOOOOOrH, |COCOCOCOCO©©©©©©rH iddddoddoHodd OOOOOOOOOHOI^INOI © HHOOIMIMHH * — H >r-lOOOOOOOOOOOOrHOOOOOOOOOOOod •^U90 J9d ‘9Aip , B puB 9iqn -ios J9}13A4. IT3JOJ, |> CO 05 CO coooco dodo CO CO 05 r- tM 00 rH O 1.49 0.84 1 05 1 CO i d 8 d l tO * 1 co -jo 9iqn[osui CO CO H H T* co 1 CO TjH l CO CO 1 rH CM CM 1 CM 1 rH ' *"1 ^ 1 © rH © rH 1 CM CM 1 rH 1 JO^'BAi OAI^O'BUJ o d d d d d d ! d d ! d d ! d d d 1 © ! d ! d d 1 © © © © 1 © © 1 © i d •;u9o J9d ‘OIUBS 0500 tH 05 O rH i co o l to co 1 CM tO © l CM ! I co I © 00 00 rH ! CO rH ! © 1 -H -jo oiqniosut H (N © i 00 ! rH r?iuouiuinpuB sa^BJx O (M O 05 co co 1 00 CO 1 CO 1 •§ £ •§ ^MMte 10(N0 05 CO 00 © Tt* rr! 22 £2 Jt- £- t- t— ft 03 h-> a II 82 MO © X o 12 ft > c3 >> Pi i a> »© 1 -ft d 'CChH fl 33 *> gggn 22 3 a ch «33 » >12 gS ® 73 P 3 * o o I- rH 05 i> x> CO CO CO CO CO ■ . - - (N!5J(M(N(M(M(M(MN(M(MW'M(M(MCOCOi rHrHrHrH^HrHrHrHrHrHH^-HrHrHrHrH' COCO^DCOCDCD^OCOCO^OCOCOOCOOi^OCOt T^r^COOOOOCOCOi )COCOrHrHCOCOCOCMCM(MCM- J>- tO LO o O to to to to ■: ' •_ S w £ x ® « ft h <0 O £ 00 * 4 ) ^ Sa l| (3 £ c3 fc. P,™ . |§S 0X3 73' •a s « !««' 8 S c 33 %X3 v< &4 O R o o . 3 8 -Jag CO . S « C3“° r 1 c3 t-i gaeaflg-g . <1> o O « ^asd ! * x> * X! O O M Eh os d SSo^ al^ogo S ® =3 S .S a f-H hH^*— W « F 3 > O 03 ^ +5 > 33 .73 M O 03 Ph > go^gS'H lo||l| ft o x ra 4-^0 > o g Dpo-h . ^F< rr^O I - 03 M TM S • ■■ _ ° .d o •*-! ^ O J L 03 ^ . _ * . - k°3 < 3 ^ . o o ioo x; >> >. m ft § o ft a 32.d 33 33 '5CLCCW-3 ^ O 1 ^ ^ « j!Lj 05 d (3 73 O O M.2 ^-a.s§ «73 ^Xd-Pga). ® .d C3 Hr/) n flH •-? 3 MftnO 35 Q ft d sh'®x ®0 o3 C3 ha* K o® - , 02 o . -X® fta at-fl a Q 2 M 63 r< p|J J 3 u Q, w # « (3 S 03 ^ plfl * 2“+ CS* c3 ft Mo: ;aff-0- 57 lOOCLO I fM OJ CO © O CO o o d d o oo co ro d d d d O co HNO lO o o COON i O CO i d CD l CsJ CM CNlOl fOT)H N' lOONOOlONO^CO^lOOOOJlOOOCOOOJ 'HHNHHHNCONCOhHNNNMod^^ o»t OCJ ^ co cd o OOlCNOr HHOOHt laiioiocoLO^coioiocoioeo iddddddodddod 00 © © o ^COCvJCvJ^COLOr-lO^lOrHCOCOCO^COLO^lO^lO^LO donHoddddddddddddocodddo I o o o o i CO o -o co I CO © t* CO 10 co co o d d 03 CO d d 53 a g o bjo«+H c^'O c 3 T 3 c 3 ^ ^3 ^ 3^^53533 3 o 3 o 3 o 3 oO be'n bO'w beft boft » c3 O OK 3 1 t,jp V 2 * 3 CSS'S > ° 3 2 3 ?H £h | 0> O 0^0 '!>Ph a £ *2 c3 5 > Ph W r- r- r- © © 0000000 co co co co co co co 03 03 CO CO T-H H fH , j> r- r- 00 00 00 ( 00 00 00 Cfi GO 00 00 ( IO 10 10 IlO 10 ift LO I ^^0303030300000000 03 O1C0C0 CO CO J>- I s — i>- J>» '*H -, H LO LO LO IO IO LO <©©©©©©©©© cocococococococococoocoococo ooGOgococoooo 03 03 O O CO CO CO i>- N C^ CO CO CO C3 03 03 0303 COCOCOCOrti-Hr^ ft GO O 5 3 O ft « X 3 J© S « * ©fe 3 3 © cs ir f ,r’ © flSaS^S £2 e o .3 =8 c W Si CO *H 3 © H ft 3 l 2 S'O ' a 2 « 0 ° £s O ^ X 72-0 ©■£©» +*■03 O 02 Q S < 'C r ~ o O o <•< ' BS (h ± © C O X o xft ft 3ft 3 ! * O « '-30 fthm G CJrH Il^l SS Q, >> • o J3 g- C3 -5 S O to 7* 02 O© S © 2 ^ s © s n ,= OS •gcJ 00 3 ffl f 3 .►? 1 - ® "S s s n a as hS 0 4 ) E o o oS ^ o 3 * g 3 © C3 s s «|||p; 6 o x; b< * x 00 o o 64 Sb M S I-S ^ o ^ o ’S o»fl« PQ > ftS' Ph 02 cS w © © T-j ^ 'C VO© > ^ 4 J S « o ft ^ ? ip W 2 o o Ph Ph flli o ^ 3 o Ph >> ® « 03 &»3 §o § t- w pq SS . s^° w O ' £0 o 3 o XI PM 5 ^3 © o 73 to (U ^.22 3 > o 0 03 pq x A fe iJ® I W 2 « © B © o* o 3 0 S o o a®so © o tsd S 0332 | 2 d 8 ^ S x “ ^= 8 ^ 2 53^ > © J O 0 P 3 | o © r - © PP,o E-ioo o* O 0 . © M be 3 3 c 3 M ft OO 03 ■3 2 H 2 s J 3-3 ^ ® § ft 2 <2 3 0 © „ .«S g© .3 cc ^ ® . . X ft h S Q S cq O o O <5 © u t- 1 -, kH be ei-i ^ ■ti X X o ft © © © -t - 1 © M W to © c3 cti c3 © to X X X 000 ^ U t< tn H 3 3 3 d ft PP PP Xfx 73 3 M rtf - C >>hH © 3 73 K> O «E © ft .0 ^d s, ■§«« w ^ ft^rt bo ^ w M„coft x 2 -• © © ® — © [> cti c 3 'd .Sq^ ft p-w 'S s s s s s S O O CQ 03 o .2 *H ?H w W U CD W CQ d w 03 05 d Sh Jh cj Q.X X'O'Ox 3 * o o X X o 5 ^ ^ tj ^ d 3 3 g r 3 i 5 ft ft TABLE VI. — Report of Inspection of Fertilizers Collected in 1917 (continued) 58 aa 'ON uot}oadsui 'ON IT3PUJO 2 P 9 © © 0) K a® . © o £ ® 35 45 45 Sc. g£ "" r* fl I ft i ft S'O'g'O'a'c-a ft ts ft ts ft ts ft ft ts S ts ts S >ri S ts ts S ts Sts Sts ftftftftftftfHft&HftfHftf-4ftf-irtP-ip3rjtHr1tHr1r3S-trj&-(Mt-ir1 ?. 000000303 0 3 0 ? 0 ? 0?00303003 03030 tuO't-i tuo «i— 1 ifl't-i Sh«m Sh«m tm«M >4-i bc>4-i bfl<4-4«M bo<4H tiflsM tuo «+ci Cutler Greenwood _ Huntingburg Vevay 1 1 1 0 £> ft O Orleans Rushy ille „_ Parr Knightstown Richmond __. Borden New Albany . Boonville Chrisney Jasper Huntingburg Troy New Albany Petersburg _ Petersburg _ Boonville ___ Dubois _ Orleans Knightstown 7141 7734 6877 7767 8 3 6824 6896 7192 7814 7836 7872 7239 7562 7056 0 1 00 S iS 6936 7240 7132 7133 7561 6859 7974 7813 aifllOOOH ^.*^5J NNNN w‘c if >ifflin®toooQoo5i. SSSa^^^^ffiffiroroinwioinininintootd OOOHHCOW' 00 00 00 Ci Ci Gi Ci < § u ■” £ ft ® §-^>..a Q ^o ■ gs Ifilllll"! O -_,ft > n <=> »>i 5 . m 5 « J££To-3 A _ £-2 a.ft^ & _, 3 HOS oOS 05 XC S3 B 05 o£ !f iJiiil sail iig*tis iiJi; 2^0 o 2 Saj-rja-S ®.S n ;2M ft^S *>3^3 “S 4 SeS o 2 ’3) c3 . ©2 -fig. o * .23 o s '! S a . 5 'S^ss o »&«“« a S*2-s'§oipi;'S M 3 s1 ” S)o B 3f a Be a a® : |s , |°|P|s : p| f4,?<& |?! ,s l?l?|?|??l?|?«|P|s«« 0000 3 3 3 3 3 w 3 3 3 w C’#aOHOMOI'MOOM i lOlOOMNOt-OtJO® O CO tO OM O OS O •># oo d co H ^ n n n n d d d d o d i i oo oc o d o n d n n n (oxooohoocoo I 1 1 l i I i t 1 1 1 1 CO CO 03 03 | | | i i i i i i II | l l l 1 1 1 1 O O Oi | j O 03 J j j [ j | j H HO i l H H l * 1 l 1 | l O rH CO ! 1 O rH O rH rH rH rH 1 IHHHH 1 1 l 1 * m oo oo h- o co o o £ © © O G> CO SO HH co c- oi io rH rH rH rH ooooot-cooooooooirooocsco'^'# odi-ioooihcoi-icocio dr-ldco-^odoooooooo ©rHrH©rH©rHrHrH ! co 1 o 0.60 0.57 4.87 e d 1.32 1.53 1.12 0.70 0.62 3.48 Oi l C c guaranteed- found found guaranteed- found guaranteed. found guaranteed- found found guaranteed. found found guaranteed. guaranteed. found found guaranteed- found guaranteed . found guaranteed- found. Scottsburg Westport Scottsburg ' c ! t c | : | ^ Royal Center Royal Center j 7 ■ e «P = 5 3 < S 3 e 40 t 3 B East Germantown New Albany Rising Sun — _ 1 'i N Si iviaiAiaiiu Rising Sun Rising Sun Crothersville Morris Ferdinand Rising Sun — Osgood Rising Sun o aoyei Haubstadt _ . Jonesboro . Haubstadt i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i ! >> ! ° Henryville .. 7848 7597 7847 :s is l 00 l CO 1 JN It- 7365 6828 7979 6957 7246 7761 7306 7765 7351 7760 7843 7770 7659 7757 7305 7758 7701 7541 7884 7540 ! Lg 7232 ■ LO LO 03 03 03 : C* Oi o o o -co cc i> CO CO S 3 lOOOOOfMOKM^ - ^' )05050j050l050l0i0i050i00! IilOLOLOlOlOlOlOLDLOLOLOCOCOCOCOCOCOC COCOOJOiHH oo oo oo oo os a> ^^COCOCOCOCOCO £ 3 bo 'H "s-l ,Q £ cd u >> o cW 0 g . cb O'-’ ss O o Sh Sr 'd t) OJ 0 ) to CO 3 3 P 4 Ph o o ,C s- « TT | O s° c c Sr 4) . > .a £ .2 o ; sn r®o 5 o t-s ftO SO • O • Lu • > w .£3 . Jllp .Si a * o * M O O 'go o 5 o r 6o o ^ •;uao J8d ‘l^^oj. •;U0D J8d p,^ ‘aiqniosui gtf ft 'o •;uao aad ft C3 ‘P0^J0A0J pu'e aiqnios •1U80 J0d UI ©iqnios ‘o 5 a: ‘qsB^oj; •;u0o a0d •;u0D J8d ‘8AI^0'B pur; 8iqn -IOS J0}13A1 I'BJOJ, on © co cii^dd NCOINN o 05 o^o^oo NNOHOO OCOCNOOO O CO O H 1 cd 00 oc © ■ OWfOOOOlOTHOtOOOlOlOtOlfJinHI HOOHWNNHOOOHCOHHHfiNi OWNOi CO CO CO O' lOOOOtOOO^OcOh i c io w in id irj lo io d u: 1 O ft O T-H i i i i i 1 O O LO CNI i on on h ^ i i 1 lOhhOOHO 1 CO KM CM rH r-H r-l O 1 1 - i i i i i ! i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i CDOIOOOOOW^OO W J>Nt>OlOOh- HHOHOHHIM doMMHHN<- OCOHNCOHOOQO onondododr-Jd ^lococci>j>oooooo ddddddddo io o J>- d oo 00 d 00 on T* d on i on CO 1 rH on i t-1 co rH 05 1 HH CO O l LO CO on i d d LO co o HH CO CO odd ft CO 1 J> H © h- i ^i iji ft in m ft ft i ft c> ft d d LO (M d CO d on CO d s d 00 on d 88 j§8 ft ! d CO CO d rH ICON LO 1 rH On d i d d 0.45 0.34 0.50 ON I CO CO 05 CO HH 1 on on rH on on o o i d d d d d 00 d to LQ o on d o co d LO j CO on i d co CO d • lo i on ai 05 1 On rH rH 1 O O 0.19 0.30 0.16 co on i 05 05 05 i> rH On IHHHHH od ! d d o d o 0 01 d to o d CO CO d co on d i i i 00 1 co T-I I CO d i d on o d CO l CO rH O 1 O O d ! d d 0.26 0.15 0.01 rH 1 05 O HH CO O on on i h on co on hi d d i o d d d d a> a; -M 4J ^ 4^ 4J 4ft» 4-5 l-M j ft-» didldid! Cidididid -a |t 3 ! lx! ! | Its © © © © « !® i !® ! ! !® 0 ! ft I ! ft ! ! 1 ft a? a> a I'S ! i ! i !| 1 ! ! 1 i TO l i i l • n i i i i bX)«4H bXl'+H tuD'f-i ^3^2353 ^0=30^0 = 0 tUO M— I bfi'4-l tUO'W fcUDM— I gagftftgftftft p 2 d LL C V X 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i i i i 1 • 1 1 ! 1 1 l 1 '© 1 1 1 1 | M 1 I ft i 1 ft © 1 1 1 1 1 1 ; 1 i ; i : ! ' ! 1 *. o E d o ft 1 1 1 1 i 3 i d | » i © !’> i >» j o i > ! >» !® ! 1 1 ! i i [ i 1 03 1 1 1 1 ! O is ! >> io is § Hft bD © i-i I2S.O ®sg :o «s 1 'ft ! ft ' 03 I ® r o '3 ft \&£ :|-o i-g o2 © ft ° a il ! S ! ?. f-4 d O ! O 1 o l-ft ' ft o 1 bJO ! ft jj-j ft-9 ! © x i-M i w ft o 1 ~ o 1 S' 0 i O Fh i?5®--§io +J o 05 05 o V) Ift l CO i on 1 ^ 1 00 :s 1 05 1 rH 1 LO i co 1 o l O I CO 1 Hh 1 00 i CO 1 CO 1 rH LO i oo on IIO H H 1 05 O CO l 00 1 C5 CO l co co c 1 1> i x> i r- i 1 I> l JN- l 1> l co 1 1> 1 co X— 1 CO J>* i>- 1 x> i J>* x> , co co co co x> iOHHCOCOCOCOlOlO(M(MOJOiOi(M(M(N(M P 'O - - /. X ) i^t^i>x> ^cocdco^o^o^oocooco^oco o Q. D DC a e | a °33 * ft 5 ® © © ® «D I ® 6 s~ 00 » © © a a g a c n -d“ c a ,3 ® . -£ 03 . ® >>X3 2 -ft cg Ph ® £3 3 3 o3 tc°^ Q ft s- o cog 2o£ h_ ft r*«J C 3 « CQii S 3 .2 ? ® >• * ft 2* ^ S' O 2* sg 3 * 3,33 ft^^ wOQ^GQ © g © S £3 E^rK S^l Fh Fh CJ ft ® C3, cl 3 's: ~ ® ft _ a* § m sS-sifl © ft OQ 2^ .a ® -ft 2 oP ft ® _ O t-®SQ ftco w d rrt W c3 C3 .S-8W SJh -So « Ssl-gg ft « a pq fl ” w pq 5^3 § .ft §w-3o§ — =3 * ft 03 O 03 O 3 O .2 ’3 S : 2 <1 +a ' ' pM © 03 £ 03 w ffl .pq ft+^pH+> ft ® OCX) Oh^ ■3§s co cl fn g © 03 > 03 JS ? rC CD ® © Cl-Oft OOO PQ« £ "!«! 2 Fh ° £ SCO 5 H 00*5 <£> §“« o 2 ©FQ w Cl ^ o Fh ft CG 03 os 03 C3 EoS >22 < . a ■ *“3 3 P 0-gf^g < 3^S o o o a )rj w ISd ^ (5 W n ^ « SdswSs *? l «* . a P a W gb : gWowWfe ft * * * * * 6 >n co in in co in o © © © © o © © oo 03 o © o oo oo rtf ^ lO O © O O inosioo OHHH © © © © g CO CO g j © O O O l a i i i i C3 *0 T3 T3 T3 % a p p a « h S 333 S“S ?oooo?o tlX) «+H «+-( «4H «+-( 0JQ4-< lOOiOM O^INCOlOOlOHONOH O (N O c HHHHWNMCOHHrHH N W IN’ OOOOOOOr— I* iO CO l> CO tH © © © t-H t-H © © I Tfl | < t - OOOO lOOO lOOO lOOO ! C» I l 1 03 CO !> > - S8S . © © © lOOO lOOO £8 !' OOOO I O O O lOOO i CO co co IWNO ! © © © 03 rH 00 03 I rf CO ^ OOOO I O o o I TjH X> LO lOOO CCT3 PI 0 03 03 03 ^ C C fi 0 p 3 0 3°°° i'S i r rj l jh | j | j j | | a | ; ; pj 0 03 0 03 03 03 03 0 03 03 03 0 03 03 03 0 03 03 03 P 05 P 'O P 03 PftPftpPpgBftftgftSftSSgSSggggg P £ P a i pi 0 03 P 03 Si rj >1 C cs P 0 K P O P o ban sudm— i ~ o S P W O ,2 <72 p ■hT) i Q I -a pi ^ aa i a pqS bo^g bo SS 3 bo : _ i si 2 p I g pj-ft co « co I 2 o ■» +l5-P I rft 2 a •pf -P I W H H ° o ° I s &£& ! 5 >w ! 2 ^ o ! 02 — I i-gog l S=j^s I S3 a> P3 '030 S ' > 03 co O c*s P S3 Q o M O S I > p .S t> bo +-> rt 0 M2 a> 0 Q cq S 6 6 o <2 o o S 3 ’q.'BJ >P o S' o o ^ £ t- ^ P 0 p P Ph M 2 Ph CM / / eo®So< 6 © OOOO OOOO CO co co co >> rk ^ ^ 2 c rn ro P S3 O 0 -B 2 co 0 bl? P .03 g B3 P ^ 5 S3 o EH -2 wP “j M2 p W w ^ QJ S3 * ‘0 ^ .5 ** PI O . 0. .s< . •3* * * 2 * o ^ fe ° ^i w -5 C3 ft a> 0 T3 §0 '<< ■ • o o ( 2^0 0 0 PiZ< 0 O u C>o«oo 3 rH o r( fi , o m br !2 2 5 r oC ) s’cS«!>>£“ .si!P§-S gas 8 s^fl^ .-s 3 pi * ^ o o -S S3 io ^ ft+o ^o-s5 « M2 R ^ • C . M2 . . • s 3 a) ■^6 « S ft °40 JhS j — < CO —< 0 S4M2 m 03 _ - _ ^080 «0 C3 “0 U 5J ,- . co ’So So .9 o * o' 15 * ^ * - * 'g.w w o O « W qn 'O ^ Dd co ^ «. © 0 K - 0 « 03 * S3 ' phsWi-s^FM^ > * P * 0 0 pH h b ko ftO^I g” « 53 ^>> 00 ° (B irj o O 03 S lg « P « ftg P P 0 ft P ft ftg gp S S ^ 0 0 0 0,0 M2 M2 M2 M2 Ph TABLE VI. — Report of Inspection of Fertilizers Collected in 1917 (continued) 62 o 'So o 2 d o Plh d jad •}U 99 J 9 d ‘aiqniosui *}U90 aad ‘pa^aaAaa puB aiqnjos •}U 93 J 9 d ‘J 9 }BAV Ut 9 iqnios ‘O s H ‘qsB^oj nu9D J9d crooo I (M *** CO l“? O ^ Oi O |> 00 HCCHOO OOWOC5 H^OCO|> OtOOOOLClO t> 06 so 06 o o in in so in oo d o o © © OC5C5CICOO HOONNH OOOrHOOOO0QOONOC5Oio©W' COOiOOWOJ doddd 0005 00 00ClHC000|>(M(N00O00 dddddHHHHHHdrid 1 n so o o 1 d o rd co IC^OOOOOOCi^r-.-rhlCLO iHododddddd *}U 0 O J 0 CI *9Al)0 ( B pU'B ©iqn -[os jojbai pejoj, *}U 0 O J 0 d ‘ 011113 S -jo aiqniosui J 0 }T 3 A\. OAIJO'BUI CO 03 d d 1 CO LO | J>- l>- 1 ^ CO I -T T- 1 d d 1 d d 1 in I ^ Tt< 1 d d CO CO T* CO d d 10 oq d d I 00 T* I ^ ! d o ; toS ! o d CO 1 IN CO CO I LC CO o 1 d d co so CM rH d d (M CO d d •)U 0 o j 0 d ‘oiu'bS -jo 0 iqnfogui JO^'BAi 0 Ai;oy d d co s +s I id I M I I M dd cod add ad id id id id i i d d d d d d d d d d d^dbd'nd^dd W — W W -w W W -w W *3 ' W 53 .0 ^1 UJ ... w -- w -- w -- s_* w d^dd^ddbd^dd^d^dd^d^djnd^dd ?o?,oo?„o?„o?o?oo *■“- •- • ■ bO'w bO'W't-i d 2 d 32 d 32 d 2 dd 2 d odoo^oo^odoo^o IH tuOq-i *4—i bcdl IH fail <4—1 bO"S«M bO't-i be* d d t3 dg S o bo4q d £ Q3 .3 OM 1 33 I d I d 1-9 x I d ft 1 3 W d & n £ s° c /2 O d £ •-sW jo " 3 be > d *2 o-S O 03 d 2 d d v pqp* ag *(>n uotjogdsui •ON HJPI3JO I lO i I lO 50 I 03 00 I 50 CM CM C5 Cb 05 o o I df« g O * d O « « .d 03 Or5 #■ ft 1 sh d d m SS«H • -a • be ®.s ® tH — < -M | S 1 d a .2 0 T3 d :qs d n* . +j i 3 , dPn' ft2 “ d ®5d 33 +3 o d x d o O >!s 2 H dO * * —j o o O 02 a 03 'ttC -* in lo 50 50 od n o«a U oi^ to d 33 3 ^4-> O ,« g 2 2 §sal d.s*y 5 d d 3 fc.9« ■So a buffalo Crop Grower 1 6550 OlOONO © © © r- o 06 oo o o o 00OOLOO l 3 Bn Suo °3 O CO l> d o co 05 o co oo oo n; a co wdiNHoddddo OCOO^ONL^IMHHHOO HHHOrl O O O O O O rH rH OCOlf50HHN05WW cdcocdioioioickoicio o^o^oao^coco^oin odooT^r^ddodooddcodai o oo oo oo < O (M cd ro 00 05 00 odd tH 03 d d lRRRaCfl 3^333333 ogoooooo 3 ^ TJ c3 r O p O flMfliH3tj3Q 3 O 33 C 33 C 333 o^o^o^oo bX)in tuoiS fcjQ«4H 4 h lOOHNOJOOOO^TH NHHHHHHHNtO lOO-^OOOOOOOOCO^i iddddddaodi^oioioi' ! ® c CO 05 d d COI>00 0005 HHOHHO 1 l>- CO J>- 1 d o d lOfNW l ^ 03 rH ! o o d 1 O (M H ! d d d I 00 IO rH 1 N H H 1 d d o r O p C a a s 0 o o 3 o buoXR 3 i 3 . . 3 ^3 3 '"O 'O *3 a h 3 3 3 b CO t~ 00 00 3 ) 3 ) 33 Xl'd'd'ti >-, 2 MM>-i- 2 >-i 333 b 333 3233323333 S 333 tuo 3"333 3 niyyy~^ O 3 OOO 30000 So fcC«M H - ^ 10 CD CO JC'- i>» rH o 3^ O a> a, ■£ be C! 6C® be fl 3 P Boss ■sw > l|S| : 3 bo < cx & !a>« J ID IO IO LO IO IO t-j^r^ooooopagaoooao ") CO CO CO co co CO CO CO CO CO c OOCOCOHHHHHHfHH Ol ,W ep pq !°g jSg. |®C5 sE 3 ?Q 3 1 * *H I !«0 S -s *-s S „ o 3 2 .20 H 2 3)“ O 3 a a V o 3 3 H o b*0 J-g ►5 2 3 tfl o 3! Ph 'Sss >6t“B 3® . 03 O i ® c i^O g P.-3 kj Ph 2 0h^o,0 "g" Q_.®b ■ o. . pH v af a <0 ^ w r *5 - ^ *3 > w 9 jk! CQ t-o Ph ^2 SS o o H aj Pi a ° 'gS 1-1 O |0 ® <0 ■3 2 u ; "o a Spq w -J 3 3 S 30 o u O » c cq 2 cu . iB-d^ 3^ °§R|>- S 8* .* 20 <3 >> S ® 3 ® , , sziz?* 1 J B'Ow}hw«Ph be oj 5--2S& cc3 ^ -3 §3 -3 H 3 q, 3 3o«iC ° !tS tf U C B 03 Ph $1 be 2 ' . 1 1 O CO O LO ‘pa^aaAaa C 5000050050 HCOCOCOCOOO HH iO II J> d i> 06 06 1 CO CM CO pu-B aiqnios rH HH rH rH rH rH l l l 1 1 1 rH }U 9 D J8d ‘jai'BAV ut OOOOHM 1 1 C l 1 O rH l 1 1 00 O O 05 O 05 O O O 1 1 O to eiqnios ‘o s N ‘qs^^o 05 00 i> rH t- 03 1 HHHHrHOHOOH rH O O 1 l 1 (NCUOCOr 1 O O O O O 1 H 1 0; > 1 CO CO l CO 1 1 T— r- ‘ 9 AJPB pU'B 8iqn J> 00 Oi 00 0^ 1 !>• rH 1 rH l 1 1 03 cc 1 1 l 05 |> l rH CC 1 rH 1 IT, 1 03 - 10 s aa^-BAA IBJOJ, 00000 1 0 1 0 rH 1 O 1 1 l rH 1 rH 1 do loo Id 1 r- l d 'A •^uao aad ‘oiubS 1 10 H 05 HH 1 O CO 1 O ! CN l 1 1 1 CO 05 1 1 HN 1 LO ! 0: ) co -jo ajqniosui LO CO -T 1 (N q fM I ® CO 00 j co 1 1 1 1 m CO CO • 05 1 IO t> 1 J>> 1 1 rf C 5 -ao aiqniosui CO CO CO 10 LO 1 rH rH 1 rH l H 1 6 £ ja^BAA. aAi^oy 00000 10 1 O d 1 d l 1 ! 0 1 CO do 1 d d 1 d 1 r- 1 d •^uao aad l OOCJOOHlfl 1 — H l rH | i-H 1 1 1 ! O CO • 03 i CO LO 1 1 1 -H ‘diubSjo r “J -X a ui ajqnjos aa^B^\ OOOOO 10 1 d d 1 d 1 1 1 d 0 00 1 0 0 1 0 i C 1 > d 'C I i i i i id j'g j •o i'g i *g "O | 0 i a i ! 1 1 J ! a la a 1 a 1 a a 1 a : I a 1 a 1 I a 1 a 1 a 1 a i 1 aa ’on uoi^oadsui •ON I^PIHO S 2 -a S w O 01 ® x O 0- Sa xoiaooH N ® 03 nN N 03 TO £3 a a J3 3 O ii=n 03 •O 3- 1 a a 3 3 O .T3 «33 1 a ! 3 £3 3 a H a R 2 W O rj a 3 a o o o 3 o 3 o o l “- J tUO'W bflMH «t-l a-o £3 a a o 3 o tU)<4H o a T 3 a'O a ^3 a'o 3 £ 3 rt£ 33 £ 3 «£ 3 a 33333333 a o 3 O 3 O 3 o 3 O > a — 3 ! > o j° 3 43 , ra O ® •s bis a 3 a m « HP3 JOi-3 • 05 rH LO LO Q(N HCO • co rH jo oo CO JO O jo > ! p ' o c3 c3 a a a a ® a; a> a> Sh Sh OO si Sw 05 05 05 05 05 < 'Ti CiQ C: ~ ~ _ _ _ . ., icocoacicio rHrHrHLOLOLQLOLOLOlOLC) •-2 3S a 0 43 ’3 43 .2 5 s Oo „a >>2 aO a« ® r* la ©•g .3 o C il 9 * QJ “ 2* ft 3 m«2 m >> O ^ <0 43 dg 313 * « o >> . a ffl g^'S a OJ . O a> HEngW 2 * < a a 43 o . ftcc 4 ^ tc +s a g S 0 * 3 2 aa^g giU-css **~| L_J P O Eej si** „ a 3 2 a ife: a> eS .44 . .S 2 ^KC 5 go fn 5,4 qS o £ ft a> . >» r-2-3^ C2 9 * r o a 0-2 Jo* 2d*i to a o opq a o 2 o a oiH o o cogajsc! a & o o fti *■< H o a a - 1 l£ qSS'g .^So 2 3 aW .•43 O a H •" ►a ‘3 gS oPh ajaw ® .•a go .a -t 3 a g a a 43 -g 4=43 o 3 o o | -» > *-s >-a TO sh a « w\j ^ • c 3 nn °o O .o-Swr® go ?M 0 o PM,® « o o o,g ^ 5 a -9 ^.=S'§0 9g«=H« = ~§ Sse’SS5i^&|Sc“oS|§|ag|S's wSt? ^‘is ^ 3* * 3» >* * o > * .s 2 2** cs 03 2 -C O>oc3 » -> hS lT ft , ft-! -rri M t*i '^§ I js w '=5 .o 0 0.0® s rt O fl Cl bo 5 ,2 S M '- 1 3 bo c3 2 =3 o®3 «og : (1, lc ,cj ffl p*q . 5 . .bo ... <73 .H.3 o5o u 3 B O go 53 .£| u ® 5 5£a :utilated tags attached. TABLE VI. — Report of Inspection of Fertilizers Collected in 1917 (continued) 66 o B - §2 fL, cS •}uaa aad •^uao aad •aiqniosui •}uao aad ‘pa^jaAaj puB aiqniog •}uao jad ‘aa}BAi ut eiqnios ‘o z ll ‘qs^Ocj O CO 03 03 OH|> l>t> L0C0t00000t0tf5C00005OL0r^»n>C0t0tOrHC0tOrH00C010Ot0C0t0t0L0 OOOOOOOOOOrHOOOOOOrHOOOOOOrHOOrHOO lOOJCOOCOCOOOCDHOWOCOOOlNNOMOShOOOOlOOOO i(M(N«NHH(NOH(MOHOOOOOOOJHOOOO{>OOo6wN(Mcio6ci OOaOCOOHOOO^OOJh 03 *"• H H O HHHH03H03H *— OOiOJOOr-ONOJOo HOOHCOOHHOCO*- •}uaa aad Tb*o,l ooouoi>o o ri o co n! (NC5. , ^-'#irsot^'5Dco^coMHm?0'<^ooooco^oO'^o OOOOOHOOOOOOOOtHr-U— OOOOOOOiHOOO •}uao aad ‘aAi^o'B pil'd aiqn -los aa^BAi. idjox •juaa aad ‘otudS -ao ajqni’osui aa^dM aAi;adui 05 1 T* 00 1 CO IO d 1 d d d ! r- 05 1 10 to 1 d d co CO CO O rH d 0 0 03 0 rH 1 CO 03 rH 1 CO - iH 1 OQ rH d loo CO d 1 rH 1 rH O ! d d ^ O 03 CO rH H03HOH 0 d d d d co d rH CO O O co to rH CO O O d S98 rH O O d d 0 rH O 00 d d d 1 hH 1 05 CO CO 1 0 0 d f d d d 1 rH rH 1 O CO 1 d d rH 00 05 CO rf< OOOOO d d d d d rH O d 1 CO 1 0 1 d 1 1 03 rH rH O d d 03 CO H OOO odd CO O d CO rH 0 0 d d 8 c 1 oq LO 0 1 CO CO 0 1 d d 0 d l 05 rH 1 CO C<1 1 d d rH -H 03 ^ CO rH CO 03 rH O d 0 d d 0 co d 03 O d d 03 d d to rH 0 rH 03 rH odd 00 03 d O rH to 03 d d O c •}uaa aad ‘otudS -ao aiqn{osui aa^dM. aAi^oy •}uao aad ‘otUdSao aiqnios aagd A\ •^uaa aad ‘s^bs btuouiuib puB sa^ua^ -lu ui ajqrqos Ja;BA\ aa *on iionoadsui •on Idioi^o -5 Sa 2S * a a S 3 3 ?oo fcUDM-t =w S3 T3 a % a P 2 3 o Po ■h bO't-i 3323333323233233233323353 O0?O0000E0?0°3003000?o30 bfl«H <4-1 "4H q-l «M bfl«LH 6fl«M <)-l &JD ^— ( ( bl ) ^-1 14-1 t(-i &D M— I &C '4— I < 3 QQOBO I C§ i co - JL— CO ,0 Pi „ a S3 05 05 CO CO ' 2 rO ss I p ft !q^ i 03 05 > 52 JO 1 1 > j>- i -H -H -rH < CO CO CO ■ iCO^^NNNOOOOOQOOOOOOOJOlOOOCOCOCOlClOWlOOO IHGCOOOOOOQOOOODOOOOOOOO^^IOIOLOOOOOOOOCOCO >COO5C5O5O5O5O5O5O5O5O5O5O3O3O3O3O3rHrHrHrHH'rHrHJ^Jt^00C0000000 I^IOIOIOIO^IOIOIOIOIOIOOCD^OOCOCOCOOOOCD^DCDCOCOCOCOCDO 3 0 . 0 . a a o o oo 90 •a* 03 ^ n a _ S’? ^ £h R Ug w S'Sn M 0.^1 a. 2 o « . n « K 3 M 'H O. O L 3 05 .H 2 ^ d « § £ ft’s tj r: ^ p ft Ph5 OOQ 2 OJ-G'Ti 03 3 &*>* * t> S3 c3 W +? S3^ S § 03 Q Ah W bJO fl o 03 , o£ :Q .t» -S 1 p*-h 03 S o 0. 0 3p to ■m o 33 g M o a 3 — &-§ K> W ^ O.- . CO 1 W W § So s §33 2^ n o,d ^ O r ° g3 a jj 2 a^ paof i <»« S >» 2 § S Q . P 83 < O bfiH 1 3 S s ^ 6 cu 3 03 03 3; fn . S sa 33 u 03 S3 tf CC 03 o =8 o as a* bn* S3 w « O ^ S o h hO o cs >H &H t-. rl “ „’S) g I 2 a 03 . ® . hO 3 ^ * bc w be S3 S3 O Lh o O U h m •S 30 P 0 X3 O bg S’O S Sso c x< oS 3 O •-S 6 7 o oo to CO © o ' o i — i OOOOffihO ■ '-® sfS 83 S N (N (N tC I O Ci CO C ^ O O co <5 05 O O rj I rjn O tO OlfJOOW J> 00 CO O 00 O 03 iO O O O 05 CMO ^ O ^ CO^HOOCOOOON ( NO ^ Ot - HOOOrHC ^ OOOC^O OOOOOOhWWOWIMNOt HCodoOHHHHC'lfCCOCOHf o o o to O CO to 03 kO kO dodo I O rH Q-j MNMN odd NWCO odd g co co odd odd LO go lo o to hh ^ O^OOh^aOOOOlOCO. K -^NCOOCOCON^OCOCDCOOT tocoNrHciwHodddddddoooHOOHHOHi O CO 00 CO CO rH CO HHHHHOO ^ O g i 03 03 03 o i> io co kO I> i> CL> d d d d O CO T-H rH d d o o ko d 03 03 O O O d d d d ! i coo I kO kO CO i LO 00 l CO i O i O kr^ kO jt'jNO ! rH oi ! odd loo |d id iddoo ihhh I rH $i.Sq i 03 co jo; jo j CO TJJ Ift ^ j O kO kO loo 'odd loo id io ioooo 1000 l CO |> i d d IS 03 CO CO CO ikOkC^ d d d o i o o o kO o i o d WOH I 03 rH o i d d d 03 CO rH 03 I kO CD kQ i d d o o i o o o i oo ^ 1 ® r "? i d d S I a cSddd c 3 d ^ a a a jh g 03 o o 3 S o 2 o o o 33 o 'g © a 03 'A 'A T3 ® 33 P ? o o o co ioooo O O O O l O o rH d d o d i o o o W, | : d d d d cd d d d d c3 d d d c3 d d c3 d c3 d 03 d d d d C3 "d Hd "3 ^3 siaggggagsggsgggagggggggi§iigs§g§§ go g ,£3 °£ &£ S = 2 ° §,£££ £< 2=2 £<2 £.2 £<2 <2 <2 <2 £< 2 < 2 < 2£<2 1 O 04 J Sd ^ :>><2 ! © ^ * •GO WPh l 00 CO OJ ■ 1 r. : : ikfl kOJ> It*- Jt> J> c3 c3 r*5 ^ C3 c3 ^ss o« wii ig^Sg j-S g A .2 i s p,® 1 ? ! ^ 3 >g © to in its < • 00 Cl CO ) Ol IO CO > l> t- J> -S > io fl > a 3 a+? ©O'® n o £ OPP£ ! °4* i © a ! 2 ° .2 A i m 3 'CPQ em ® w 2 A 2 a ,3 > § «d9S ^.3 O rj h'OOd OWCP 02 00 CO J 1 CO kO 1 £ £h Ph qj PQOco 03 03 03 03 A O O goo a i X3 g 1 g> 2 °| ^Ph Ph S'S^H . . •i- .S3 d w % d o o o SESmS S.oSgg 3 O ^CP H ft ~ c3 ? n pc u 2 §£ 3 © S & 3 A co O 33 Pp 2 ’© <1 -a © 3 a ^■HSU |-w aSfe 3 m hi o I a i OS^ cc on be ■?pp s § ■mhP oW ® PP co 6 cO 2 CP 3 CO 3 O m “=8 o 3 ' © 2 «3 © o .2 ; 3 2 * ^ Sw - g ' ' M >§ - „ . c 29 ® Sg 4 »«| gS 5 & s j ’^ i °^ bc w ^ o & o tH H 6 o 0 -"' ^ ©35.2>^r -rj . wd ^^ w ^ WEH '- grigN ^ olwi^rt ' ++ . 5 ? .$** A A * 02 02 C C o 2 © *h 2 t> CP •a ^=8 g 2 33 (S, 5 CUJ oil ttkJ wj . oju yi » 3 | m 5 wS w - n 0 W 02 32 ^ , 2 > 2 W ^ &<>2 g .fflS go w ' j^gsl -— . ' 3 .2 uj 2 03 . BTo ^ hWO'S © * * * © a a 02 02 CP o '•> « © * © • A A 02 02 Ph CP ^31 Q) £ rO r 0 ) 1 " 3 o o 1 33 2 ^ 02 02 02 • ffiH o & g ^° g S a; 2 S § £d d a> 0 o g <£ -d

OO-'W in co ro © © IN 00 © oo © © © in in in © © © 05 IN IN © © © © ©©©5>©©©©©©'dH©©rH©©©©rnOin©LO t^i^o6cdoo’o6©©-^©©©ini>in © 00 © T-l r-HO IN IN © © ■ CO CO • i in © | j i © © •}U90 jgd TBJO.L •}U90 J9d ‘gAi^OB pire 9iqn -los J9}T3Ai. 00©00©lN- © © © rH r-i i © rH IN ^31 00 CO 00 t— I CO rH © © 00 HHHOOOOriorilNNOO 1 © © I © © }U99 J9d ‘OIU-BS -ao gjqniosui J9}T3AY 9AI}93UI •}U99 J9d ‘OIUUS -jo giqrqosui jgjBAi 9Ai;oy •}U90 J9d ‘orueSao giqnios jgj'B m © CO 1—1 © © ‘ © © I © © •^U99 J9d ‘S^X^S BIUOUIUITjpUB S9XBJX -in ui gxqnjos J9 ^a\ © © © © 03 •O'O % a d 5 3 2 goo bD*W >M S 3 3 o bn«M d 03 13 b 3 S 3 3 o be 1-1 a i 03 13 £ Cl c 3 3 S® M I M I IM I I i—i . c3 73 g3 'O ^ 03 'O T3 KS '73 ■ i -"'33^33^3353 gs3«S33g33g3323 ^o^oo^oo-ioo^o fan — i bfl>M «-< bfl«t-i bn ci— i 4—i bfm-i bn^H boJ & i O « iO § I I **3 a?d o3 o d > M d H I I 8 ots - M 3 © t> 0> 5 Q.t> ’3 0 1 S' d -O.Q J© o !*§ i 1 © d< tj S c S g oSo- M^g d +- O 03 bn o, ^■2* , ® |S' g o<1 ■SO tn fg Si PH iM-g Fh §.2 i r§ mg : C 3 ! :& | 02 o dO. iq-I i n ! a' H • £S jS-o C3 Nl I dO 6 9 H H N (M OIOOICOOOHWOOOC COt^OCOHH H HNnHHHHNHNHOxCiHHHNN lO N OIQIO H oi (N H O O CO 00 oq co d I CO © CO CO > O Cl 10 O CO d w n o O O O rH O , (NNHHHi ©©C00©t-I< co i> ^ co imo ^ LQ LO © © © ICNOCO to d co* co OOOtH CO © ^ j>« no odd I CO CO CO 05 i o d d d © ^ 1 05 ' >> ! * ! o3 \& 1 cd 1 =3 1 >• 1 > | g 1 s 0 bo 1 ° I q > >> 1 QP fl Ph ! P 1 j ^ ' ' c/2 >r> 1 a d ! 2 ! j S !£ •hJ !ffl ! PP »« ! 0§ !pq 1 © is 1 CO 1 oq 1 rfl 1 in ;$ :s 1 0 1 CO l 00 1 © 1 00 1^© 1 JHJ 1 x> 1 00 1 ll> 1 © 1 Jb- 1 1> 1 © iOJ> 1 © I ^ IH !S Jn >>c3~ ! « o 03 -M ri W ! S « I 03^ (3 03 :£o I © J> ^ (M l UO CO © © l CO Cl 00 i © © i> I lO CM I © ; £2 go I J^« J> '©©©©©©©©CO cq 03 oq © © © co co CO © © no in © © ©©©©i>I>©© (MWHHHHHH oqoq©LOnonoiOno cocococococococo a l a> PH 03 ® w «2 co — ^ g g by « blip: B ® S q ^ q S a t!lS s= -2 bfl ' O c3 p q Q f°!ggg |Sg=g5 oaS .3fcgSs]U 73 ® °X3Q . PP -H „ 3.2 a oO _ . >,3* © m O ..qq,,, 3 §£&’£ S3°^ffl£ fc o’S ®0 I fl 03 a a ® si w ® ,2 ^ ^ h 3 .2 S o & t> hj ; © © 03 o 3 ? Pc K Ph »« M q © O 3o |Sb|b oS-S S g h-3 >q H QJ ^2 a o o b °fS g_. © q 'O r— I P q 3 1=1 a ® o3 q Ph is ? 5 -Sag 30 9 02 o. a « ^9 -S; flSo 3.2 i-i q O 3 a Z+ a ^ a ^ 'm 'w * c3 03 K K © c3 33 ft ui O Ph v T3 « tuo m B os mS^Z- a a.aw.aH. ?*? .S w * oj * H O ^ •a .s« co fB 03 « 02 b glgh O r 2 ■'-<03 os -q a .Jo e '3 fit .a ® jg g 3 H . ggi sec o 2 c fii'S® . 3 - M 03 2|.a.aw^.aw S .3 n w M * ' bjO^ ^ 03 .a q « « co >r 03 P* » Sample received in the spring 8 i Purchased from W. T. McCray Purchased from Samuel Leer 82 Returned to Mfr. Refund. Sample to Mfr. (see page 30) TABLE VI. — Report of Inspection of Fertilisers C ollected in 1917 (continued) 70 .2 * S° oS 43 0 ft s3 ■}uao J9d 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i ! ! j i I | j j j | ; j j ', I ! j ! j ! j ! ! It-Jco ! ! ! i ! i ! ! ! ill! ! ! ! 1 ! ! 1 ! 1 ! ! : ! ,-^4 1 1 i | 1 i •}U90 J9d •oiqniosuj Lot-iooc-unmoinomt-oo l 6 ^ ! ^ 1 S 1 1 i ^ ^ ^ ° J ^ j 9 { j J j CO LO 1 o o o | •}U90 J9d ‘popoAoa |S|2222wSS25d2 dddddddddddd® J O rH (M C<3 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 ! ' loOlHOMOHOOW® iii •ju9D J9d ‘J91BM. ui ©iqnios ‘o s 2I ‘qsB}o 1 j •}U90 J9d ‘oiubSjo oiqnios JOtBAV ! i i^s i^ id is \zs |8 i" is || j. j ■}U9D J9d ‘S^BS BIUOUIUIB pUB S9pJ? -iii ui ajqnjos J9^A\ 1 isss is is is i | ;§ss ;ss i” \ s . i* !| Iddd Id Id Id 1 ] 1 ©©© 1©© [rH ]© 1© |© j j 1 4-> ■8 | | I'S il i'S i| i Iii 'll i || || jl il |l I 1 1 S il i-g :l i si s ia is is I« Jl JJ„ as T3 t! ft ft o 03 "O 'O 03 "O “ 'y J* a £ ft sllsSsSfiSs SS _ _ ^ W'UV ftftBftftftftftftSfteftSftgee gj°«2° S°«2 S>«8 So° bu bJD^ ig | ! > |S aa 'ON uoipodsui •on repijJO I >4 i®«S i © ! IS I ft ; o { § § m ! to ! o 1 X2 l2 :£££ !* 18 !£ ipq 'CDCDW 'W 'W '> O 2 !§nw ; pqp-i !i igSg iS il II II |io!! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! ° ] j i i ig 1 l-s ig e cs ^ , i o w i § g s ,h s S o ;§ « { o I ft '03 *W 'co *2 1 fH ft Fh j ft > o O a '^o 6959 7404 7773 7354 6747 7360 ^cocqc 552^^^^ ry)G0( 00 00 00 ( > CO CO CD < ii§§!!lllliil!llll © o £ dO SSqf si? 3 I® ft s- © © a ft KO.es ^ a ^ ^d.e o Sf°S p, £ _r | X3 0*2 kps s -ft {'ft o I a o I S3 Oh ! ^ M p, 1 F-< 00 i©Qj©F' 1 D wyg^li ©-g . ol rr* "H r-r'l rvi _D I ^ O «o O 'qo^o ■alfi'sSflggwiH-SS® 5.H- ■B«H|hL - -5 '^STgoS fto*42^ > t -.c300Kj^t ;i i'Tfo .Sf r5 ^3 o |S|§BOo d ^.«««t S t ft L ft M © ra MwaiM^aifiMS a^rt^.ss.ss ^ £ im * m * oa* 03 £ 00 ?. « 60 .O. * J3S .S3 S3 IS"- 2 "* sfilsSs *S** sft-Irs^M* 5? ** 2* 03 03 03 g^^gd §'» «9£3§ ■§5* 'dS- ftftd; O 03 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I f I 1 I 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 l l l l 1 l 1 l 1 ( l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 21.5 22.6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Of0^^l>C0 1 N 50 I500010G5 r-IOOOOi-H ii-HO iOOOO 1 T* 1 CO O l O l 1 1 1 toco 0 O O 03 CO 1 1 OH rH C- l HI Hi 1 CO d ! d 1 03 1 CO l d ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.26 0.39 0.19 1.30 1.60 1 1 1 iIOIOt^COCO 1 03 CO 1 rH 03 CO co wco 1 CO ^ l CO CO 04 CO lodddo idd idddd 1 1 1 CO d 00 Tt< d co ! 03 co 1 d 0 1 1 1 1 rH t-H 1 rH rH 1 d d 1 S co ! co d ! d GO 1 03 1 d ! 1 1 1 1 ! ! H< HO loo 1 1 rH r-H 03 1 CO CO 1 1 d d d ! d d iNCOHWO ICO r- 1 1 00 LO J>- O 1 Tji CO ! 00 0 1 0 d 1 d 1 GO ! 0 1 d 1 1 1 0.09 0.07 0.06 6.42 0.27 0.04 0.07 0.2 7 0.10 0.01 0.08 0.12 0.07 0.01 0.06 a> OJ d to d 1 1 00 1 1 0 » 1 0 ! ! 1 1 1 1 03 rH 1 03 O 1 d d 1 d 1 0 1 0 co 1 01 0 1 d 1 0 1 d i 1 1 1 1 1 I j | s s 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 111 1 jggggg jss jssss idodod 100 idooo 1 1 1 03 d 0 d 1 1 IS i 1 d 1 1 rH 1 1 CO 1 1 O 1 1 O O s js d 1 d 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 X^- GO rH i HtO 1 1 rH 03 rH 1 00 03 1 1 d d d 1 d rH mtced_ nteed_ nteed. nteed. nteed. nteed. mteed _ 'O ! i 'O 1 T3 ! 73 | TJ ! T5 0 , 0 0) 9,0,9 <0 | , ^ I _2 1 ^ I £ oj ! ! a ! a ! a ! a ! a 1 1 1 i’g i i i's i i !©!!!«!! ! a ! ! Is ! ! G 3 T 3 "C T 3 'O T 3 ca 'O 'O o 3 xJ T 3 'O T 3 'fl ca 'O sa T 3 'Q S 3 'O o 3 'fl 'fl «J 'fl o 3 'fl pflflaflapflflpfldflflpdpflpafl p a p g g flflflflflflflflfl^flflflfl^fl^fl^flfl s 3 cs 3 ^ fl 3 ca ^ gooooogoogoooogogogoo g O g O O g O g O SjO h bOHH 60 1 05 00 1 co 1 00 r- IS 1 00 1 00 !8 0 00 rH to GO OONNJN 1 tON iNhCOH 1 J>- l H 1 LO tO |JC^X> l CO X> !>■ *> ICO It- it-t- l 00 1 co 0 1 CO l co t- I co l CO 1 co iS lo r- to ' lOlOH' 03 03 LO J x> J> i> 1 l fl £. fl i d! ft .S «& ’ HCh ^OSc!Ki 1 00 T !s3 iSpg N S-Sll j pq >>W § i a®*" 02 ' 2 tn CO P "5 O O ft rj co M 2 s3 x: £Pn pi? ft fl I-,’ I S'fl a ' o f 3 'S 5 ® p fl *3 3 p — h rt ftp " C . a> £WW ft* * do ;H bn's ; . s p S3 1^11 c3 bp -fl' S' bn bfl c3 a p, ft ( u M ^ <0 ^ r/i P 5 J J 1 j 1 ! 1 ! ! ! g i ! ! ;.o ! 1 j 43 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • l » 1 i i j i 1 i ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! G ' l 1 III ! bo 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ 1 2 1 2 1 ■ III) 1 1 1 1 1 III' 1 1 1 1 1 ■ Ill I 1 I ! o) 1 ' 1 1 Nil < 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 > 1 1 1 1 J si i-P ! ® 1 1 1 0 1 -u l O ' fl 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 ! S m 'j |m 1 p ® i M .2 2 r 1 C 0 C X 2 .g CG C 1 ft 3 fn 2 fl !’> ; ’ 1 > ~ i : [ r s > ! G g g ! ioo'flfl ! ; 2 So 2 1 1 i* 0 1 0 | bo , fl i'i 1 0 1 ° | Q } Jfl ! Jfl 1 > t« l-fl S 02 S 3 1 fl > X 2 1 bo | fl i ipg is| i a 0 ' fl ! © i fl 1 p 1 02 1 1 1 5 h ‘ r 2 ! fl. 2 1 1 ^ 1 fl |i ! c 3 I fl 1 H> 1 ' ' 2 ,"> ; fl fl ■’g a < 02 02 > .fl X 3 X 3 X 3 t^ 02 02 CO P I O O fl j 3 1 1 tuoffl j*|s Sica Waldron Bedford 'QQPQPSft 1 'W 2 imPhOPh •M ! S !W ' PPO '> ■ffl ■ W 1 w 'OOPeiS 'WWW 02 O ^.Ph fl .2 <0 ^ Q2* 9 3.22 a 2 |s! P . U Q Q >-3 g 1-3 H H P 5 ^ P 5 s a s g s o o o P o -d fl fl u s fl fl c g2 K ** oQ _ 5 ; ?-* ^ o £ bHHoh 'S^SSSS >2 o o o o •Ph 3 P P P L ojSppiHt; o 41 o 'fl 'fl "fl 'fl P +J OCO WHCOlO^OOlOh 1 I LO CO tO CO dddddridri 1 idriddo OCOr^COl0050hOtOONHl>tOOrt(OinOrilO <— dcvioddr-iMcodo^di^i^LOLOLOLOi^ ocoooo^oooo di^doicTjHC>OOC2CO»>.|>.0}Ol^HtO OOrHfHrHoddodrHrHrHrHC^do OMOOiN co odd OOHOi^OQOOOHOO^COlQ OHOHrloHlddddc) •}U00 J0d ‘©Apo'e pm3 0 iqn -IOS lO (M CO LO (M l to t*h to LO 1 d o d d d 6 1 CO CO to o i t* H O d d rH CO 00 to Cv| o d aa *°n uono 0 dsui S S S 73 S 'o ! ! 13 KS T 3 'C T 3 S 8 w ww W -w w W -w W W w w -w O w V 'O r O r O GGGG%G%G%GGGG%g%aagG 0000 ? 0 33 0 = 3 0000 ? 0 B ,0000 MH «t— 1 ■*-( =4-1 60H-I 60'W 60HH «(-l =4—1 «M tUD =+— I 60 o a ’> 3 33 •a tit! OT o • CO lO - J>- X>- J>- ■!> J>- j> J_ cocococococococococococococo* a O § ,°ss §§sl 5 g ghflCJ Oo5 . • ^ g »00 a >,* * .2 -3 o «*« “ouPT 03 . . >* O O u. k a o 60 O _ (h ft^.2 03 •»» .72 K Mpi] jj 02 02 . ® 43 to 03 l-£ O >>,. t»>4c o o » « 73 * oo h o O CO 3*0 33 5 O > O +-> 3 S3 hH 0 § O © © O r-l Hointood O CO CO O Ui ci (M •— |oo jOO i eo rn I rH oo I -h co o o o co co CO CO CO cB CO Q M 3 3 30 3 S’ jo' © o sis fn ^p— t I © co I oo oo I 03 03 M M N N N CO O 00 to LD O OO CO t* i CO O HH I 03 HN lOHHO I H H i H H H 00 00O5©LDCOLO0000G0T*r*00t^a0 00 00 C0000000O3O3O303O3«— *— I'D I'D ! 8 8 id id . . _ . , ^ „ , , , cs 'O -o -a -a -a -d sp 0313 ^'v ©dd ddd So cSd , d , d 3 r d'd'd r r SggggigsgSIsasagsgsfegagaabBdqd 1 i i 1 i i i i i i i 1 1 O 00 • i O O O - 1 03 O 1 O 1 - l 1 1 tH CD 05 1 1 CO |> Ol l 1 1 1 1 O T* 1 03 © <0 l 1 © t- 1 H HCO ; 1 IOO IH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 rH Iri id 1 d d 1 1 1 d d d 1 1 1 1 d 0 Ihhh |i l (M'O 1 O l CO CO 1 CO 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 00 1 LO | CO 1 CO O 1 CO 1 CO IT* l CO rH 1 | l CD H H 1 1 CO CO 00 l 1 1 1 1 O CO 1 00 O r-l 1 1 CM 1 CO CO hJH 1 1 d d id 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 d j d id ! d d j 1 1 d d d 1 l j ! O d 1 d d d i 1 co co 1 00 inrt 1 00 1111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CO j Ol 1 rH 0 1 00 1 CO 1 CO I 1 ig ! 1 1 • • bA 1 Qr> ! 0 ! Ir 3 1 H ! a g College ( Seymour Underwo< l5o 1 CG •o "S ! 0 >* 1 u 0 1 W Ph I CO O I 2§8 1 N- 3 £ ® ® 3 S >£ B aa o ,3 3^,0 Oh W O Is! W QQ <0 02 , 53 s*as it £ «® i -■ aj sip If i Ills &- 1 fn fD Sh i D £h 1 Jh D tn OPQOffl ifso io«© LDLDLDlDLDlDlDlDlD©©O 3 O 3 C 0 < W(N(M(NN(NMHr 1 © © © © © ' 1C LO LO LO 1C LO LO H H 0 CO CO U 1 10lOLOLQlOlOLDCOCOCOCOCOCOCO< >COT*r*H^l al § I S8S»5 M s| i s fi «i«S^l^§ta^§| <, >Ss£aoS^ s lo^|o .|of W m I O ! Ph I °< m O i£ slsji .9 h o «h a >©£ ss®g§s S ^ S° pea tJH S. c c 3 Is W 8 o © © w 3 gi bo o a) O o 'P d 'C crt 'P ® ® CO CO Kl 05 W 53 c3 ■ 5 SnS^ « O rtf) r** 3 • O • fD <12 §P" 4 ’rri’ i”ri"’r*"i”i E 1 - 1 bo0000^ .H ^ M ^ ^ (U OOOOOSOI>-f>COO}QO^tOtO OOOOOOt— I r-ir— irHOOOOOO oot-o^tomoooo OOrHOOOOO I (M 00 00 I CO H CO ! o d d i o O I o o CO to I 00 fN r- 1 CO CO iCOrri i tO CO I ''T CO ICO(N QOO i O O lOO too lOO I o O l o o IQMM C4 rH OO Igoo i 03 i d d 183 1 d o i-r © I to rH • I Cvl GO I rH rH i d d i o o d d I CO CD 1 rH rH I O O l O O dd § ! ! a ! ! a ! J g « > rQ 73 c3 r O r O c3 TI5 Tj C3 Tj “ LO CO i I o o c o oq 73 'O cd TO ^dd^dd^d^d^jd 300 3 00 ? 0 ? 0 p 0 SUJttH'tH bD'M'M tUOH-H btlHH bfl'+H Cl 03 73 03 "O o3 T3 u c (h t3 sh a 03 5 C 3 03 3 bO«w tuO'*-’ OT 3 o C O 35 O 33 a> > §5 2 K§C5 _ | C ® h I Sh 33 c 3 ! 3 ao t» o ! o c a is! >> 1 >> g | ,f O C _ _ P302 '02 PP © »h 33 ! o c '£P Og3 S 00 Mr i I 00 o ! X> JC- 1-oS ! 1 ! o > 1 § ! d T3 1 O ' O lis i d w i R ■ ^ C | 83 l o> ! ho 1 ^ | c 03 IS > g 03 « 1,2 > 15 I o ' c 1 'OK 'OK 'O ■ m ' o 00 00 rf LO r- 1> ^ 1 d r- 03 ! o ! c d S i« -M | F-H I - COCOCO-T^^tptOtO CO ®®®®®®§SSSioc 6 ffl>« ^ 2 d o d U °f , 2o3aj®o3HsJSflC iMfluaW'd C 5 !ph- s «o- ■" ® O' ■ 5 6 §® oS O' W M' ^ CD >, tn co O ^gSSwoSo SSSrfgo 2*1 1 a a 5t302 02 02 02 a *2 02 SOS® oO^ >> rd d <0 HO CO u o -Wft Z --'M o £ C CD ® <3 H-I • fflSodi a 02 O p;S C Sh 03O S 1 ‘5 ’ ' r“ 33 3 g C . c .pH ra njFdOoaOo^ 0 O| MO § co io 1 1 be 1 b<) i i ® ui o i is; a) d 1 w ! © i © 1 id i S-ft i-2 iSa I ft > S | 13 l io i i ^ 1 §« O ' £43 >.-g l Ph 0) l OP i cs^d i^o !o i o o . 1 2 1 .13 o o +5 12 •> 1 o 1 >H 'ffl S4) « « g c3 S 03 ^1 £— CD CD X> JF— u *> 'S Ph © © g> ft w w ® .52 •— »

^-g-gtS a* n Una c3 • • vi H «W ^ 'd 'd >» 'd ft c3 > O V su +J +j ft U O O 3 3 S =3 £ £i Ph Ph i — i Ph ^3 42 NN^ 00 00 o o o o CD CD CD CD Oi O H H CO CO H H CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD O O X> J>- O oT S g id' . >|CU«Q § .2 5? > ft eS.S ^ |5-“ -a O O t IfiSi ig i If ISI Is Igs II il ii ijs’ |lfl I i ' ! s I ilfhl 1 S^lilliilillJjlJ |!si|il 111 1 1! TM miBW.U IlMiU^J o O 03 O „ a : s * .S3 © o 3 o ^ : a > o r ^02 ,20^2 3 bxi c tuo a«* «* ■ftS cc CO S3 43 a o 43 Ph 2 ‘3 <3 (!) On ~ -oOfl.S CCS S M i 62 ;oo ’=32 ^ S S3 d w ~ . W ID . bo u to c3 ft eo w „ 1 o 2 O ”2i° ®- K « «< 43 * ™ . r 45 CQ 02 CQ w 3os w «wE2ii, a '« ~ « 55 a 5 "-v ■“■* 2 | ^ (3 2 „ o . ® &j £ S £ ® 43 u v„® ^ S3 O ~ : S3 o CO CO CQ 2 • ° WPh >>P 1=1 pp s "i s PlIH 0<(-l 0'"3 ^h •S H ^ HI 0> oi©rH © •juaa aad ‘pa^aaAaa pui3 aiqnios OHON'#OB)BOhonwwo^coi'OfflHOiaMOO-# NNNNNM'-OOOr'N«N<- 6 oo) 0 >(MNNtONNO(i«joO ooi^om «o © © co *— 00 © e> •}uaa jad ‘ja^-BAi. ui aiqnios ‘o s H ‘qsB^Od © 00 r- CO C-©l>t-I>-'#©©lO 00 00 r-lrO© 00 Ti<© 00 ®>OJ®©00 00O>© I d d d d d I d d jS3 1 d d *;u00 J0d ‘OLU'BSJO 0iqnios J0VBAV CO CO | a> -OH a 3 3 3 o o 3 i 13 ! 3 p O r O ^ r 0 p 0 r 0 r 0*0 33 ^ 33333 ^ 33 ^ 3^33 33233333^3323233 0050000050050 5 00 «(H « 4 — I SUO'+H » bo o 3^ WS .•3 o .2 O c3 S' 0 N 3 3 SOW bud 0.5 aJ pi »h.S a3 3 O o W £ ^ s-SS.2^ 33®£® WOwMW Ip rH 35® !m ► to 1,2 >>>» lO 2 03 K. 3 **-< fe ® 3 « Wo 1 >5 'O'O I © a a I > • >> t-i fl 05 05 00 < i>- 0 ' LO LO CO < I 05 05 05 CO CO I , 05 05 05 CO CO CO CO C 1 H H iH CO CO CO CO C ' co co co co co co co c 1 co co co CO ilOlOlO(M(MNNHH > rH H rH CO CO CO CO 00 00 • 050505050505050505 >cococococococococo 33 WO K HH . P 5 . 4^ .Ki «+_( r-i - , a 653 ©•S3 ■^2 .5 3 9 s 3 •r-i * — * * . O o-S |0 » „ SS&8“^ lw.2 2^ S 3t»[ «| w 2°^, 3 .a j o 3 !o w ^.9 M S« .. t isaSo-sl 7S « §>W “ .S3 « . o (H 0 3 1 o Pa 9 3W 3 3 w g r 2^ 3 >• 3253 s|SW i Q; H ! p.W.2 5 ? “ 3 ®3oj 330 3, •CQ , 05 » S ' 02 00 3 ft 0 0 3 £C5 O a . M 3 3 . 2 .2 °® ft ® ■p-ppH a® g g 2 =*=5! S S "05_ ^ 3 2 aS g S p” WW S ► P. ;W^ 02 77 oo t- © oo r— c3 d d A d 5 § 3 « § 5, O O 2, ° tn«w >M aC'M idd i d d A S3 !d d l-S *3 I 03 00 I CO i i-i in • • I oj to l rH 00 in rH OH j © in t> to in © in to in t> O r-i O d © 03 inn in hh © © © © © in oo oo to to © o> © 03 03 Ol OONNOMH HCtmOHIMN in to co MNN IHHO © Hit 00 © © rH 03 in in -h! m © i-h © otooooinoo©ooi-t03 1 © © to © © © o 1 C oo © .©©©©© © © CO ^ CO © rH ©© C3 C3 00© 00©©©©00 00©© © 03 00 H H C3 i i i i i i j Hit CO 1 © 1 CO 03 ' CO ! © © i © t- 1 rH © © IHH 1 © 1 to" CO 8 © q |§ ife r-i 1 © 1 © CO iNHiO 1 00 © © 1 © © © 1 T* CO © 1 © © © 1 © © 8 j^qSo r-i Iddo i i i i i i I © c- ! © 1 l-l rH .03 ! © © ! © ” jss O 1 o o 6 © © 1 00 1 CO T* l (N l CO © i © i © I 00 © © I C<3 Cvl 1 (N (N H 1 T* LO © ! © © © ! © © § |SS?g? © 1 © © © i i i i i \%S jg i © © id rH i © 03 © 1 03 d CO cq © in i co 1 03 in i © i co © i © i © © 1 CO CO 03 1 © © © ! © © © 1 © © M j C3 S 03 d i d d d i i i i irlN t 1 (M i-H 1 H loo ! o © 1 ^ 1 • 1 © 1 © © io © 8 i £ is © i © i © 8 issq d i d d d ! d d 8 'm& r $ rH 1 © © © i i i i i i i i i ! 1 1 d i ! d | d | d 1 i ij ! 1 i| a ! I d ! did I did : I : J ! did i i i ! i i i +J ! +J +- d ! d ! d i p ! ii M N M i ii i i ii j i fl ! i ! a ! . a t a 1 ,, a «3«33 d o ft o o bJ0K ; o | te’p, d « a da s “ 5? 33 d in O o3 i i-i S3 '<0 © 00 00 IHN ea -^i 03 i r- :s is >» .sw 33 -H> is§ I3& OOQ Ol CO O OJ CO x> t- ^ o B a* - w dn « g £ a £ £ o ft £ g Q © S 03 1 .H » H l>cEa t>d o«w 5 ^ d! d c - ^ ©©©©©©©©©© C3 2 fcg a d C3 *H ■ . m O m w S°s« s d Oh O O Q .S3 CQ ^ CO OQ -1^5=3 =3 A Q, Ph .2 oo _ « ® fl £i d +3 -u § 5 ° A O o ggm-osin “•gssss sSflMWW O CO bfi . S3 o •Sfc •ft ^ U A . 133 i^ !& ift 1® 1 B 1 ! 2 iH a = :S |« O g Id n oOm g fH * CQ CC ^ 3 S 3 § S'S'g | g|Sas fi ^i <3 ssfiglii* l^s|««"S n 5 6 ||h|qw^|qw 'O u cj c3 S3© o o ■flO 6 . o . 60® h.s°6 ft d ©q •i-t *p-! | o i 1 ^ O !§3 'flS ' '&g£° ! J|lsoI|3gs sw 3WdO»Q J '-'r os m °tn ® 3© ®B*h dO sO^£ ns,. 0 d 0 fid W S^ S3 .3 -K. ^ 2 53 ^ d gsla^ a.ss^gs-o « a .D.2?o.£f > o’w^aS Dfl iH t-,83© . 3 « ■ oOWOWOOOW^H 3 1* | * * * I* * > > »5 > 1 pq 'Sgss © . HinHHHO!Oinoioco«)»OMinHOMiM HdoddHNHHHHOHNHHdHOHONNNHOlHHHHOpINHNNNi- OHWHOOOOOU}^Ol'rtHOOHi<»OHNO®iltOOI>OtOO®0!0'#ONOOO cdtDt'OOtOh-INMNMMMinHHCONWCi 3 Tti^OOOOOJWO> 0 ) 0005 ^NMM|^OOI)OOON •}U 0 O j ad ‘• 101 'BAi ui eiqnios *o z yL ‘qs^god 0 050 (NH (N OWOONHHONOO HHHHHHHHrltOCO O 05 O^OCD 00 t 0 C^ OT-HT-HT-HrHC^T-HrHrHdoOOr— iT^rHOrHT-HrHOOO 00000 05 X OHOOC SO J> 00 odd CO CO d o 1 00 00 1 r “? ! d d 1 J> o 1 d o •)uao aad ‘oiu'BS -jo aiqniosui ja^BAV aApo'Bui CO^H odd ^ T* 1C LO d d d d . TfH 10 IO o d d d o 0 d d CO CO CO d o o o cc ! d d •}U0O aad ‘diubSjo aiqnios J 01 T 3 M O CO lo co O CO dodo d d 000 dod •;uaa aad ‘s^bs BIUOUIUIB pUB Sa^BJ^ -iu ui ajqnjos ja^B^V co eo 1 d d o i © © © © 33 d o £2823 odd o eo o d i'CD'SU laaafl 1 = 333 I o o o o cs'C'O H a a « 33 3 = g, o o -hi 43 -O a a 33 p o o >43 43 43 I a a a i =3 =3 3 ) O O O ■d od 43 a? 43 a 43 a 43 a -a 43 riPic 1 r 1 c!PirtP 33 00 02,10 I Pi 43 I =3 fl ! £3 03 33 Cl « Pi fflMMOi # ift 10 in oiHHino CO •*(< TjH OJt- t- 03 3 o bfl fall a a 1 a a a a WW> NIOO I>030 00 03 t- HOW 1 TQ [ j ! ™ §? -aM — ; 33 ! 5 1 sS. 1 ! ^ — ! a •« ! 2 •a Morocc Ferdin; Deputy Salem CO 0 ! ao 1 03 .0^ a * 1 43 P 1 p ati 1 0)rH K 'PhOW i 0 ! a - >» !S 0 j | 'pH CO {H | 03 O 1-9'S 1 O 03 «^W I'd ! S M ! .3 a I'D to « 'ON rBpi»o eooseoeococorHiHr-it^iHrHt^ooi COCOOOCOCOCOCOJ>SoOOOOOOOOQC s 2 'd O a> O .+2 --.233 £ 33 ft; V Q. Sa Si. 2 Ph 2 a a it^ 11 -J rr< 5 by a. 3 ® a 2 2 A § pi a os a <“■£ ®oj m a n h - 1 Pi.N, oj 33 S3 bo Or j 5 J«dd6^.S6 a oOPhWMWOOH •a :s I * * * J* > .a Q (5j3ft«8 Q3 CO rO Jh . w 3^3 "o«S V* qo Pi o a a> ^ “8 a a g » § a a a ss<' • a 0 Ph o ^ opM a fl • • Ay ^ bo a 4, « a 2 • esOcc a.P 2 o +» 9 • • § 32 oo a Sr'.Pon 004 I - > 5lE-'l d °o§S Q GO • (& bQao WPnOafi • * 1 * 1 * * > > 111 h w a ph ,— T 22 a -o as 42 — a M ,® ® p o S a rS apL| Pi O > > o O 03-0 O Pi S-8L-- ^gaSf Pag • 2 73 33 &33(S O -o a " a SOOPi * I* > a ,* o c t Pp^W 33 a . o a o*?o> 79 ifcin ci co Cl Cl ID LO lO CO 'NOiOJ CO 1-H CO Tf H rH OOOrHOCiOlOCDCOLO CDOOhOOOOHHHH GO GO CO o © © © O co o CO CO ^ CO I CO © 1 © s jfc d 1 © gos d (M © © t~ I— I © l-H CO 63 © © -a I'O £ g © fc- © © © t- t- i o © © © tJH rt< ^ S i ■ 'O ! 'O dTi o 3 T 3 oS'C ^ 'd 3§3o3o?0 5 Bo ®o®^ 1 0,2 \ a w 5 ? id b 0-£,2 £ 7 h i O Ph l O i ® E o Ph loo 'OO 1 W 'OOWO u 'd 1 1 “ rt 2 ft X ™ O ^ £ u ■g s b £ CO I CO s iff isss iff i§sog i££ lg£ !“ !g£ 2 °£ t-t-INENCOCO-^HtH COCOCOCOCOCOCOCO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO Cl OCOCOCOCOCDCOCD *-t-r-eoeoeococo©©©©© 0}05©H<-t , '*t , iLDLOcococococo LOLOIDCOCOCILCLOJlOJlDJlOLDJlO COCOCOCDCDCOCDCOCDCOCDCDCD 3 03 r-t "gs Si3 ls ? a : ft “ 1 ^ 7? O 'S ^ ° t - _N rQ „ Ph O H - 0 ®f © d^ d ^9 a Sg«S« ro ^ , t-< -£ a> d-d 3 S S5-SP5S^ S a ~< < dd-s £ O a ph® a 'o w • M.SW Ph . • ab fr*“® « d >» o d cq 03^ ft > 9 5 a* ® 9 hH m Pj 2 O gflsS fe. 2 g§ 4 a ft9lqJ<«Oc 3 P©. 9 y igsassie?!^ © a O bo d k CO •ntf « ajt> c 3 33 . ft all d d . > g £ •g£g ®d o Ph ti £ a CG O o & ii £.5 > . f O t: £ g 'd o o *! g ® & a 3 ft - *4 to J? S o O o .d m aCU o ® .d n £ ^ ®«tj III ^ o ® ® .c ft 3 ft - B Jf ' oO ° A m ftCu "C £ o c •£ u ft * « a o ® & a ft 5 ® o 1* 83 +■> a is f * 20 ■5 ftfc ^ 'o o® Eh a Buhner Fertilizer Company, Seymour, Ind. | Grain Booster 5747 0.8 10.0 1.0 Acid Phosphate _ 6075 14.0 W. T. Crop Grower 6525 ’id) "67i 8.0 i.o W. T. Truck Grower __ 6526 2.4 0.5 8.0 2.0 W. T. Grain Producer _ 6527 0.8 1.0 8.0 1.0 W. T. Grain Grower 6528 1.6 0.2 8.0 2.0 16% Acid Phosphate . 6696 16.0 Ground Bone _ 6742 2.4 24.0 Ammoniated Bono Phosphate 6994 2^0 "676 Ii76 Central Phosphate Company, Mt. Pleasant, Tenn. Tennessee Phosphate Rock _______ 5040 28.0 Tennessee Phosphate 5261 32.0 Chicago Feed & Fertilizer Company, Chicago, 111. Magic Blood & Bone 6584 4.9 13.7 Magic Tankage Fertilizer __ 6585 2.4 0.5 1.5 Magic Pulverized Sheep Manure _ 6586 1.6 i!o i!o Magic 3 — 22 Steamed Bone Meal 6587 2.4 22.0 6588 3.2 1.0 6.0 Magic 4 — 3 — 1 6589 3!2 1.0 3!o Magic Manure Ash Potash ___ 6706 4.0 2.0 Magic Acid Phosphate 6930 1676 "176 Magic Brand Manure Ash Potash 7146 "676 ‘276 Chicago Raw Products Company, Chicago, 111. Consumers Special 14% Acid Phosphate 5012 14.0 1.0 Consumers Special Raw Bone Meal 5013 3.7 20.0 Consumers Special 3 — 22 Bone Meal 5070 2.4 22.8 Consumers Special 1 — 29 Pure Bone Meal _ _ 5072 o!s 29.7 Consumers Special Ammoniated Extra Bone Meal _ 5681 2.0 28.0 Consumers Brand Steamed Bone Meal — 6387 0.8 24.0 Consumers Brand Bone & Phosphate Mixture 6388 0.4 1676 "676 Consumers Brand 16% Acid Phosphate 6389 16.0 1.0 Consumers Brand 15% Acid Phosphate 6390 15.0 1.0 Consumers Brand Ammoniated Phosphate 6393 "176 10.0 1.0 Consumers Hummer Grain Grower _. _„ 6827 0.8 "675 10.0 1.0 Consumers Ammoniated Bone Phosphate ___ 6828 0.6 15.0 1.0 Consumers Corn & Wheat Special _ _ 7037 0.8 12.0 1.0 Consumers Onion & Truck Grower __ 7038 0.4 "§76 8.0 1.0 Consumers Otto Voyles Special 7039 0.6 8.0 1.0 Consumers rinrn ^ T n haeerv Grower 7040 0.8 10.0 1.0 Consumers Special Crop Grower 7041 0^4 12.0 1.0 Otto Voyles Special with Potash 7111 0.6 ~oTB 8.5 1.0 — Cincinnati Phosphate Company, The, Cincinnati, Ohio Ga.pit.al Oity Wheat Grower 2886 14.0 1.0 Patrons High Grade Phosphate 3626 IIII IIII 16.0 1.0 “Bonus” A Phosphate with Humus 3903 0.4 __ 12.0 1.0 “A” Grain and Grass Grower 4301 0.8 2.0 8.0 1.0 A. Conservation Brand 5829 0.8 1.0 12.0 1.0 Z Grain & Grass Grower 5830 0.8 1.0 9.0 1.0 Ammoniated Super Phosphate 6292 1.6 12.0 1.0 High Grade Manure 6293 1.2 "176 9.0 1.0 “A.” Tobacco Potatoe & Beet Grower 6294 1.6 1.0 8.0 1.0 Revised Indiana Black Soil Special 6582 0.4 3.0 6.0 1.0 Revised Black Soil Special 6583 0.4 2.0 6.0 1.0 Favorite Grain Grower _ 6622 0.8 10.0 1.0 A Ground Bone 6754 1.6 27.0 C-Bone & Phosphate Mixture Wheat. Special 6755 1.6 8.0 8.0 Capitol Crop Booster 6758 0.4 "176 10.0 1.0 Capitol Tobacco Potato & Beet Grower 7046 0.8 2.0 8.0 1.0 — Clendenin Fertilizer Company, Richmond, Ind. Acid Phosphate Special 4839 14.0 — — Wheat Grower — 6117 0.8 1.0 10.0 — — 85 TABLE VIII.— Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1918 (continued) Label Official No. Guaranteed by manufactur- ers to contain not less than Nitrogen, N, per cent. Potash, K 2 0, soluble in water, per cent. Soluble and reverted phosphoric acid, P 2 0 5 , per cent. Insoluble phosphoric acid, P 2 0 5 , per cent. Total phosphoric acid, P 2 0 5 , per cent. Clendenin Fertilizer Company, Richmond, Ind. Corn Grower — 6607 1.6 10.0 Tankage and Phosphate 6608 0.8 11.0 Acid Phosphate 6609 16.0 Phosphate and Bone 6610 1.8 12.0 176 — Cleveland Provision Company, The, Cleveland, Ohio Premium Bone Meal . - G898 0.6 — 25.0 Darling & Company, Chicago, 111. Darling’s Ground Raw Bone - - 2843 3.3 21.0 4184 14.8 Darling’s “A” Pure Ground Bone _ 5120 1.8 7777 7777 7777 2876 Darling’s Sheep Manure __ - 6258 2.0 1.0 1.0 Darling’s 16% Acid Phosphate 6372 16.0 Darling’s Grain Grower -- - 6373 0.8 1.0 9.0 2.0 Darling’s Big Harvest 6374 1.6 1.0 12.0 2.0 Darling’s Farmers’ Favorite -- -- 6375 2.4 1.0 8.0 2.0 Darling’s Sure Winner 6377 0.8 0.5 10.0 2.0 Darling’s Blood & Bone 6620 4.9 _ __ 12.0 Darling’s General Crop - 6778 1.6 12.0 2.0 Darling’s Little Giant Brand _ — — 6812 0.8 10.0 2.0 Darling’s One— Eight— Two Brand 6813 0.8 2.0 8.0 2.0 Darling’s Half and Half 6901 0.8 — 10.0 13.0 — D. & K. Fertilizer Company, Indianapolis, Ind. D and K. Bone Phosphate 3030 1.1 10.0 1.0 Pure Ground Bone 3363 1.6 _ £676 Quick Acting Corn Grower 3402 0.8 1.5 176 0.5 D. & K. Nitrate of Soda 4979 14.0 D and K 14% Acid Phosphate 5483 14.6 D & K Garden Special - -- 5757 1.6 1.6 10.0 D & K Early Maturity 5759 1.6 2.0 8.0 _1 Ammoniated Mixture 5769 1.6 12.0 Dissolved Bone Phosphate with Potash 6062 0.8 i.i 7.0 1.0 D & K Special Wheat & Clover 6200 0.8 1.0 9.0 - Available Plant Food — — 6226 1.2 10.0 D & K Corn King 6260 0.8 6.5 12.0 D & K Special Spring Fertilizer 6261 0.4 0.5 13.0 D & K V 2 — 8— 3 .. . . ... 6615 0.4 3.0 8.0 D & K Special Wheat Fertilizer 6689 0.8 0.5 12.0 D & K Special Fall Fertilizer 6690 0.4 0.5 13.0 Special Wheat Grower _ ... _ 6969 0.8 10.0 i.o 7777 Tankage and Phosphate Special 6986 0.4 12.0 0.5 Ammoniated Phosphate 7135 0.4 _ 10.0 Wheat & Clover 7144 0.5 6.5 11.0 — — Dryfus Packing & Provision Company, LaFayette, Ind. Dryfus Star Fertilizer ... 5460 5.0 — — 10.0 Eckart Packing Company, Fred, Ft. Wayne, Ind. Eckart’s Fertilizer . 4572 3.6 — — — 12.8 Empire Carbon Works, Subsidiary of The American Agricultural Chemical Company, Cincinnati, Ohio Empire 14% Acid Phosphate 6814 14.0 Empire 16% Acid Phosphate 6815 16.0 Empire 1—10 Ammoniated Acid Phosphate .. 6816 '67s 10.0 Empire 2—10 Ammoniated Acid Phosphate ._ 6817 1.6 10.0 Empire 2—12 Ammoniated Acid Phosphate 6818 1.6 12.0 Empire Acid Phosphate with Potash 1916 6819 "£76 12.0 Empire Full Harvest 6820 ’67§ 1.0 8.0 Empire Wheat & Clover Fertilizer 6821 0.8 2.0 8.0 Empire Grain & Grass Grower 6822 1.6 2.0 8.0 Empire Bone Black Fertilizer 1916 6823 2.0 1.0 8.0 Empire Farmers Favorite . ... 6824 0.8 1.0 10.0 Empire High Grade Fertilizer 1916 6825 2.4 1.0 10.0 — — 86 TABLE VIII. — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1918 (continued) Label Guaranteed by manufactur- ers to contain not less than Empire Carbon Works, Subsidiary of The American Agricultural Chemical Company, Cincinnati, Ohio Empire Ground Bone Empire Little Wonder Empire Guano Company, The, New Albany Sales Department, New Albany, Ind. Empire High Grade Acid Phosphate Empire Climax Acid Phosphate . Empire Pure Raw Bone Raw Rock Phosphate Nitrate of Soda Good Enough No. 1 Red Banner Special No. 1 Indiana Special No. 2 Empire Pure Steamed Bone Hoosier Special _ — Half & Half No. 1 Tankage & Phosphate Special Favorite : Red Banner Special No. 2 Ammoniated Potash & Phosphate No. 1 Truck Grower No. 1' Blood Bone & Phosphate No. 1 Half-Seven-Three Empire Half-Ten-Five Empire Five-Five Indiana Special No. 2 Fertilizer Wedeking’s Hummer Grain Grower Wedeking’s General Crop Empire 2 & 26 Steamed Bone Hoosier Brand Tomato & Tobacco Grower Evansville Packing Company, Evansville, Ind. Harvest King Pure Raw Bone Meal Corn & Wheat Special High Grade Soluble Phosphate Bone Phosphate & Potash Three B. “Farmers Pride” Revised Half and Half Wonder Growth “Leader” Everitt’s Seed Store, Indianapolis, Ind. Magic Corn, Oats and Wheat Grower (Ev-Er-It Brand) Magic Garden and Truck Grower (Ev-Er-It Brand) Ev-Er-It Brand Humus Ev-Er-It Brand Sheep Manure Ewing, Geo. M., Greensburg, Ind. Ewing’s Phosphate & Potash Ewing’s Best Phosphate & Potash Ewing’s Acid Phosphate Ewing’s Complete Fertilizer Ewing’s 14% Acid Phosphate Ewing’s Grain King Farmers Fertilizer Company, The, Indianapolis, Ind. Farmers Wheat & Oats Special Our Universal Phosphate Corn & Wheat Grower Our German Phosphate Our Half & Half Official No. Nitrogen, N, per cent. Potash, K 2 0, soluble in water, per cent. Soluble and reverted phosphoric acid, PoO*. per cent. Insoluble phosphoric acid, P 2 0 6 , per cent. Total phosphoric acid, P 2 0 6 , per cent. 6826 1.6 27.0 7102 0.4 — ioio — — 3307 14.0 2.0 3514 16.0 1.0 4593 3.5 2L5 5125 30.0 5127 15.0 __ 5774 0.8 i.o 12.0 1.6 5787 0.8 2.0 10.0 1.0 6209 0.3 1.0 15.0 1.0 6231 0.8 2976 6318 0.4 6.5 8.6 i.o 6319 1.6 1.0 6.0 6.0 6320 0.8 12.0 1.0 6321 1.6 12.0 1.0 6322 0.8 i.o 9.0 1.0 6323 0.4 1.0 10.0 1.0 6483 0.6 2.5 7.0 1.0 6703 1.6 1.0 8.0 1.0 6722 0.4 3.0 7.0 6910 0.4 5.0 10.0 To 6911 5.0 5.0 1.0 6967 6.3 1.0 14.0 1.0 6982 0.4 12.0 1.0 6983 0.8 12.0 1.0 6988 1.6 26 i6 7101 0.4 io.o i.o 7138 0.4 I.o 10.0 1.0 — 4886 1.0 2.0 8.0 1.0 4891 3.7 23.0 5359 0.8 §76 5.0 To 5360 16.0 2.0 6057 6.8 i.o 7.0 2.0 6058 1.6 2.0 8.0 2.0 6247 0.8 1.0 12.0 2.0 6545 2.5 1.0 10.0 2.0 6546 1.6 10.0 2.0 6734 2.4 1.0 9.0 2.0 — 7139 14.0 7140 "2:6 To 8.0 7141 1.2 0.5 ”676 7142 2.0 1.2 — 1.5 3324 2.0 10.0 3325 2.0 12.0 3326 10.0 3619 6.8 i.o 7.0 3733 14.0 4706 1.6 2.0 8.0 '6.5 — 3199 14.0 3555 T§ To 7.0 To 3556 0.8 2.0 8.0 1.0 3557 0.8 3.0 8.0 1.0 4817 1.2 — 8.0 11.0 — 87 TABLE VIII. — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1918 (co ntinued) Guaranteed by manufactur- ers to contain not less than Label farmers Fertilizer Company, The, Indianapolis, Ind. Grain Manure 16% Acid Phosphate Superphosphated Manure Plant Food Black Soil Formula Soil Food Corn & Wheat Grower without Potash Nitro Phosphate federal Chemical Company, Inc., Louisville, Ky. Daybreak Standard Phosphate Daybreak Star Phosphate Daybreak Royal Phosphate Daybreak Fine Raw Bone “A” Daybreak Wheat & Com Special Daybreak Special Manure Ground Tobacco Stems Nitrate of Soda A. 1 Daybreak Raw Bone Daybreak High Grade Acid Phosphate : Daybreak Ground Phosphate Rock Half & Half Phosphate Mixture Pure Bone Extra High Grade Phosphate Daybreak Royal Wheat & Grain Special Sand Land Special Daybreak Nitro-Phosphate Daybreak Cracker- Jack Daybreak Harvest Home Daybreak Half & Half Meal Mixture Standard Crop & Tobacco Fertilizer A-l Formula 1916 High Grade Fertilizer Special Potato Fertilizer Potato Grower Red Rooster Mixture A-l Fertilizer 1916 A-l Corn & Wheat Fertilizer Potato & Tobacco Fertilizer Tobacco, Truck & Tomato Fertilizer 1916 Special Truck & Tomato Fertilizer High Grade Special A-l Special Standard Grain Grower Standard Corn & Wheat Fertilizer Daybreak Special Manure 1916 Daybreak Grain Grower 1916 Daybreak A-l Champion Daybreak Corn, Wheat & Clover Grower 1st Prize Phosphate A— 1st Prize Tobacco Mixture 1st Prize Ammoniated Meal Mixture 1st Prize Corn & Wheat Champion 1st Prize Corn, Wheat & Oats Grower 1st Prize Grain Maker 1st Prize Wheat & Grain Special 1st Prize Corn & Wheat Fertilizer 1st Prize Clay Land Soil Builder 1st Prize Phosphate Mixture 1st Prize Ammoniated Bone Phosphate 1st Prize Standard Phosphate 1st Prize A A. Phosphate 1st Prize Fine Raw Bone ___ 1st Prize Raw Bone Blue Ribbon Meal Mixture O <5 0) o •*-' £ * Si c H u *1 d 0) J3 ft 3 a - 2 S a 2 o £ Si a a s O a 3% 2 ® a fi W 10 20 •5 ci £ 0 ->-> u i V. a (£.5 H# “ i oO \m a Du , Insol acid. | o 1 E-I ci 5808 0.8 1.0 9.0 6188 16.0 6237 i.o 10.0 i.o 6272 0.8 i.o 12.0 6273 0.4 3.0 5.0 6274 0.8 0.5 8.0 6276 0.8 8.0 7023 0.4 10.0 3923 12.0 3924 10.0 3925 _ 14.0 4088 2.4 2L0 4143 0.4 1.0 li.o 4271 0.8 2.0 10.0 4754 2.0 9.0 4997 15.0 5002 3.7 22.6 5016 i6io 5252 29.7 5435 10.0 12.0 5657 1.0 30.6 5742 iiTo 5766 6.8 i.o 12.0 5857 1.2 0.5 12.5 5858 0.4 15.0 5866 0.4 i.o 13.0 5868 2.4 10.0 5869 1.6 10.0 ioio 6416 1.2 10.0 6417 1.6 10.0 6418 1.6 12.0 6419 2.4 i.o 9.0 6420 3.2 1.0 8.0 6421 0.4 12.0 6422 0.8 12.0 6423 0.8 14.0 6424 2.0 1.0 10.0 6425 1.6 1.0 9.0 6426 1.6 0.5 11.5 6427 0.8 1.0 14.0 6428 0.4 0.5 15.0 6429 0.8 1.0 10.0 6430 1.2 0.5 10.0 6431 1.0 0.5 10.0 6432 0.4 0.5 9.0 6433 0.4 0.5 11.5 6434 0.8 1.0 9.0 6435 14.0 6436 6.4 6.5 9.0 6437 2.4 10.0 6438 0.4 0.5 11.5 6439 0.4 1-0 11.0 6440 0.4 1.0 13.0 6441 0.8 1.0 12.0 6442 1.0 0.5 10.0 6443 1.2 0.5 12.5 6444 0.4 12.0 6445 0.4 15.0 1 6446 12.0 6447 _ __ 10.0 6448 2.4 24.0 6449 3.7 22.0 6450 1.6 ■ io.o io.o 88 TABLE VIII. — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1918 (continued) Label Official No. Guar ers t z a j Mg 2 « r* a> Z a O P 3 Potash, KoO, soluble o p*. in water, per cent. § $ Soluble and reverted £. ^ phosphoric acid, 13 PoO K , per cent. 5 3 lanufa )t less o . 1 « is o ® A a 5 2 .1 Potash, KoO, soluble o in water, per cent. § g 1 by m ain nc -3 a) Sh > r d £ °» S d H u & U H ft 3 a ^ O H C1 CO ftp-! tanufa >t less c> . Is a " o 5> A ft 5 w o O a! ** -2 £ iS.s Soluble and reverted E. phosphoric acid, p ^ P 2 O k , per cent. 5 3 anufa 4 less .2 • ! § ■s? to o ® A ft 10 ® o Is ctur- than .2 8 o$5 W £ 5° P-C^ ° '3 EH sj International Agricultural Corporation, Cincinnati Works, Cincinnati, 0. C. F. & C. W. Best Acid Phosphate __ __ - 6015 14.0 1.0 Buffalo Grain and Grass Grower 6021 ~6T§ To 8.0 L0 7777 Buffalo Phosphate and Potash _ — ___ 6022 2.0 12.0 1.0 Buffalo Dissolved Phosphate 6023 14.0 1.0 I. A. C. 16% Acid Phosphate 6024 To L0 T, A. G, Bnnp Meal 6026 2.4 22.0 I. A. C. Pine Steamed Bone ___ 6027 0.8 29.0 Buffalo Garbage Tankage and Phosphate _ 6174 0.4 6676 ’676 18% Acid Phosphate 6204 18.0 0.5 Wheat Corn & Oat Special 6244 ’67§ ”i7o 10.0 1.0 Buffalo Complete Fertilizer _ _ 6549 1.6 1.0 8.0 1.0 Buffalo Crop Grower 6550 0.8 1.0 8.0 1.0 6551 1.6 10.0 1.0 Farmers Favorite 6552 o'.s To i!o Buffalo Buckeye Brand 1 6553 To 10.0 1.0 HubbelPs Complete Fertilizer __ 6554 ’676 1.0 8.0 1.0 Hubbell’s Wheat Corn & Oats Special v 6555 0.8 1.0 10.0 1.0 Hubbell’s Crop Grower 6556 0.8 1.0 8.0 1.0 Hubbell’s Hoosier Brand _ — 6557 1.0 10.0 1.0 C. F. & C. W. Triumph Brand 6566 1.0 10.0 1.0 C. F. & C. W. Smith’s Special 6567 ~0~8 1.0 8.0 1.0 DP fr. C. W Rfirf Pihhrm Brand 6568 1.6 1.0 8.0 1.0 Buffalo Grain Grower 6725 0.8 13.0 2.0 7777 Buffalo Two Eight Two _ 6799 1.6 To 8.0 1.0 Hubbell’s Indiana Highland 2—8—2 6855 1.6 2.0 8.0 1.0 Sppri^l Wheat Fprtilizpr 6938 0.8 22.0 Hubbell High Potash Substitute 7132 ’£76 6676 ’676 James & Company, C. C., Chicago, 111. James 16% Acid Phosphate 7096 — — 16.0 — - .... Jarecki Chemical Company, The, Cincinnati, Ohio C. 0. D. Phosphate — _ 2918 14.0 1.0 Number One Guano with Phosphate and Potash 4288 ”578 To 8.0 1.0 Ground Bonp 5189 1.6 27.0 Raw Bone 5559 3.7 22.0 A. Middle West Formula _ 5818 0.8 ’176 6676 ’676 A. Number One Formula 5819 0.8 1.0 9.0 1.0 An Acid Phosphate ___ 6145 16.0 1.0 Jarecki’s Cereala 6296 1.6 12.0 1.0 Jareckils Lake Erie Guano with Phosphate & Potash 6297 1.2 ’676 9.0 1.0 Amrnrminted Phosphate 6298 0.8 10.0 1.0 Tobacco & Truck Grower 6299 1.6 676 8.0 1.0 Revised Black Soil Special _ 6575 0.4 2.0 6.0 1.0 Revised Indiana Black Soil Special _ 6576 0.4 3.0 6.0 1.0 C-Raw Bone & Phosphate Mixture 6751 1.6 8.0 8.0 Jarecki’s Little Giant 6759 0.4 i.o 10.0 1.0 A. Tobacco & Truck Grower 7045 0.8 2.0 8.0 1.0 Jones Phosphate Company, The Robin, Nashville, Tenn. Ground Phosphate Rock 5451 28.0 Kaufman Fertilizer Company, The, Cincinnati, Ohio “A” Harvest King 4291 0.8 2.0 8.0 1.0 “Dissolved Phosphate’’ 4731 ' 14.0 1.0 A. Complete Ration 5836 6.8 6.6 12.0 1.0 Kaufman Harvest King 5839 0.8 1.0 9.0 1.0 A. Special Wheat Fertilizer 5840 0.8 1.0 9.0 1.0 Kaufman’s Corn Wheat & Oats Grower 6300 1.2 1.0 9.0 1.0 Kaufman’s Special Potato & Tobacco Fertilizer 6301 1.6 1.0 8.0 1.0 Jewel Plant Food 6302 1.6 12.0 1.0 Phosphate and Ammonia 6303 0.8 10.0 1.0 Revised Indiana Black Soil Special 6580 0.4 To 6.0 1.0 Revised Black Soil Special 6581 0.4 2.0 6.0 1.0 Acid Phosphate 16% 6707 16.0 ' 1.0 — 93 TABLE VIII. — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 191 8 (continued) Guaranteed by manufactur- ers to contain not less than Isabel Kaufman Fertilizer Company, The, Cincinnati, Ohio A Pure Bone Kaufman’s Half & Half Kaufman’s Banner Crop Grower Kaufman’s A. Special Potato and Tobacco Fertilizer Kentucky Fertilizer Company, Branch, Federal Chemical Company, Inc., Louisville, Ky. 0. K. Corn, Wheat & Oat Grower O. K. Grain Grower O. K. Phosphate Standard Phosphate Good Luck Phosphate O. K. Raw Bone 0. K. Fine Raw Bone O. K. High Grade Acid Phosphate 0. K. Wheat & Grain Special 0. K. Ammoniated Phosphate 0. K. Clay Land Crop Grower O. K. Old Reliable O. K. Special Meal Mixture 0. K. Half & Half Meal Mixture O. K. Corn, Wheat & Clover Grower 0. K. Grain Special 0. K. Special Mixture 0. K. Corn & Wheat Fertilizer - — O. K. Gold Medal Corn & Wheat Grower O. K. Mixture O. K. Special Crop Grower 1916 0. K. Gold Medal Ammoniated Phosphate O. K. Golden King Fertilizer 0. K. Gold Medal Grain Grower O. K. Tobacco Fertilizer O. K. Gold Medal Wheat & Corn Maker 0. K. Crop Maker 0. K. Clay Land Corn & Wheat Grower O. K. Double-Header 0. K. Life-Saver O. K. Bread-Winner * Level-Best Phosphate 0. K. Level Best Tobacco Compound Gold Medal Potash Fertilizer 0. K. Double Phosphate & Potash Farmer’s Friend Tobacco Mixture 0. K. Tobacco Formula 0. K. Life-Saver Fertilizer Kirke Chemical Company, Brooklyn, N. Y. Kirke Fertilizer Louisville Fertilizer Company, Louisville, Ky. Special Wheat Grower Eagle Guano Eagle Indiana Special Corn Grower Nitrate of Soda Eagle Indiana Phosphate Eagle Fine Raw Bone Meal Eagle Grain Formula Eagle Special Grain Grower Eagle High Grade Dissolved Bone Phosphate Eagle Sixteen Percent. Eagle Bone Phosphate & Potash Eagle Slaughter House Bone & Phosphate Grain Formula Special Special Grain Grower Formula Indiana Special Wheat Formula Official No. Nitrogen, N, per cent. Potash, K 2 O f soluble in water, per cent. Soluble and reverted phosphoric acid, PnO r> , per cent. Insoluble phosphoric acid, P 2 0 5 , per cent. Total phosphoric jacid, P 2 0 5 , per cent. 6756 1.6 .... 27.0 6757 1.6 To 8.0 6760 0.4 To 10.0 1.0 7047 0.8 2.0 8.0 1.0 4559 0.4 1.0 11.0 1.0 4560 0.4 1.0 11.0 1.0 4563 14.0 4564 12.0 4565 10.0 4566 ~ 3~7 22.0 4567 2.4 24.0 5508 __ 16.0 5767 6.8 1.0 12.0 5898 0.4 15.0 5902 1.2 0.5 12.5 5903 0.4 1.0 13.0 5904 2.4 10.0 5905 1.6 10.0 10.0 , J ._ 6409 0.8 To 9.0 6410 0.4 0.5 9.0 6411 0.4 0.5 11.5 6412 1.0 0.5 10.0 6413 1.2 0.5 10.0 6414 0.4 12.0 6415 0.8 16.0 6636 0.4 12.0 10.0 6804 0.8 8.0 ; i2.o 6805 0.4 ~0~5 9.0 9.0 6931 1.0 0.5 10.0 6960 0.4 0.5 11.5 6961 0.4 0.5 11.5 6962 0.4 0.5 12.5 6963 0.8 10.0 10.0 6964 0.4 10.0 10.0 6965 0.4 14.0 7086 _ _ _ 10.0 ii’o 7087 6.4 1.5 10.0 7088 2.0 1 8.0 To 7089 1.0 10.0 10.0 7090 T5 0.5 8.0 8.0 7001 0.4 1.0 8.0 8.0 7092 0.4 10.0 12.0 6590 5.0 3.1 7.5 0.7 2786 0.8 1.0 7.0 S i.o 3423 1.6 2.0 10.0 1.0 3424 0.8 1.0 7.0 1.0 3501 15.0 3564 To To- 5312 2.4 24 " 0 5714 0.4 3.6 lo.o T6 5715 0.4 3.0 1 8.0 0.5 5985 14.0 0.5 5986 _ __ 16.0 0.5 5988 0.4 1.0 11.0 0.5 5989 1.6 2.0 8.0 0.5 6249 0.4 2.0 10.0 0.5 6250 0.4 2.0 8.0 0.5 6251 0.8 2.0 1 12.0 0.5 1 94 TABLE VIII. — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1918 (continued) Label Official No. Guar ers t c* • £ u 4-> U g §, o Potash, K 2 0, soluble o 3 in water, per cent. § ® Soluble and reverted £. ^ phosphoric acid, 3 ^ P 2 0 5 , per cent. 3 3 anufa it less O • !? 0 ® .c ft P. a d » — c 0 ctur- than a a 8 Sh , 0 <3 ■P d. a w u 20 a£ 5 'd F-i d Louisville Fertilizer Company, Louisville, Ky. One Ten One Fertilizer _ 6402 0.8 1.0 10.0 0.5 Eagle Ammoniated Phosphate ___ 6403 1.6 10.0 0.5 Special Slaughter House Bone Phosphate - 6404 L6 To 8!o o!5 Eagle Grain Grower Special ___ 6405 0.4 1.0 8.0 0.5 Eagle Guano Special 6574 1.6 1.0 10.0 0.5 Soluble Bone & Phosphate __ ■ _ __ 6728 0.8 1.5 8.0 0.5 Eagle One Eight Three 6730 0.8 3.0 8.0 0.5 Eagle One Twelve One Fertilizer 6858 0.8 1.0 12.0 0.5 Eagle Twelve One Fertilizer _ _ __ 6859 1.0 12.0 0.5 Bear Fine Raw Bone Meal _ _ 6868 2.4 24.0 Bear Special Corn & Wheat Grower ___ ... 6870 o!s To To "615 Bear Grain Grower Special ___ __ 6871 0.4 1.0 8.0 0.5 Bear Special Grain Grower 6872 0.4 3.0 8.0 0.5 Bear Bone Phosphate & Potash . _ 6873 0.4 1.0 11.0 0.5 6874 1.0 10.0 0.5 Bear Special Slaughter House Bone Phosphate 6875 T6 1.0 8.0 0^5 Bear Ammoniated Phosphate _____ 6876 1.6 10.0 0.5 Bear Ammoniated Potash Mixture . __ __ 6877 0.2 ”576 12.0 0.5 Bear High Grade Dissolved Phosphate _ 6878 14.0 0.5 Jones Ammoniated Potash Mixture 6879 "t less 0 . 0 3 3 U £ 0 5 , per cent. Total phosphoric acid, P 2 0 5 , per cent. Smith Agricultural Chemical Company, The, Indianapolis Factory, Indianapolis, Ind. 5074 8.0 5075 14.4 — — — 5337 0.8 — — 27.0 5525 16.0 — — 6106 14.0 — — Alkaline Phosphate -■ - - -— " 6597 0.8 10.0 — — Smith’s No. 2 Crop Producer * 6598 6599 1.6 0.8 To 10.0 7.0 — :::: 6601 2.4 1.0 8.0 — — Smith’s No. 2 VegetaDie n rPrvL o nnc\ o n H Trnnlr fr r O W OT* 6163 1.6 2.0 8.0 1.0 — Elk Indiana j ouacco diiu nuui 6245 14.0 1.0 — 6618 1.6 1.0 8.0 0.5 — 6990 16.0 0.5 — Stadler Rendering & Fertilizer Company, J. L. & H., Cleveland, Ohio 5474 2 8 20.0 O laQlGi S x Uie x>unt? lricai 6661 0.8 "l"6 "61 "6"5 — VAerotohln XV ftrowP!* 6662 0.8 0.5 10.0 0.7 — vegeidDie uidin uiuwci , 6663 1.6 1.5 10.0 1.0 — 6664 0.4 1.0 13.0 1.0 — Ammonialctl xilUopiIdLt; aixu X 6861 0.8 10.0 1.0 btaaier S AIILinunid leU. ixinu. xnoaiJiiaic 6862 1.2 12.0 1.0 — 6863 1.6 10.0 1.0 — 6914 0.8 3.0 8.0 — oiacn.cr s union uiuw cx opctiax _ - Q4- o rllzm’cj ■Rnrin TVToqI cinrl A Picl T^VlfWOh t,G _ 7006 1.4 10.0 8.0 biaaier s x>onc ivicdi diiu. /xeiu. x xxuoynatc Sterling Fertilizer Company, The, Chicago, 111. 6091 3.3 21.0 6092 1.8 28.0 Qtorlinrr 1 (±07 A niH PhnQTlhatfl 6638 To o lulling ID Vo iALIU x IlO^y li a to 6639 "61 "11 9.0 To O lex ling kSpcCldl or I a 111 uxuncx 6640 1.6 12.0 2.0 ft Lori in rr rjnlHnn PPT’tilizPT' — — . 6641 0.8 "61 10.0 2.0 Olelllllg OrOlUGn xltU Vcfel x cx . 6643 2.4 1.0 8.0 2.0 O lei ling xl di V co L JXlllg x cx Storlinrr’c TT q 1 f Rr. TTfllf ‘Rrflrui 6686 0.8 12.0 11.0 . 7012 0.8 10.0 2.0 . 7027 1.6 i.o 12.0 2.0 Stolle & Sons, Anton, Richmond, Ind. Stolle’s Animal Fertilizer . 6147 4.5 L 10.0 98 TABLE VIII. — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by manufactur- ers to contain not less than Label 6 Z rt o E o z Bj ® e £ u +-> u r* ® Z ft 0) £ . O 0) to o O a; u *2 H 1 2.5 T3 ® >£ ■ ® 3 tj ^ h c w 0.5 — Ox Sixteen Percent _ ___ n ^ — Ox Bone Phosphate & Potash _ _ 5994 5995 Ti 0.2 1.6 1.6 To 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 lO . u 11 O u . 0 O ^ — Ox Ammoniated Potash Mixture 11 . u 12.0 8.0 10.0 10.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 10.0 v . O 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Ox Slaughter House Bone & Phosphate __ 5996 Ox Ammoniated Bone Phosphate 5997 5999 Ox Special Truck Grower 1.6 0.4 1.6 0.4 1.6 3.7 0.8 1 Special Grain Grower Formula 6254 6406 6407 6408 0^5 0.5 Ox Special Slaughter House Bone Phosphate Ox Grain Grower Special Ox Ammoniated Phosphate _ ___ v . 0.5 Ox Standard Raw Bone 6995 22^0 Ox Harvester _ 7107 To Ts 99 TABLE VIII. — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by manufactur- ers to contain not less than Label 6 fc o3 '3 £ o Z c‘ • jog g u •2 u Z a © 3 . o © to © O © *2 as (2 .6 a © 2 • £ o ** nj C •a © g §1 © ©,a a 3 ft ,* ~ to J® £ o O ° ^ a c ' m aCu 0 , 1 c z, © gg. ft St © o O rtf* W — < c Ofe W kO ftp, d rQ oo E-i ej Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Company, Birmingham, Ala. 7143 18.0 United Chemical & Organic Products Company, The, Chicago, 111. 6996 14.0 1.0 6997 0.8 29.7 6998 3.7 20.0 6999 0.4 15.6 §76 7000 0.6 15.0 1.0 7001 0.8 ”676 10.0 1.0 7029 0.8 12.0 1.0 7030 0.4 To 10.0 1.0 7031 0.4 12.0 1.0 7032 0.8 10.0 1.0 7033 0.4 "676 8.0 1.0 7034 2.0 2§7o Calumet Brand Otto Yoyles Special __ 7035 7036 7094 0.6 2.4 8.0 1.0 6676 o!6 0.8 0.5 §76 1.0 Calumet Special Onion & Truck Grower 7126 3.0 8.0 1.0 flalnmflt, Indiana Tnhflnrn "Fertilizer 7127 5181 5221 5951 6133 6221 6497 6498 6501 6716 6846 6847 6848 7108 5004 4474 6225 6743 0.6 1.6 0.8 0.5 2.0 2.0 8.5 8.0 8.0 20.0 16.0 12.0 13.0 11.0 8.0 12.0 14.0 8.0 10.0 8.0 1.0 Virginia-Carolina Chemical Company, Cincinnati Division, Cincinnati, 0. V-C Complete Fertilizer - __ Y-C Champion Corn & Wheat Grower — — V-C 20% Acid Phosphate __ _ __ V-C 16% Acid Phosphate _ ___ _ _ __ _ _ — — V-C Prolific Grain Grower _ . To 1.5 V-C Sure Grain Producer ~67§ 1.6 0.8 0.4 1.5 1 .5 V-C Rescue Fertilizer _ __ — — V-C Complete Manure _ _ __ . 1.0 1^5 1.5 1.5 1.5 V-C Richumus Fertilizer 1 _ __ _ _ __ V-C Red Cross 14% _ V-0 Farmers’ Friend _ __ __ "67§ 0.8 0.8 2.5 "376 V-C Bone Meal and Phosphate _ __ 12.0 1.5 V-C Old Hickory To Wachtel Rendering Plant, John, Indianapolis, Ind. Wachtels Fertilizer __ _ _ ___________ _ __ 16.0 Weidman, Augustus, Hagerstown, Ind. An Acid Phosphate _ _ _ __ _ 14.0 12.0 9.0 “One-Twelve” _ _ ___ Bone and Acid Phosphate ___ ______ __ _ To 1.5 — - ”676 9.0 ____ Western Fertilizer Works, Indianapolis, Ind. Wheat and Corn Special _ _ _ _ __ 3397 3398 3400 3401 5760 5768 6227 6262 0.8 0.4 1.0 8.0 7.0 12.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 Complete Fertilizer _ _ 1.0 Acid Phosphate _ _ ___ Bone Meal _ _ 1.7 2676 Garden Special _ __ 1.6 1.6 1.2 "176 6676 12.0 10.0 16.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 12.0 13.0 10.0 12.0 10.0 11.0 — Ammoniated Mixture . Available Plant Food __ _ __. _ __ _ 16% High Grade Phosphate __ ___ __ _ Corn King __ 6263 "67§ 0.4 "676 0.5 Special Spring Fertilizer 6264 6365 6691 6692 6970 6987 14% Acid Phosphate __ Special Wheat Fertilizer ___ __ _ _ "678 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.5 "676 0.5 Special Fall Fertilizer Special Wheat Grower _. To 0.5 Tankage and Phosphate Special Ammoniated Phosphate _ _________ __ _ Wheat & Clover _ _ __ _ __ 7134 7145 "676 7777 IOO TABLE VIII. — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1918 (continued) Label Official No. Guaranteed by manufactur- ers to contain not less than Nitrogen, N, per cent. Potash, KoO, soluble in water, per cent. Soluble and reverted phosphoric acid, P 2 0 5 , per cent. Insoluble phosphoric acid, P 2 O b , per cent. Total phosphoric acid, P 2 0 5 , per cent. Woodward & Dickerson, Philadelphia, Pa. Acid Phosphate __ 6131 14.0 Nitrate of Soda __ ._ _ . __ . 6132 14.8 .... — Worm & Company, Indianapolis, Ind. Eureka Garden Fertilizer 6731 6.0 0.3 — - 8.0 Wuichet Fertilizer Company, The, Dayton, Ohio 16% Acid Phosphate 6243 16.0 1.0 E. E. Ruby _• 7119 6.4 11.0 1.0 Superior Bone 7120 3.0 2 o"o E. E. Ammonia Special 7121 0.8 ioTo "i"o E. E. Raw Bone & Phosphate _ ... __ 7122 1.5 8.0 6.0 E. E. Spot Cash .. 1- 7123 0.8 1.0 8.0 1.0 — IOI INDEX Page Action of plant foods IS Attention purchasers of fertilizers 35 Borax, injury, caused by 16 Comparative results by manufacturers’ chemists 33 Equivalent values 5 Explanation of tables 34 Explanation of terms — General 10 Chemical 12 Fertilizer map. Towns added in 1917 18 Guarantees 14 Handling and storing fertilizer 5 Indiana Fertilizer Law 3 Administration 7 Summarized for agents and dealers 4 Summarized for consumers 5 Summarized for manufacturers 3 State Chemist’s label 6 Information, special 33 Inspection — Classification brands, deficient in value.— 27 Classification, deficient brands 27 Discussion of results, 1917 28 Method of obtaining inspections 7, 8 Report of 1917 inspection 22 Summary of results, spring and fall 23 Page Summary of results by classes 26 Summary of results, 18 years, 1900-17 23 Summary, spring and fall samples, 1917— 24 Prices 28 Purchasing fertilizer 22 Refunds 30 Sales 18 Sampling instructions for inspectors 9 Shipments returned 32 Shipments withdrawn from sale 31 Shipments sold under names indicating animal by-products 32 Slater’s Slag 17 Standing of manufacturers 22 Tables— I Summary inspection samples by classes 26 II Summary of manufacturers by analysis, spring, 1917 36 III Summary of manufacturers by analysis, fall, 1917 38 IV Summary of manufacturers by analysis, 1917 40 V Summary of samples by counties, 1917. 42 VI Details of inspection results 44 VII Rock phosphate, fineness SO VIII Manufacturers and brands on sale, 1918 81 TABLE OF CONTENTS Inspection Fine- ness Brands certified on sale Manufacturer Sum- maries Details Alphano Humus Co. _ _ 81 American Agricultural Chemical Co., The, New York American Agricultural Chemical Co., The., Bowker Fertilizer Works ... _ .. 81 40 44 81 American Agricultural Chemical Co., The., Detroit Sales Department _ 40 46 81 American Agricultural Chemical Co., The., Great Eastern Branch _ __ 40 46 82 American Agricultural Chemical Co., The., Michigan Carbon Works . 40 46 82 American Agricultural Chemical Co., The., Western Union Chemical Co., Branch _ ... 40 47 » American Agricultural Chemical Co., The., M. E. Wheeler & Co., Branch 40 47 / ■ 82 American Basie Phosphate Co., The 40 48 83 Armour Fertilizer Works . __ __ _ __ 40 48 83 Ballard Packing Co. _ 40 50 83 Baushaek & Sons, Robert 40 50 83 Buhner Fertilizer Co. 40 50 80 83 Central Phosphate Co. 84 Chicago Feed & Fertilizer Co. 84 Chicago Raw Products Co. .. 40 01 84 Cincinnati Phosphate Co. _ . 40 51 84 Clendenin Fertilizer Co. 40 51 84 Cleveland Provision Co. 85 Darling & Company 40 52 85 D. & K. Fertilizer Co. . 40 52 86 Dryfus Packing & Provision Co. _ __ 85 Eckart Packing Co. ... . 40 '53 86 Empire Carbon Works 40 53 82, 85 Empire Gnano Co. 40 53 86 Evansville Packing Co. _ 40 54 86 Everitt’s Seed Store _ . ___ 86 Ewing, Geo. M. ... _ __ 86 Farmers Fertilizer Co., Columbus, Ohio 40 54 Farmers Fertilizer Co., Indianapolis, Ind. - 40 54 86 Farmers Ground Rock Phosphate Co. 40 55 80 Federal Chemical Co. — . 40 55 80 87 88 Fertile Chemical Co. _ Fertilizer Co., Paris, 111. 88 102 ' TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Manufacturer Inspection Fine- ness Brands certified on sale Sum- maries Details Fessenden, F. L. __ _ __ __ _ 88 Fluhrer Tobacco & Snuff On. 40 57 88 Fox Chemical Co. __ __ 40 57 88 Gleaner Clearing House Association _ 89 Globe Fertilizer Co. _ __ 40 57 Goldreich Fertilizer Co. 40 59 90 Goodrich, W. J. _ _ _ 40 '59 90 Groves Fertilizer Works (The .Toslin-Sehmidt On.') 41 59 90 Hancock Fertilizer Co., Inc. 90 Hess & Bro., S. M. ’ 41 69 90 91 Hirsh, Stein & On., . 41 60 41 61 91 Hnhhell Fertilizer Co., L. W. 41 61 Hurst & Co. 91 41 02 91 41 62 91 41 62 International Agricultural Corporation, Cincinnati, Ohio.— 41 63 91 92 41 63 92 41 64 41 64 92 41 05 92 Kentucky Fertilizer Co., Branch Federal Chemical Co._ 41 65 93 Firke Chemical On 93 Louisville Fertilizer Co. _ __ - 41 06 93 Major Bros. Packing Co. _ - - -- 41 67 94 McCartney Bros. 94 Morris «&; Onmpany 41 67 94 Mt Pleasant Fertilizer On. ._ 41 68 80 National Plant. Fnnd On 94 Nier|erhaUS ; Fred 41 68 Nitrate Agencies On , Western Branch 41 68 94 Packer Fertilizer On , Indianapolis 41 68 95 Packers Fertilizer Co., Cincinnati 41 69 95 Pearl Packing House The 95 Pero &■ 8t.np.ckcr __ _ . 41 69 95 Pnlyerized Manure. On. __ _ _ 41 69 95 Basin-Monumental on. 41 09 95 Bailh & Sons Fertilizer Oh., F. 41 70 95 P.ead Phosphate On. _ 41 71 96 Royster Guano Co F. S. 41 • 72 96 Ruhm, Jr., John . 41 73 80 96 Sloyer Fertilizer On. _ 41 73 96 Smith Agricultural Ohemical On. 41 73 97 Southern Fertilizer On. _ 41 74 97 StadW Fertilizer fr, Rendering On. 41 74 97 Sterling Fertilizer Co. - - 41 75 97 Stoll p Sons Anton _ 97 (Swift- ^ Onmpany 41 75 98 fpennespec Ohemical On. _ 41. 77 98 Tennessee Onal Oh. 99 Tuscarora Fertilizer Oo. - - - 41 77 United Chemical & Organic Products f!o t) The 41 77 99 Virginia- Carolina Chemical Co. 41 77 99 Wachtel Rendering Oh 99 Weidman Aufiistus - 41 79 99 Western Fertilizer Works - 41 79 99 Woodward &• Picke^s^n 160 Worm Oompany __ _ _ 100 Wuichet Fertilizer Oo , Che - 41 79 100 3 0.7 Su^ PURDUE UNIVERSITY Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 216 May, 1918 COMMERCIAL FEEDS REGISTERED FOR SALE IN INDIANA, MAY 1, 1918 Published by the Station: LAFAYETTE, INDIANA U. S. A. PURDUE UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BOARD OF CONTROL Joseph D. Oliver. President. South Bend Fay S. Chandler Indianapolis Charles Downing Greeniield John A. Hillenbrand Batesville Cyrus M. Hobbs Bridgeport Winthrop E. Stone, A. M., Ph. D Warren T. McCray Kentland James W. Noel Indianapolis Andrew E. Reynolds Crawfordsville William V. Stuart LaFayette .President of the University ADVISORY COMMITTEE (Under Legislative Act of 1909) John G. Brown, Monon D. B. Johnson, Mooresville State Live Stock Association State Dairy Association U. R. Fishel, Hope D. F. Maish, Frankfort State Poultry Fanciers' Association State Corn Growers' Association F. J. Heacock, Salem Indiana Horticultural Society ADMINISTRATION Charles G. Woodbury, M. S., Director Harry J. Reed Assistant to the Director Nellie Tracy Administrative Assistant Mary K. Bloom Bookkeeper AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION George I. Christie, B. S. A., Superintendent Thomas A. Coleman Ass’t State Leader Field Studies and Demonstrations George M. Frier, B. S. A Associate in Charge of Short Courses and Exhibits Mabel L. Harlan. .A ss’t in Agricultural Extension ANIMAL HUSBANDRY John H. Skinner, B. S., Chief Chester G. Starr, B. S. A Acting Associate in Animal Husbandry Herbert E. McCartney, B. S. A Ass’t in Animal Husbandry Extension BOTANY Herbert S. Jackson, a. B.. Chief George N. Hoffer, M. S Associate in Botany Luna E. Allison, B. S Assistant in Botany Edwin B. Mains, Ph. D Assistant in Botany Harry R. Rosen, M. S., Assistant in Rust Work Grace O. Wineland, a. B., M. S Assistant in Botany DAIRY HUSBANDRY Ralph E. Caldwell, B. S., Acting Chief Howard W. Gregory, B. S Associate in Dairy Manufactures George Spitzer, Ph. G.. B. S Associate in Dairy Chemistry Harry M. Weeter, M. S Associate in Dairy Bacteriology Turner H. Broughton, B. S Assistant in Creamery Inspection William F. Epple, Ph. G Assistant in Dairy Chemistry Hubert W. Fleisher, B. S. A Assistant in Creamery Inspection ENTOMOLOGY James Troop, M. S., Chief Preston W. Mason, B. S., Ass’t in Entomology HORTICULTURE Laurenz Greene, M. S. A., Chief Harry A. Noyes, M. S Associate in Horticultural Chemistry and Bacteriology Joseph Oskamp, B. S.. Associate in Pomology Walter A. Huelson, B. S Assistant in Horticulture Raymond A. Nehf, B. S. A Assistant in Horticulture POULTRY HUSBANDRY Allen G. Philips, R. S. A., Chief Dwight C. Kennard, Ph. C., B. S Assistant in Poultry Husbandry Lewis H. Schwartz, B. S. A Assistant in Poultry Husbandry SOILS AND CROPS Alfred T. Wiancko, B. S. A., Chief Martin L. Fisher, M. S Assistant Chief in Soils and Crops Samuel D. Conner, M. S Associate Chemist in Soils and Crops Clinton O. Cromer, B. S Associate in Crops Sadocie C. Jones. M. S Associate in Soils Ernest N. Fergus, M. Sc Assistant in Soils and Crops STATE CHEMIST Wm. J. Jones, Jr., M. S., A. C. 3 State Chemist Edward G. Proulx, M. S.L.Acting State Chemist Reuben O. Bitler, B. S. 2 .... Deputy State Chemist Paul B. Curtis, B. S. 2 Deputy State Chemist Omar W. Ford, A. B. 2 Deputy State Chemist Mary J. Minton, B. S. 2 Assistant Microscopist State Chemist’s Department Herman J. Nimitz, B. S. 2 .. Deputy State Chemist J. Howard Roop, B. S. 2 ....Deputy State Chemist Samuel F. Thornton, B. S. 2 Deputy State Chemist Otis S Roberts, B. S. 2 Chief Inspector State Chemist’s Department Glen G. Carter, B. S. 2 Inspector State Chemist’s Department Benjamin F. Catherwood 2 Inspector State Chemist’s Department William B. Tiedt Inspector State Chemist’s Department VETERINARY SCIENCE Robert A. Craig, D. V. M., Chief David B. Clark, D. M. C... Associate Veterinarian Lawrence C. Kigin, D. V. M Associate Veterinarian Rex A. Whiting, D. V. M Associate in Animal Pathology Carl H. Clink, B. S Ass’t in Serum Production Leo P. Doyle, B. S Ass’t in Animal Pathology Leslie R. George, B. S Assistant in Animal Pathology Fred L. Walkey, D. V. M Ass’t Veterinarian DETAILED BY U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Cereal and Forage Crop Insect Investigations John J. Davis. B. S.. Entomological Assistant in Charge John M. Aldrich, Ph. D., Entomological Assistant Walter H. Larrimer. B. S Scientific Assistant Dean A. Ricker, B. S Scientific Assistant Chester F. Turner, B. S Scientific Assistant Seed Testing Anna M. Lute, M. A Seed Analyst 1 In charge of Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control 2 Connected with Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control 3 Died August 31. 1917 COMMERCIAL FEEDS REGISTERED FOR SALE IN INDIANA, MAY 1, 1918 E. G. Proulx J. H. Roop H. J. Nimitz Mary J. Minton P. B. Curtis O. S. Roberts The necessity of keeping more live stock on the farms of the coun- try has created an increased demand for feeding stuffs. The conditions resulting from the frosted corn crop, the many changes in the milling of flour, the lack of sufficient transportation, the direct haul and required full car loads, have compelled feeders to seek many substitute feeds from unfamiliar sources. The State Chemist, realizing the needs of the feeders of Indiana, has prepared the included registration list of all brands of commercial feeding stuffs certified by manufacturers as being on sale in the State in 1918. This list formerly appeared as Table VII in the annual com- mercial feed bulletin of the Experiment Station, but is issued thus in ad- vance of the usual time to give the feeders of Indiana all information possible in their selection of substitute feeds for use during the current season. The failure of any manufacturer to appear in this certified list does not prevent a registered brand being placed on sale, but merely indicates that no reply to the annual letter of inquiry concerning contemplated registrations for 1918, has been received from the manufacturer by the State Chemist. Consumers are earnestly requested to utilize this bulletin as a supple- ment to Bulletin No. 209, “Commercial Feeding Stuffs.” Having decided on the brands of feeds desired in the registration table, the latest annual bulletin in which is given the analyses of these same brands, from samples collected and examined by deputies appointed by the State Chemist, may be consulted. Cooperate by ordering full carloads by shortest direct haul. To Agents, Dealers, Distributors and Consumers. — In accord- ance with the provisions of the law governing the registration and sale of concentrated commercial feeding stuffs, all brands of feeding stuffs offered for sale in Indiana are certified by the manufacturers before a notary public or justice of the peace, to contain the minimum guarantee of crude fat and crude protein, the maximum guarantee of crude fiber and the common names of all materials used in manufacturing the feed. These certificates properly made out and attested are retained on file at the Experiment Station and State Chemist’s labels are furnished the manufacturer corresponding to his sworn statement. Agents and consumers should note when purchasing feed tnat the guarantee on the State Chemist’s label is the guarantee of the manufac- turer and not of the State Chemist, whose duty it is to make certain that manufacturers maintain their guarantees. Labels. — The only label recognized as legal under the law is that bearing the fac simile signature of the State Chemist or Acting State Chemist. 4 Do not accept, offer or expose for sale, sell, deliver or distribute any package or any quantity of commercial feeding stuff which does not have attached or which is not accompanied by one such label for each ioo pounds or fraction. Fractional Sales. — All sales of i, 2, 5, 10, 15, etc., pounds must be accompanied by the State Chemist’s label even though the sale is made from a larger labeled package or container. Unlabeled Shipments. — Do not accept shipments with State Chem- ist’s labels unattached or sent separately by mail unless privilege of ex- amining shipment before acceptance is specified in bill of lading. Inves- tigation by the State Chemist’s Department indicates that a few brokers are using this method to sell and invoice one product and ship another. This seems especially prevalent in the brokerage of mill by-products where in a number of cases, pure wheat bran has been invoiced and wheat bran and screenings furnished. Stipulate that the State Chemist’s labels are to be attached to each and every package before shipment and if any good reason exists for not attaching, that examination of shipment must be permitted before acceptance. In some cases, which however, are few, good reasons may exist for the non-attaching of the State Chemist’s labels but no manufacturer or broker who ships what he sells and fulfills his contracts will object to any reasonable examination of such shipments. Purchasing Feeds. — -Do not contract for feeding stuffs on the basis of private label guarantees or advertising matter, but on the official legal guarantee, and include the registration number in contract. When ship- ments are received, examine the labels attached to insure that they are the labels and feed contracted for. If labels are not in accord with con- tract, refuse shipment until a satisfactory explanation is furnished for the discrepancy. Communicating with the State Chemist regarding such ship- ments, by telephone or telegraph, will undoubtedly be to your advantage both from the standpoint of time and money. Short Weight Shipments. — The law requires that the net weight of the packages be guaranteed and maintained. If short weight shipments are suspected, weigh not less than 20 packages on a scale previously test- ed and balanced and if a shortage of one pound or more per 100 is found, do not remove the balance of the shipment from the car, but notify the State Chemist so that an inspector may be sent to make an official in- spection. Samples. — If an inspection is desired, do not forward samples, but write to the State Chemist, giving the number on the official label,, name of the feeding stuff, name of manufacturer, amount on hand and special reason, if any, for desiring the inspection. If the amount present is suffi- cient to give a representative sample, and a large number of samples of the same brand have not already been secured, an inspector will be sent to take an official sample. If you are in doubt regarding any manufac- turer or feeding stuff, write for information. The State Chemist is alzuays ready to serve and advise. Freight Bills and Invoices. — Retain freight bills and invoices on all shipments, especially interstate, so that the information necessary to trace the shipment to the original consigner may be available. This infor- 5 mation is essential for cooperative work with the United States Depart- ment of Agriculture. Rounds. — A ttention is called to the fact that the payment of a re- fund has absolutely no bearing on the action the State Chemist’s De- partment may take under the law for violation of its provisions. If refund for deficiency is received, the same should be distributed to the actual pur- chasers of the feed, on the basis of amount purchased and price paid. Re- ceipts showing the refund paid and date of payment should be secured from each one to whom refund is paid and filed with the State Chemist. While the payment of a refund does not meet the requirements of the law, in many cases it shows the good intentions of the manufacturer. When inspection results are reported, with the information that feed- ing stuff in your possession does not meet the requirements of the law, withdraw it from sale and notify the State Chemist of the amount and date of withdrawal. Failure to accept such advice will necessitate a re- port to the prosecutor of wilful violation. Full text of the law and ruling will be furnished on request. THE STATE CHEMIST’S LABEL The official label, a reproduction of which follows, is always printed, contains all the information required by law, and the fac-simile signature of the State Chemist. It is absolutely necessary and no other label should be accepted. ° \ $50 fine for using this tag second time No. 9 Net Weight 100 Pounds JOHN DOE & CO., of LaFayette, Ind., Guarantee this DOE’S MIXED FEED to contain not less than 3.5 per cent, of crude fat, 14.0 per cent, of crude protein, not more than 10.0 per cent, of crude fiber, and to be compounded from the following ingredients: Wheat Bran, Middlings, Ground Wheat Screenings and Corn Bran £ Acting State Chemist, Purdue University Agricultural Experiment Station LaFayette, Ind. Not good for more than 100 pounds. 6 The consumer should bear in mind that the accepted guarantee does not of necessity imply quality, and that it is simply intended as a guide to the purchaser. Inferior goods may be legally sold if correctly guaranteed. Close attention should be given to the list of ingredients contained in the feed, which is printed on the labels. Condimental Feeds. — Under the present rulings of the State Chem- ist, this term is defined to include — any mixture having as a base, filler or diluent, any material of feeding value such as wheat bran, middlings, screenings, flaxseed meal, linseed meal, etc., or any of the materials used as adulterants for feeding stuffs, such as corn cob meal, oat hulls, peanut hulls, etc., together with condiments, herbs or drugs, one or all, without regard to names or claims under which they are sold. All preparations sold as stock or poultry foods or feeds, conditioners, relishes, tonics, reg- ulators, powders, egg producers, etc., if compounded as above, as well as all preparations sold under the name of food or feed or a similar term or with claims for nutritive properties either on package or advertising matter, come under the law and must be registered and labeled when of- fered or exposed for sale, sold or distributed in Indiana. Legal opinions have been received that the interpretation of the term condimental feed as used in the law can properly be broadened to include all materials used as food adjuncts for animals, and the issuing of a rul- ing to this effect is under consideration. In general, these preparations are composed of some ordinary feeding stuff or feeding stuff adulterant as a base or carrier, together with some common cathartic, generally Glauber’s salts or sometimes Epsom salts, and appetizers, gentian, fenugreek, ginger, common salt, anise, with small amounts of worm seed, poke root, copperas, sulphur, etc. In many cases after the passage of the Feeding Stuffs Control law, names, claims and methods of compounding were changed and the feeding stuff base omitted, salt, Glauber’s salts, and similar cheap materials being used in larger amounts and some of the largest sellers on the market today contain go per cent, and over of common salt. Most of the latter are not registered under the law. As stated in previous bulletins, the large majority of properly con- ducted experiments fails to show profitable results from the use of these preparations but those who wish to use them are requested, both as co- operating with the State Chemist and for their own protection, to pur- chase those condimental brands which are registered, and thus obtain the protection which the law affords. Call on the State Chemist and ask to have your feed inspected if you have any reason to believe the feed in question is injurious to the health of animals. NEW FEEDS ON SALE *Barley Mixed Feed with Ground Barley Screenings with In- gredients Stated as Barley Hulls, Barley Bran, Barley Middlings and Ground Barley Screenings. — In the milling of barley flour for hu- man consumption, in the mills inspected by representatives of the State Chemist’s Department, thebarley screenings are removed at the start of the process, and the cleaned barley is then run through the ordinary wheat flour mill or rye flour mill and the barley flour taken out. The product 7 remaining, namely barley hulls, bran and middlings is mixed with the ground barley screenings originally taken out ; the resultant product is sold in Indiana with the brand name and with ingredients given as bar- ley hulls, barley bran, barley middlings and ground barley screenings. *BarlEy Mill Fled with Ground Barley Screenings. — This term is similar to barley mixed feed with ground barley screenings and is optional with the manufacturer. . In general, materials of this nature are sold in Indiana under guar- antees of 2 to 3 per cent, of crude fat; 8 to io per cent, of crude protein, and not to contain over 18 to 25 per cent, of crude fiber. VELVET BEAN PRODUCTS * Velvet Bean Feed is the dried ground velvet beans and pods. * Velvet Bean Meal is the dried ground velvet bean and cannot con- tain the ground pods. Several brands of velvet bean feed are now registered with the State Chemist’s Department and appear in the list on page 86. In general, this product is guaranteed to contain 4 per cent, crude fat, 16 to 18 per cent, crude protein and 15 to 20 per cent, crude fiber. Velvet bean meal is not offered for sale in Indiana at this time. *Corn Mill Feed is all of the mill run by-product produced in the manufacture of corn meal or corn flour from cleaned shelled corn and consists of corn bran, corn germ and some meal. *Delinted Cottonseed Hulls is the product resulting from the en- tire removal of all particles of lint from the outer portion of the cotton- seed hulls. When added to cottonseed meal or mixed with other feeds, the ground or unground delinted cottonseed hulls, must be listed as an ingredient. Corn cob meal, peanut hull meal and delinted cottonseed hulls have a very high percentage of crude fiber and contain somewhat less digest- ible nutrients than oat straw, and only a very great scarcity of home grown roughage can ever justify their purchase in Indiana. Hominy feed now on the Indiana market is of three types as follows : 1. Hominy feed with the mill run bran, germ and soft meal. 2. »Hominy feed with much of the germ removed. 3. Hominy feed with part of the oil extracted. PEANUT PRODUCTS Definitions adopted by the Association of Feed Control Officials of the United States and accepted by the State Chemist. — Peanut Oil Cake is the residue after the extraction of part of the oil by pressure or solvents from peanut kernels. Peanut Oil Meal is the ground residue after the extraction of part of the oil from peanut kernels. Unhulled Peanut Oil Feed is the ground residue obtained after ex- traction of part of the oil from whole peanuts, and the ingredients shall be designated as Peanut Meal and Hulls. % ‘When definitions are not available from the Association of Feed Control Officials of the United States, the materials are defined in accordance with the best information obtain- able by the State Chemist. Definitions not from the A. F. C. O. are marked with an asterisk (*). 8 Peanut oil cake and peanut oil meal are not registered with the State Chemist’s Department as being on sale in Indiana, although successfully used as a feed in southern states. Unhulled peanut oil feeds as registered with the State Chemist, page 87, are guaranteed to contain 5 to 7 per cent, of crude fat ; 30 to 32 per cent, of crude protein; 14 to 25 per cent, of crude fiber. ATTENTION— CONSUMERS, AGENTS AND DEALERS In deciding on companies to represent and from whom to purchase, the details of inspection in Table III, page 48, Bulletin No. 209, should be closely studied ; companies who ship feed properly labeled and up to guarantee should be patronized and represented ; when for any reason re- fund is received, the State Chemist should be promptly notified. Dealers who have sold any deficient feed and received refund, must file receipts with the State Chemist showing payment of the proper amount to each customer. When car lots or appreciable amounts of feed are received, waybills and correspondence should be kept and the State Chemist no- tified of arrival and probable time of distribution. No excuse will be accepted from agents or dealers who persist in representing companies who ship deficient, adulterated or unlabeled feed. For the convenience of consumers, the brands of feeding stuffs ap- pearing in this bulletin have been divided into 29 classes, covering all feeds registered and offered for sale in Indiana. These 29 classes ap- pear in the index, page 161, and by using this index, one should experi- ence no difficulty in finding all desired brands of each class of feed col- lected together. The facts are presented in the annual bulletins, and it is to the best interests of the purchasers and consumers of feeding stuff in Indiana, that they cooperate with the State Chemist and patronize only those firms which meet the requirements of the law in every particular. SUGGESTIONS TO PURCHASERS Purchase feed for cash in full carload shipments through firms which can deliver your order by a direct haul. You not only secure cheaper feed but you help win the war by conserving freight cars, labor and fuel. Having decided on the type of feed desired, consult registra- tions of this class of feed found in the registration list. Compare the guaranteed analysis with the actual found analysis given in Bulletin No. 209 and secure quotations from several of the manufacturers who have in the past maintained their guarantees. They should, owing to saving in freight, be in a position to quote better prices. Consult the State Chemist if uncertain as to the standing of manu- facturers with respect to the maintenance of their guarantees. He is always ready to advise and aid you in securing desired brands of feed- ing stuffs. With the exception of wheat mill feeds, distillers’ and brewers’ grains, no shortage of animal food exists. Agents and consumers however, can have no assurance that transportation difficulties in the winter months of 1918 and 1919 will be any improvement over similar months of 1917 and 1918 and a reasonable supply of feed should be kept in stock. 9 NEW RULINGS ON ANIMAL FEEDING STUFF Considerable uncertainty exists regarding the prices of mill feeds as controlled by the United States Food Administration. Many feeders expected to purchase wheat bran for $27.87 per ton, and felt that they -vere being discriminated against by the wholesalers and jobbers when quoted $38.00 to $41.00 per ton. The enforcement of Rule 19 of the United States Food Adminis- tration in Indiana is the duty of the State Food Administrator, Harry Everett Barnard, Ph. D., State House, Indianapolis. Dr. Barnard has deputy food administrators in the different counties of the State, and com- plaints of overcharge should be made to Dr. Barnard or his deputies in the several counties. The principal ruling affecting the prices of mill feeds, promulgated December 18, 1917, is known as Rule 19. “Rule 19. No Licensee engaged in the business of milling flour and feed from wheat shall after December 25, 1917, sell wheat mill feed at any price in excess of the following prices,” Chicago district. “Bulk price per ton of 2,000 pounds at mill in carloads in no case shall exceed 38 per cent of the average cost to such mill of one ton of wheat at the mill, which cost of wheat shall be the average cost as shown by the previous month’s records of said mill and shall include the 1 per cent Administration Fee paid by the mill on all wheat ground. Differentials (Maximum Prices, Bulk, Mill). Basis Bran. Shorts or standard middlings $ 2.00 per ton of 2,000 lbs. over basis Mixed feeds 4.00 per ton of 2,000 lbs. over basis Flour middlings 9.00 per ton of 2,000 lbs. over basis Red dog 15.00 per ton of 2,000 lbs. over basis “The above percentages on prices are subject to revision from time to time by the United States Food Administrator, but no revision will be made without thirty days’ notice. “The price f. o. b., bulk, mill, in carload lots shall be on the basis of cash or draft attached to bill of lading and all feed sold by the Licensee shall be invoiced at such price. There shall also appear on the invoice, in addition to such price, f o. b. mill, the price of the sacks and items of freight and interest, if any, when goods are sold on extended terms or credit, and other charges, but the Licensee, for convenience in selling, may quote a delivered price in sacks. This rule shall not affect existing contracts. “This rule aims to establish a relation between the price of mill feeds and the price of wheat. It is made necessary by the unusually high price of coarse grains, which has caused unprecedented demand for mill feeds. “In view of possible larger movement of the coarse grains, which would naturally result in a decrease in the demand for and price of mill feed, which in turn would tend to advance the price of flour, it is neces- sary at this time to adjust the price of mill feed rather than trust to a rigid and unjust arrangement at a later date.” The bulk price of wheat bran at the mills under this ruling would be determined as follows : 10 With wheat, 60 pounds per bushel, 33.33 bushels to one ton, under United States fixed price of $2.20 per bushel as a maximum for No. 1 grade, would be $73.33 per ton, 38 per cent, of this cost to the mill is the bulk price of wheat bran carload lots, or $27.86. . (Some large mills now quote prices $0.21 per ton under the maximum price.) This price also refers to a carload of 33 tons, being the preferred load at the present time. If we assume the bran is purchased from a mill in Minneapolis^ Minn., by a large wholesale and retail firm in Indiana, the invoice on the 33 ton car would be : Price in bulk f. o. b. mill at vSacks, at Freight to Indiana on 66,495 pounds, at War tax on freight ($108.34) at Making price delivered (per ton $36.11) total price $1,191.68 If bought through broker $0.25 per ton commission 8.25 Total cost (per ton $36.36) $1,199.93 If bought through a commission house $0.50 per ton Total cost (per ton $36.61) Total cost of car $1,191.68 Added (commission) 16.50 Total cost of 33 ton car $1,208.18 ($36.61 per ton) The Indiana wholesaler would sell this bran in ton lots direct to con- sumers at a $3.00 profit or approximately $39.61. He would make an ad- ditional charge of $1.00 for retailing less than ton lots. This same whole- saler might sell at a $2.00 profit per ton to a smaller jobber or retailer, who in turn would deliver to a consumer at $40.00 to $41.00 per ton. All sales are supposedly cash equivalent ; higher prices would undoubt- edly prevail if credit were given. Two additional factors entering into the ton cost of bran, is the saving in freight rates if bran is purchased from Indiana mills, and sacks, which in good condition can be returned. These two factors will lessen the cost fully $6.00 per ton. To ascertain the price of other mill feeds, it is necessary to add to the ton cost of bran, $2.00 per ton for shorts or standard middlings, $4.00 per ton for mixed feed, $9.00 per ton for flour middlings, and $15.00 per ton for red dog. The two latter classes of feeds, however, are now principally used for human consumption. Owing to the increased production of flour per bushel of wheat, due to the new milling under the direction of the food administration and to the actual decreased milling of wheat, the supplies of wheat bran and shorts in Indiana have been seriously decreased. Wheat bran and shorts are not offered freely in Indiana at the present time, and feeders must use substitute feeds wherever possible. .$27.87 $ 919.71 4.86 160.38 0.163 cwt. 108.34 3 per cent. 3.25 II Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale May 1, 1918 Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients BRAN, MIDDLINGS, SHORTS, CHOP FEEDS, CORN FEED MEAL AND OTHER MILL BY-PRODUCTS Aeme-Evans Company, Indianapolis, Ind. Acme Feed _ 5588 4.0 16.0 9.0 Wheat bran, wheat middlings, not exceeding mill’s run of ground cleaned wheat screenings Acme Middlings and Screenings 5500 4.5 16.5 8.0 Wheat middlings, not exceeding mill’s run of ground cleaned wheat screenings Homlik — — — — - 6876 3.0 8.5 4.0 Reground corn feed meal Acme Bran and Screenings __ __ 7159 3.5 15.5 10.0 Wheat bran, not exceeding mill’s run of ground cleaned wheat screenings Capitol Red Dog Flour 7573 4.0 15.0 5.0 Low grade wheat flour containing the finer particles of wheat bran Acme Flour Middlings & Screenings. 7018 4.5 16.5 8.0 Wheat flour, wheat middlings, not exceeding mill’s run of ground cleaned wheat screenings Acme Farm Feed . 8439 5.0 12.0 7.0 Corn, wheat bran, wheat middlings, hominy feed Acme Barley Mill Feed with Ground Screenings Acme Rye Mixed Feed with Ground Rye 9266 2.5 10.0 19.5 Barley hulls, barley bran, barley mid- dlings, ground barley screenings Screenings . Acme Milling Company, The, Aurora, Ind. 9327 2.5 13.0 6.5 Rye bran, rye middlings, not exceed- ing mill run of ground cleaned rye screenings Middlings .. .... 968 3.9 14.2 6.6 Wheat middlings Chop Feed (Corn & Oats) _ 969 3.8 10.5 8.7 Corn, oats Bran & Middlings 970 3.9 14.2 8.2 Wheat bran, middlings Wheat Bran . 971 3.7 14.1 10.1 Wheat bran Mxd Bran 2556 3.7 13.6 10.0 Wheat bran, corn bran Aiman, W. H., Pendleton, Ind. Wheat Bran 3811 3.5 14.0 10.5 Wheat bran Akin-Erskine Milling Company, Evansville, Ind. Standard Middlings or Shorts, Ground Wheat Screenings and Salt ... 6032 4.0 14.0 6.0 Wheat shorts, ground wheat screen- ings, salt Mixed Feed Winter Wheat Bran & Mill Run Wheat 6047 4.0 15.0 9.5 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings, salt Screenings 7729 3.9 14.0 12.0 Wheat bran, whole wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Corn Feed Meal ______ . ... . 8572 2.0 9.0 7.0 Corn feed meal Rye Mixed Feed, Ground Screenings and Salt- 9176 3.0 14.5 11.0 Rye bran, rye middlings, ground rye screenings, salt Akron Milling Company, The, Akron, Ind. Wheat Middlings 2795 4.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Wheat Bran 3597 3.5 14.0 12.0 Wheat bran Albion Roller Mills, Albion, Ind. Winter Wheat Bran 8610 3.0 • 13.0 10.0 Wheat bran Winter Wheat Middlings 8611 3.0 13.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Allan, J. P., Farmersburg, Ind. J. P. Allans Mixed Feed 2892 4.0 9.5 12.0 Wheat bran, hominy feed, oats American Hominy Company, Indianapolis, Ind. Cracked Corn and Rolled Oats 6578 4.0 9.0 5.0 Corn, rolled oats Yellow Feed Meal _ 9228 3.5 8.5 5.0 Corn feed meal Rye Middlings _ 9382 3.5 16.0 7.0 Rye middlings American Milling Company, Peoria, 111. Amco Corn Feed Meal Amo Mill & Elevator Company, Amo, Ind. 8005 2.5 8.0 5.0 Corn feed meal Amo Middlings 4442 2.8 13.0 7.0 ' Wheat middlings 12 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Amo Mill & Elevator Company, Amo, Ind. Amo Feed ___ __ 4443 3.0 13.0 12.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screen- ings, corn bran Rye Middlings and Screenings 7947 2.7 13.5 12.0 Rye middlings, ground rye screenings Middlings and Screenings 8118 2.8 13.0 7.0 Wheat middlings^ ground wheat screenings Anchor Milling Company, Rochester, Ind. Wheat Middlings ___ 3747 4.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Wheat Bran 3909 3.0 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Mixed Feed - _ _ _ _ 4214 3.0 12.0 11.5 Wheat bran, ground wheat screen- ings, corn bran Anchor Chop Feed 8587 3.5 0.0 5.0 Corn, oats, corn feed meal Anderson, C., New Waverly, Ind. Wheat Middlings 1821 4.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat middlings “A” Mixed Bran 3782 3.2 12.0 13.0 Wheat bran, corn bran Anderson, G. H., Seymour, Ind. Corn Bran - - ___ _ _ 4837 3.0 7.0 15.0 Corn bran Corn Feed Meal 5230 2.0 7.0 3.0 Corn feed meal Angola Flouring Mill, Angola, Ind. Angola Flouring Mills Middlings — 1097 4.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Angola Flouring Mills Wheat Bran_ 1098 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Arcady Farms Milling Company, Chicago, 111. Wheat Middlings (With Screenings Not to Exceed Mill Run) Wheat Bran (With Screenings Not Exceeding 8829 3.5 14.0 12.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Mill Run) 8830 3.0 14.0 11.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screen- ings not exceeding mill run Arkansas City Milling Company, The, Arkansas City, Kansas. Standard Wheat Shorts & Screenings. 8469 3.5 16.0 5.5 Wheat shorts, ground wheat screen- ings not to exceed 8% Wheat Bran & Screenings 8470 3.5 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screen- ings not to exceed 8% Mill Run Wheat Mixed Feed & Screenings _ _ 8807 4.0 16.0 8.5 Wheat bran, wheat shorts, ground wheat screenings not to exceed 8% Ashbrook Company, The J. S., Mattoon, 111. Royal Grain Feed . .. — ... 5012 3.0 10.0 7.0 Corn, rolled oats, rolled barley Peerless Corn & Oats Chop 7983 3.0 10.0 6.0 Corn, oats Diamond A. Feed Meal 8200 3.0 10.0 6.0 Feed meal from corn, kafir, milo and wheat Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings _ 8530 4.0 13.0 13.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings Wheat Middlings with Ground Screenings 8531 4.0 14.0 11.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings Ashley-Hudson Milling & Grain Company, 1 Ashley, Ind. Ashley-Hudson Wheat Bran 3144 3.8 14.0 12.0 Wheat bran Ashley-Hudson Wheat Middlings .. 3145 4.0 11.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Atkinson Milling Company, Minneapolis, Minn. Wheat Bran with Screenings 8100 4.0 13.0 13.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings Auburn Feed Store, Auburn, Ind. Chop Feed 5004 3.2 8.5 7.0 Corn, oats, corn feed meal Augusta Milling Company, The, Augusta, Ind. Wheat Bran & Middlings Mixed 3438 3.5 13.5 11.0 Wheat bran, middlings Aviston Milling Company, Aviston, 111. Hobby Horse White Middlings, with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run 7383 5.0 14.5 7.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Amilko Pure Bran . _ ... .... 7384 5.0 15.0 11.0 Wheat bran Courtesy White Shipstuff, (Red Dog) 7483 3.0 14.5 3.5 Wheat middlings, reddog flour 1 Succeeded by Kirlin & Hammond i3 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Aviston Milling Company, Aviston, 111. Hobby Horse Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run. _ 7503 3.5 14.5 10.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screen- ings not exceeding mill run Bachman, Valentine, Indianapolis, Ind. Bachman’s Cleaned Wheat Product . 6950 3.7 16.0 10.0 Wheat bran, middlings Rye Mixed Peed & Ground Rye Screenings 9231 2.7 14.0 8.0 Rye bran, rye middlings, mill run ground rye screenings Badenoch Company, J. J., Chicago, 111. J. J. Badenoch Co’s Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run. J. J. Badenoch Co’s Wheat Standard Mid- 6219 4.0 14.5 12.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screen- ings not exceeding mill run dlings with Ground Screenings not ex- ceeding Mill Run 6220 5.0 15.0 9.5 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Corn Peed Meal _ 6989 1.2 7.0 3.5 Corn feed meal Wheat Flour Middlings 8638 4.0 15.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Corn Mill Peed — 9354 4.0 3.5 12.5 Corn bran, corn meal Bailey & Thompson, Prairie Creek, Ind. Mixed Feed No. 1 6952 3.0 12.5 10.0 Wheat bran, shorts, ground wheat screenings, corn bran Thompsons Wheat Shorts 7769 3.8 14.9 7.4 Wheat shorts Mixed Peed No. 2 . .. 7770 3.0 12.0 10.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screen- ings, corn bran Corn feed meal Corn Peed Meal 7785 2.5 7.5 5.0 Bainton Bros., Buchanon, Mich. Baintons Bran and Shorts 7026 3.5 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, shorts Middlings . ... 7128 2.5 12.0 2.0 Wheat middlings Baldwin, Jr., Dwight M., Minneapolis, Minn. Dwight Plour Mills Red Dog ._ Baldwin Plour Mills Wheat Shorts & Screen- 3205 5.5 17.5 6.0 Low grade wheat flour containing the finer particles of wheat bran ings — . Baldwin Flour Mills Wheat Plour Midds and 5693 5.0 15.0 11.0 Wheat shorts, ground wheat screen- ings not exceeding mill run Screenings ... Baldwin Plour Mills Wheat Bran and Screen- 5694 5.0 16.5 7.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run ings .. ... 5695 4.0 14.5 12.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screen- ings not exceeding mill run Baldwin, J. Jay, Crown Point, Ind. “Baldwin Chop Peed” . _ . 8700 3.0 8.0 6.0 Corn, oats, corn feed meal Ballard & Ballard Company, Louisville, Ky. Ballard’s Mixed Wheat Peed & Mill Run Screenings ... ... ... 8758 4.4 14.6 6.9 Wheat bran, wheat middlings, cleaned and ground wheat screenings Ballard’s Bran ... 8759 4.1 14.5 9.6 Wheat bran Ballard’s Kentucky Farm Peed 8760 4.4 15.0 6.4 Wheat middlings, cleaned and ground wheat screenings Ballard’s Rye Mill Feed 9163 2.5 13.0 7.0 Rye bran, rye middlings Banner Roller Mills, The, Mooresville, Ind. Wheeler's Banner Mixed Feed _ ... ... . 437 3.9 14.0 8.5 Wheat bran, shorts, corn bran Barlow, C. M., Kokomo, Ind. Wheat Middlings .. . . 5368 4.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Barlow’s Chop Feed ' 5938 3.0 9.0 7.0 Corn, oats, corn feed meal Barry, Russell, Crandall, Ind. Mixed Peed 8421 3.0 13.0 10.0 Wheat bran, corn bran, ground wheat screenings Wheat Middlings 8422 3.0 13.0 10.0 Wheat middlings Bartle & Robbins, Muncie, Ind. Chop Peed ... 4890 3.5 8.6 12.0 Com, oats, corn feed meal 14 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) LABEL Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain it: 45 ■2 8 * ft W a n +* . p © ££ g, g ; ^8® S; || 1 |! ft O ^ and to be composed of the following ingredients Bartlett Company, The J. E., Jackson, Mich. Wheat Bran with Screenings Standard Wheat Middlings and Screenings... “Farmer Brand” Red Dog Flour Farmer Brand Rye Middlings Farmer Brand Flour Middlings with Screen- ings — Rye Midds and Screenings Bartlett’s Rye Middlings with Ground Screen- ings not Exceeding Mill Run Bash & Company, C. E., Huntington, Tnd. C. E. Bash & Co’s Chop Batchelor, Barlow & Batchelor, 2 Sharpsville, Ind. Wheat Bran i_ Wheat Shorts Batchelor & Barlow, Sharpsville, Ind. B. & B. Chop Batchelor, Barlow & Davis, Sharpsville, Ind. Corn Bran 2 Batesville Flour Mills, Batesville, Ind. Mixed Feed Wheat Shorts — Bauer Milling Company, Lanesville, Ind. Bauer’s Jersey Bran Bauer’s Daisy Shorts Bay State Milling Company, Winona, Minn. Rye Middlings “Winona” Fancy White Flour Middlings “Winona” Fancy Mixed Wheat Feed & Wheat Screenings Reddog Flour “Winona” Wheat Middlings and Wheat Screenings “Winona” Coarse Wheat Bran Beck, Delbert F., Burlington, Ind. Beck’s Chop Feed Belt Elevator & Feed Company, Indianapolis, Ind. Feed Meal Chop Feed Mixed Feed Bender, Nicholas, Siberia, Ind. Mixed Feed Benham Milling Company, The, Benham, Ind. Wheat Shorts Wheat Bran 2 Succeeded by Batchelor & Barlow 6813 6814 7211 7565 7668 8997 9341 1749 4675 4676 4037 7804 7805 8955 8956 8189 8190 8191 8194 9001 9 C 02 1209 3322 3777 3778 5507 2948 4339 3.0 4.5 4.0 2.0 4.0 3.5 3.0 3.8 3.7 3.5 5.0 3.2 3.0 4.2 5.0 3.4 4.5 4.5 5.0 3.5 3.9 3.7 3.5 2.0 3.5 3.5 3.0 14.0 13.5 15.0 14.0 15.0 15.0 14.5 9.5 14.0 14.0 9.0 8.0 12.8 13.1 15.5 14.5 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.5 15.0 9.5 8.5 9.0 10.0 13.5 13.5 14.0 11.0 10.0 3.7 8.0 7.5 7.0 8.0 6.0 12.0 7.0 6.0 13.0 10.0 8.0 9.0 7.0 6.0 2.5 8.0 2.0 8.3 12.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 15.0 10.0 7.0 12.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screen- ings not exceeding mill run Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Low grade wheat flour containing the finer particles of wheat bran Rye middlings Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings not to exceed mill run Rye middlings, ground rye screenings not exceeding mill run Rye middlings, ground rye screenings not exceeding mill run Corn, oats Wheat bran Wheat shorts Corn, oats Corn bran Wheat bran, ground wheat screen- ings Wheat shorts Wheat bran Wheat shorts Rye middlings Wheat middlings Wheat bran, middlings, red dog flour, less than 6% ground wheat screenings Low grade wheat flour containing the finer particles of wheat bran Wheat middlings, less than 8% ground wheat screenings Wheat bran Corn, oats Corn feed meal Corn, oats, corn feed meal Wheat, crushed wheat screenings Wheat bran, wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings Wheat shorts Wheat bran i5 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1913 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Bergenroth Bros., Troy, Ind. Wheat Shorts and Screenings 2023 4.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat shorts, ground wheat screen- ings Bergenroths Wheat Bran & Screenings 2024 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings Middlings 4.0 15.0 6.0 Wheat middlings Mixed Feed -- — 3441 4.0 14.0 11.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings, corn bran Mixed Bran & Screenings . 3442 3.8 14.0 12.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screen- ings, corn bran Corn bran Corn Bran _ _ 3443 4.5 8.0 14.0 Berlein Mills, Angola, R. F. D., Ind. Wheat Middlings 7515 3.0 12.0 10.0 Wheat middlings Wheat Bran — 7738 3.0 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Berne Milling Company, Berne, Ind. Berne Milling Co’s Wheat & Corn Bran 1117 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, corn bran Chop Feed - _ _ __ _ 6673 2.8 8.7 8.0 Corn, oats, barley, corn feed meal Wheat Shorts ___ — ■ 8018 2.3 13.0 7.0 Wheat shorts Bernet, Craft & Kauffman Milling Company, St. Louis, Mo. Mt. Carmel Bran & Screenings 5518 3.5 14.3 9.5 Wheat bran, crushed wheat screen- ings not exceeding mill run Mixed Feed _ 5519 4.0 14.5 9.5 Wheat bran, middlings, crushed wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat Middlings and Screenings __ 5791 4.9 17.2 6.0 Wheat middlings, crushed wheat screenings not exceeding mill run “A” Wheat Middlings with Screenings 5808 3.0 15.0 8.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Berry Bros., Lynn, Ind. Daisy Chop 7044 3.5 9.0 6.0 Corn, oats Besser, W. T., Greencastle, Ind. Besser’s Extra Mixed Feed __ Bickhart, Chris J., Rushville, Ind. 5170 3.5 15.4 12.0 Wheat bran, middlings, corn bran, ground wheat screenings not exceed- ing mill run Corn Bran __ _ _ __ _ 3790 4.0 7.0 14.5 Corn bran Bicknell Mill Company, Bicknell, Ind. Mixed Feed _ 7824 3.0 13.0 12.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings, corn bran White Middlings __ 7825 3.0 12.0 9.5 Wheat middlings Bieker Bros. Company, Hammond, Ind. Chop Feed __ __ ___ _ _ 3869 3.0 9.0 8.0 Corn, oats, corn feed meal Big Diamond Mills Company, Minneapolis, Minn. “Big Diamond Bran” and Screenings not exceeding Mill Run _ “Big Diamond Standard Middlings” and 9075 4.0 14.0 13.5 Wheat bran, ground wheat screen- ings not exceeding mill run Screenings not exceeding Mill Run._ _ 9076 5.0 15.5 10.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Bishop Elevator Company, Logansport, Ind. Chop Feed 554 3.9 9.5 6.0 Corn, oats Blair Milling Company, The, Atchison, Kansas Bran and Screenings _ 7735 3.5 14.5 10.0 Wheat bran 5 1% ground wheat screenings Soft Wheat Shorts 7736 3.5 16.0 5.5 Wheat shorts Blanton Milling Company, The, Indianapolis, Ind. Blanton’s Middlings 47 3.6 16.1 5.3 Wheat middlings The Blanton Mixed Feed _ 3805 3.7 15.7 10.0 Wheat bran, middlings, whole wheat screenings Blanton’s Pig Feed 7378 | 3.0 if 5 8.0 Wheat middlings, low grade flour 6 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) LABEL Bledsoe, Ernest E., Dugger, Ind. Deacons Horse Feed 2918 Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain and to be composed of the following ingredients £ ft 5.0 Corn, oats Blish Milling Company, Seymour, Ind. Blish’s Red Dog Flour Bulls’ Eye Mixed Feed Bloomfield Mill & Elevator Company, Bloomfield, Ind. Mixed Mill Feed Corn Bran 6403 3.5 16.0 8176 4.5 16.0 3.0 Low grade wheat flour containing the finer particles of wheat bran 9.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings 4924 8654 3.0 3.0 12.8 6.0 10.0 9.0 Wheat bran, middlings, whole wheat screenings, corn bran Corn bran Bloomington Milling Company, The, Bloomington, Ind. Mixed Feed Middlings & Screenings Corn Feed Meal 3602 8447 9211 3.0 4.0 5.0 13.0 14.0 9.0 8.0 Wheat bran, middlings, whole wheat screenings, corn bran 9.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run 8.0 Corn feed meal Bluffton Milling Company, Bluffton, Ind. Wheat Bran Wheat Middlings 661 8017 3.8 14.0 2.5 13.0 10.0 7.0 Wheat bran Wheat middlings Bock, Leonard, Argos, Ind. 3 Wheat Middlings Chop Feed Wheat Bran Mixed Feed Boldt & Son, Waynetown, Ind. Mix Mill Feed 548 549 550 2843 4.0 3.9 3.7 3.7 14.0 9.5 14.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings 6.0 Corn, oats 10.0 Wheat bran 12.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screen- ings, corn bran 4170 11.0 11.0 Wheat bran, middlings, corn bran Bolte & Sons, Ben, Ferdinand, Ind. Wheat Shorts 7276 Wheat & Corn Bran and Ground Screenings,. 8178 Boonville Milling Company, Boonville, Ind. Wheat Bran & Screenings Corn Bran Corn Feed Meal Shorts & Feed Meal Boone Mixed Feed 2842 3080 6851 7847 8991 Boston Milling Company, Eckerty, Ind. Bobbitt’s Mixed Feed 3453 Bowling Green Mills, The, Bowling Green, Ind. 4 Wheat Bran 3370 4.0 14.5 3.5 14.5 8.0 10.0 Wheat shorts Wheat bran, corn bran, ground wheat screenings 3.7 14.0 4.0 9.0 2.5 7.5 4.0 T4.0 3.8 15.0 3.7 14.0 10.0 13.0 5.0 7.0 11.0 11.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings Corn bran Corn feed meal Wheat shorts, corn feed meal Wheat bran, wheat shorts, corn bran, ground wheat screenings not to exceed mill run Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings 3.9 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Bowling Green Milling Company, Bowling Green, Ind. Middlings Mifi Feed Branch Grain & Seed Company, Martinsville, Ind. Horse Feed Corn Feed Meal 6206 6912 3.0 13 0 3.5 10.4 6.0 13.0 Wheat middlings Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings, corn bran 272 3.5 38S8 2.5 6.0 Corn, oats 5.0 Corn feed meal B r attain & Son, Anderson, Ind. Corn & Oats Chop 4511 3.5 9.0 14.0 Corn, oats 3 Succeeded by J. A. Bock 4 Succeeded by Bowling Green Milling Company 1 7 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Brewer, 0. F., Freetown, Ind. Mixed Feed 1 5120 3.5 13.0 10.0 Wheat bran, shorts, middlings, corn bran, ground wheat screenings Freetown Farm Feed Brewer Company, Spencer, Ind. 9203 3.0 10.0 10.0 Corn, oats, corn feed meal, corn bran, wheat bran, wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings Mixed Feed 9233 3.0 13.0 11.0 Wheat bran, wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings, corn bran Brewer Milling Company, Gosport, Ind. Mixed Feed - 3930 2.6 9.5 7.5 Wheat bran, shorts, ground wheat screenings, corn bran Bridgeton Milling Company, Bridgeton, Ind. Mixed Feed - 6621 4.0 9.3 9.0 Corn, oats, wheat bran, corn bran, ground wheat screenings Mill Feed 7226 3.7 13.0 10.0 Wheat bran, middlings, corn bran, ground wheat screenings Wheat Shorts 7717 2.0 13.0 8.0 Wheat shorts Bran & Ground Screenings _ 8177 3.8 13.0 10.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screen- ings Bristol Milling Company, Bristol, Ind. Wheat Middlings . . _ - 2019 4.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Wheat Bran . . . _ 2150 3.8 13.0 9.0 Wheat bran “Buckwheat” Mixed Feed 8883 3.5 14.0 18.0 Buckwheat hulls, buckwheat mid- dlings Brizius Company, The Chas. W., Newburgh, Ind. Eagle Mixed Feed . 5927 4.0 15.1 5.9 Wheat bran, middlings Eagle Corn Feed Meal . 6075 2.7 6.8 5.0 Corn feed meal Eagle Wheat Shorts or Middlings 7194 3.8 14.0 6.0 Wheat middlings Eagle Corn Bran -- - - - - 7388 4.0 8.3 13.5 Cora bran Eagle Wheat Bran 8843 4.0 14.5 10.0 Wheat bran Brook Flour & Feed Mill, Brook, Ind. Com Bran _ ___ .. 2430 4.5 7.0 10.0 Corn bran Chop Feed 2431 3.5 9.0 8.0 Corn, oats Rising Sun Middlings and Ground Screenings. 8936 4.0 14.0 16.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings Rising Sun Bran and Ground Screenings 8937 3.0 12.0 15.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings Brooks & Son, L., Vincennes, Ind. Corn Bran 5 _ _ 4759 4.0 7.0 10.0 Corn bran Brose, George, Evansville, Ind. Wheat Bran & Screenings .. ... 2942 3.2 13.5 12.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings Wheat Middlings and Screenings 6854 3.8 15.5 7.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings Brose & Arnold, Evansville, Ind. Bran and Screenings ... 2257 3.7 14.0 11.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings Wheat middlings Wheat Middlings .. ... 7491 4.0 14.0 8.0 Brotherton & Son, R. E., Terre Haute, Ind. Chop Feed ... 1119 3.5 10.5 5.5 Wheat bran, com meal, oats Brown & Cole, Vevay, Ind. A. Mixed Feed . 7771 3.7 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings, corn bran Browning Milling Company, W. A., Evansville, Ind. Corn Bran 2163 4.0 7.0 14.0 Corn bran Corn Feed Meal 3537 2.4 6.7 5.0 Corn feed meal Brudi & Company, Jos., New Haven, Ind. Middlings . ... 2246 2.8 13.1 8.0 Wheat middlings 5 Succeeded by U. G. McCoy & Co. i8 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Brumfiel Feed & Produce Company, Marion, Ind. Corn & Oats Chop _ 3196 3.9 9.5 6.0 Corn, oats Mixed Feed 3247 3.0 13.0 12.0 Wheat bran, middlings, screenings, corn bran Bundy Bros., Vallonia, Ind. Mill Feed _ — - __ 7861 3.4 13.0 10.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings, corn bran Shorts _ _ Bundy Mill Company, L. L., Vallonia, Ind. j 7862 3.0 13.0 8.0 Wheat shorts Corn Feed Meal — 4095 2.7 7.5 7.0 Corn feed meal Bunker Hill Milling Company, Evansville, Ind. Bran, Shipstuff and Screenings 2586 3.0 12.0 10.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings Fancy Shorts 4571 2.0 10.0 8.0 Wheat shorts Wheat Bran and Screenings 4588 2.0 10.0 12.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings Burge-Thomas Milling Company, Marion, Ind. 6 Shorts . _ 4728 4.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat shorts Corn Bran 5758 3.5 7.0 12.0 Corn bran Corn Feed Meal — _ __ __ 5759 2.5 7.5 5.0 Corn feed meal Mixed Feed — _ __ _ _ _ 5760 3.8 14.0 11.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings Wheat Bran and Wheat Screenings __ 6440 3.1 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, whole wheat screenings Burkhart, J. E., Georgetown, Ind. Shipstuff 975 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, middlings Burns, W. T., Rising Sun, Ind. Mixed Feed __ 7768 3.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat bran, middlings Burrell & Morgan, Elkhart, Ind. Bran . _ ___ 253 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Middlings _ Butcher & Duncan, Oakland City, Ind. 254 4.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Chop Feed . _ __ 7613 3.0 10.0 5.0 Corn, oats, wheat, corn feed meal Butler & Company, Edw. J., Chicago, 111. Standard Middlings _ 5424 4.0 15.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Wheat Bran and Screenings _____ 8346 4.0 14.0 14.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings Wheat Flour Middlings and Screenings.. 8347 4.0 14.0 10.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat Standard Middlings and Screenings.. 8348 4.0 14.0 14.0 screenings Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings Butler’s Premium Chop Feed Butler Milling Company, Butler, Ind. 8806 4.1 12.4 12.0 Ground screenings from wheat and barley Butler Milling Co’s Wheat Bran 1029 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Wheat Middlings ___ _ _ 7082 3.6 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Butt & Bro., L. T., Center Point, Ind. Mixed Feed 4431 3.5 13.5 10.0 Wheat bran, shorts, ground wheat screenings, corn bran Corn Feed Meal 5133 3.0 7.0 5.0 Corn feed meal Wheat Middlings _ _ __ 9334 3.5 13.5 7.0 Wheat middlings Buzbee, H., Jonesboro, Ind. Chop Feed 5683 4.0 10.0 9.5 Corn, oats, corn feed meal Byrnes & Company, W. J., Chicago, 111. Wheat Bran ... 5435 3.5 15.7 12.9 Wheat bran 0 Succeeded by Thomas Milling Co. 19 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. .Not less than per cent. crude fat Mot less than per cent. crude protein Mot more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Cadick Milling Company, Grandview, Ind. Bran and Screenings 7858 3.8 15.0 10.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screen- ings, corn bran Shipstuff - 7859 4.0 16.0 . 7.0 Wheat shorts, middlings, reddog flour Mixed Feed 9196 4.0 15.0 9.0 Wheat bran, shorts, ground wheat screenings Cagle & Schopmeyer, Poland, Ind. 7 Mixed Feed 6884 3.8 13.0 13.0 Wheat bran, middlings, shorts, ground wheat screenings, corn bran Cannelton Flour Mills, Cannelton, Ind. Ship & Wheat Screenings • 2589 4.0 14.0 9.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings “A” Mixed Feed ___ 3426 3.5 13.5 10.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings, corn bran Mixed Bran & Screenings _ — 3427 3.4 13.5 12.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screen- ings, corn bran Carmer Company, J. M., Auburn, Ind. Carmer & Walker Chop Feed 7925 3.9 9.5 6.5 Corn, oats Carpenter, A. J., Hamilton, Ind. A. J. Carpenter’s Corn and Oat Chop 307 3.9 9.5 6.0 Corn, oats Carpenter, B. 0., Perrysville, Ind. Wheat Bran 3582 3.0 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran “Wheat Middlings” __ ___ 4712 2.8 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Carter, C. F., Terre Haute, Ind. Bran & Homco Mixed 4003 5.0 10.0 9.0 Wheat bran, hominy meal Carter Feed Store, The, Martinsville, Ind. Chop Feed — 4862 3.0 9.0 7.0 Corn, oats, corn feed meal Cauble, 0. L., Pekin, Ind. Wheat Shorts ___ 1016 4.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat shorts Wheat Bran __ 1018 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Corn Bran _ 6129 2.0 8.0 13.0 Corn bran Mixed Feed _ _ __ 6130 2.0 10.0 10.0 Wheat bran, shorts, ground wheat screenings, wheat dust, mill sweep- ings Mill Feed Cauble & Dunlevy, Henryville, Ind. 8048 4.0 16.0 9.0 Wheat bran, wheat middlings, not exceeding mill’s run of ground cleaned wheat screenings Corn Bran __ 1728 4.0 7.0 13.0 Corn bran Corn Feed Meal _ 4296 2.7 6.8 5.0 Corn feed meal Star Mixed Feed _ 8839 4.0 14.0 8.5 Wheat bran, wheat middlings, wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Cayuga Milling Company, Cayuga, Ind. Cayuga Milling Co’s Mixed Wheat and Corn • Bran & Wheat Shorts _ ___ _ 418 4.2 12.0 10.0 Wheat bran, shorts, corn bran Cayuga Milling Co’s Mixed Wheat Bran & Wheat Shorts __ __ 419 3.9 14.0 9.0 Wheat bran, shorts Cayuga Milling Co’s Wheat Shorts 420 4.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat shorts Cayuga Milling Co’s Wheat Bran __ 421 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Wheat & Corn Bran _ _ 3892 3.5 12.5 11.0 Wheat bran, corn bran Corn Meal, Shorts, Wheat Bran & Com Bran 4373 3.0 11.0 11.0 Wheat bran, shorts, corn meal, corn bran Corn Meal and Shorts Mixed 4374 3.0 12.0 9.0 Wheat shorts, corn meal “B” Mixed Feed _ .__ 5175 3.5 13.0 6.0 Wheat shorts, corn feed meal “A” Mixed Feed 5176 3.6 11.0 8.0 Wheat bran, shorts, com feed meal Corn bran Corn Bran __ 9330 4.0 7.0 13.0 Central Mills Company, Dixon, 111. Oat Meal Middlings ___ 6654 5.0 14.0 7.0 Oat middlings 7 Succeeded by L. H. Schopmeyer 20 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1913 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Central Kansas Milling Company, Lyons, Kansas Wheat Shorts _ ___ ___ 8751 3.7 16.0 5.5 Wheat shorts Wheat Bran Chapin & Company, Hammond, Ind. 8752 3.5 14.5 10.0 Wheat bran Wheat Bran — 4C86 4.0 14.0 11.0 Wheat bran Wheat Middlings 4687 4.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat middlings Chapman-Doake Company, The, Decatur, 111. Corn & Oats Chop Chicago Heights Oil Mfg. Company, 8590 4.0 10.0 7.0 Corn, oats • Chicago, 111. “Prize” Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings — 6444 4.0 15.0 7.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings “Prize” White Middlings - 7004 3.5 15.0 5.0 Wheat middlings “Prize” Wheat Bran and Screenings 7005 3.5 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screen- ings not exceeding mill run “Prize” Standard Middlings and Screenings.. 7006 4.0 15.0 7.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run “Prize” Red Dog Flour — 7402 4.0 17.0 5.0 Low grade wheat flour containing the finer particles of wheat bran “Prize” Rye Middlings 7505 3.0 14.5 5.0 Rye middlings Christian & Company, Geo. C., Minneapolis, Minn. Geo. C. Christian’s Red Dog 3769 3.5 15.5 4.0 Low grade wheat flour containing the finer particles of wheat bran Jersey Bran ._ ... .. ... 3770 4.0 13.0 11.5 Wheat bran Poland Middlings ._ ... 3771 4.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat middlings White Middlings & Screenings 5515 4.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Bran & Screenings 5516 4.0 13.0 12.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screen- ings not exceeding mill run Middlings & Screenings Jersey Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings 5517 4.0 14.0 9.5 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Not exceeding Mill Run _ Poland Wheat Standard Middlings with 7429 4.0 13.0 13.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screen- ings not exceeding mill run Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run_. 7430 4.0 14.0 11.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Cicero Mills & Elevator, Cicero, Ind. Chop Feed .. 1799 3.7 9.5 6.0 Corn, oats Cincinnati Grain & Hay Company, The, Cincinnati, Ohio Wheat Bran _ . _ 8665 4.0 14.5 9.0 Wheat bran Wheat Middlings 8666 4.2 15.7 6.0 Wheat middlings Mixed Wheat Feed and Screenings _ 8805 4.2 15.1 8.0 Wheat bran, wheat middlings, 6% ground wheat screenings City Milling Company, Kendallville, Ind. Wheat Bran _ 6273 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Wheat Middlings 6370 3.0 13.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Corn Feed Meal ... . 9234 3.0 8.0 7.0 Corn feed meal City Mills, South Whitley, Ind. Wheat Bran ... 6105 3.5 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Wheat Middlings __ _ 6106 3.5 14.0 6.0 Wheat middlings Chop Feed 6107 3.0 9.0 7.0 Corn, oats, corn feed meal City Roller Mills, Vevay, Ind. Mixed Feed or Wheat & Corn Product 1158 3.0 14.0 8.2 Wheat bran, middlings, shorts, ground wheat screenings, corn bran Clark Bros., Hagerstown, Ind. Wheat Middlings 2007 3.7 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Wheat Bran 2562 3.2 12.0 10.0 Wheat bran 21 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) LABEL Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain to +» ri 03 C«H -2g® Z a o 4j . T3 ?-< ft o and to be composed of the following ingredients Clark & Sons, C. G., Rushville, Ind. Clark’s Com & Wheat Bran (Mixed). Clark’s Wheat Bran Clarks Mixed Feed Clarks Middlings Wheat Middlings & Ground Wheat Screenings Claro Milling Company, Waseca, Minn. Claro Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings— Claro Wheat Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings Claro Wheat Flour Middlings Claro Red Dog Claypole, Geo. M., Sardinia, Ind. Geo. M. Claypole’s Mixed Feed Geo. M. Claypole’s Wheat Bran Geo. M. Claypole’s Wheat Middlings Com Feed Meal Chop Feed Clayton Milling Company, Clayton, Ind. Mixed Bran Wheat Middlings Mixed Feed White Middlings Clifty Mills, R. R. 3, Greensburg, Ind. Mill Feed Clinton Grain Company, Frankfort, Ind. Wheat and Oats Chop Clover Leaf Flour Mills, Kokomo, Ind. Mixed Feed Wheat Middlings Clover Leaf Mixed Feed Clyne, I. B., Crawfordsville, Ind. Chop Feed Coal City Milling Company, Coal City, Ind. Pure Corn and Oats Chop Coal City Mixed Bran Coal City Wheat Shorts Collamer Milling Company, Collamer, Ind. White Middlings Mixed Feed Collier Bros., Culver, Ind. Wheat Bran Collins & Swallow, Lake, Ind. Corn Bran Columbia City Mill & Elevator Company, Columbia City, Ind. A. Chop Feed 185 3.7 14.0 10.7 Corn bran, wheat bran 188 3.7 14.0 10.3 Wheat bran 5813 2.9 14.0 10.7 Wheat bran, ground w’heat screen- ings, corn bran Wheat middlings 7918 4.5 18.0 7.0 9023 4.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings 6615 3.0 14.0 12.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screen- ings not exceeding mill run 6616 3.0 14.0 12.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run 7045 3.0 15.0 6.0 Wheat middlings 7016 3.0 15.0 5.0 Low grade wheat flour containii the finer particles of wheat bran 1389 3.5 14.0 12.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings, corn bran 2144 3.2 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran 2500 4.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat middlings 4056 2.7 7.0 7.0 Corn feed meal 8165 3.5 9.5 10.0 Corn, oats, wheat 2525 3.7 14.0 12.0 Wheat bran, corn bran 7664 3.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat middlings 7665 3.0 13.0 11.0 Wheat bran, wheat middlings 7722 1.8 13.0 5.0 Wheat middlings 4381 3.0 13.0 12.0 Wheat bran, middlings 9062 3.0 9.0 9.0 Wheat, oats 3583 3.8 13.0 9.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings, com bran 4449 2.8 12.0 8.0 Wheat middlings 5341 3.5 13.0 11.0 Wheat bran, corn bran, ground wheat screenings 6207 3.0 8.0 6.0 Corn, oats 2952 3.5 9.5 7.0 Corn, oats 6601 3.5 13.5 11.5 Wheat bran, corn bran 6913 3.5 14.0 8.0 Wheat shorts 7052 2.0 13.0 5.0 Wheat middlings 7053 3.5 14.0 12.0 Wheat bran, germ middlings 1471 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran 9394 2.5 7.0 10.0 Corn bran 6991 3.0 8.0 10.0 Corn, oats, rye, barley, corn feed meal Succeeded by Farmers Mill & Elevator Company 22 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude nrotein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Columbus Milling Company, Columbus, Ind. Corn Bran _ .. _ 6908 4.0 8.0 13.0 Corn bran A. Mixed Peed __ 8676 3.0 13.5 12.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground Combs & Sons, L., Vincennes, Ind. Corn & Oats Feed _ 8070 3.0 8.0 9.0 wheat screenings, corn bran Corn, oats Commander Mill Company, Minneapolis, Minn. Commander Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run 9276 4.0 14.0 13.5 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings Commander Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run 9276 5.0 15.5 10.0 not exceeding mill run Wheat middlings, ground wheat Commander Flour Middlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run. 9277 5.5 17.0 7.0 screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat middlings, ground wheat Cook, E. N., Plymouth, Ind. Cook’s Chop Feed 4770 3.0 9.0 9.0 screenings not exceeding mill run Corn, oats, ground corn screenings, corn feed meal Wheat bran Cooking Milling Company, Richmond, R. R. 4, Ind. Wheat Bran 4796 3.4 12.0 10.0 Wheat Middlings — _ 4797 3.7 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Corn Feed Meal 4798 2.0 7.0 6.0 Corn feed meal Coombs Milling Company, Wm. A., Coldwater, Mich. Wheat Middlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run _ 7344 3.0 15.0 6.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run _ 7345 3.0 14.0 10.0 screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings Coppes Bros. & Zook, Nappanee, Ind. Bran __ «_ 5628 3.6 13.5 11.0 not exceeding mill run Wheat bran Mixed Feed 6919 4.5 14.0 9.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground Middlings and Ground Wheat Screenings 7561 4.0 15.8 6.0 wheat screenings Wheat middlings, ground wheat Reddog Flour (Branded “F”) 7610 2.7 14.0 2.3 screenings Low grade wheat flour containing Corn Bran and Ground Corn Screenings 9329 4.0 9.0 9.0 the finer particles of wheat bran Corn bran, ground corn screenings Corydon Milling Company, Corydon, Ind. Wheat Middlings _ 3306 4.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings “A” Mixed Feed _ 7109 3.5 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, corn bran, ground Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Company, Crawfordsville, Ind. Chop Feed - 1929 3.7 9.0 6.0 wheat screenings Corn, oats Ground Corn and Oats Screenings 8208 3.0 9.0 10.0 Ground screenings from corn and Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Company, Lafayette, Ind. Wheat Middlings 2467 4.0 14.0 7.0 oats Wheat middlings Mixed Feed _____ 2468 3.7 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings Chou _ _ 8600 3.0 9.0 10.0 Corn, oats, corn feed meal Thrift Chop Feed __ 8688 3.0 9.0 10.0 Corn, oats, corn feed meal Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Company, Reynolds, Ind. C. R. T. Chop Feed 5831 3.0 9.0 7.0 Corn, oats, corn feed meal Crandal, L. N., Fremont, Ind. Corn & Oats Chop 1650 3.9 9.5 6.0 Corn, oats W T heat Middlings — 1651 4.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Wheat Bran _ 1652 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Crawford Feed Store, Jay S., Crown Point, Ind. Crawford’s Chop Feed 1 5246 3.0 8.0 6.0 Corn, oats, corn feed meal 23 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) LABEL Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients S940 3.0 8.0 10.0 Corn feed meal 7146 3.5 14.0 9.0 Wheat bran, middlings, corn bran, corn feed meal, ground wheat screenings 7574 3.8 14.5 9.0 Wheat bran, middlings, corn bran, whole w'heat screenings 6772 5.1 14.2 13.2 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run 6773 5.S 16.2 10.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run 6418 3.1 13.0 11.6 Wheat bran 6419 5.1 15.0 5.9 Wheat shorts 3603 4.0 16.0 6.0 Wheat middlings 3604 3.0 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran 7773 4.0 7.0 14.0 Corn bran 246 3.8 14.0 5.0 Wheat middlings 2632 I 3.5 12.0 12.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings, corn bran 2837 3.7 14.0 12.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings 2838 3.9 14.0 8.0 Wheat middlings 1514 3.9 9.0 9.0 Corn, oats 7089 2.5 12.0 8.0 Wheat bran, middlings 8747 2.5 6.0 10.0 Com bran 8748 2.5 7.0 5.0 Corn feed meal 9393 7.0 10.0 7.0 Corn hearts, corn bran 5501 3.0 9.0 8.0 Corn, oats, corn feed meal 810 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, wheat shorts 4331 2.5 7.0 5.0 Corn feed meal 4546 3.0 9.0 6.0 Wheat, corn, oats 4547 3.5 9.0 7.0 Corn, oats 2361 3.9 9.5 8.0 Corn, oats Creitz & Deardoff, Centerville, Ind. Corn Peed Meal Crescent Milling Company, Crothersville, Ind. A. Mixed Peed Mixed Peed Crescent Milling Company, Fairfax, Minn. Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run Crete Mills, The, Crete, Neb. Bran Shorts Crosby Roller Milling Company, Topeka, Kans. Pure Winter Wheat Middlings Pure Winter Wheat Bran Crown Mill & Peed Company, Evansville, Ind. Corn Bran Croxton, James W., Cloverdale, Ind. Middlings Croxton & Company, J. W., Cloverdale, Ind. Croxton’s Extra Mixed Feed Crull, Frank, Mooreland, Ind. Mixed Peed Wheat Middlings Cullom & Sons, W. H., Frankfort, Ind. Com and Oats Chop Curby Milling Company, Curby, Ind. Shipstuff Cutsinger & Thompson, Shelbyville, Ind. Corn Bran Corn Feed Meal Dahnke-Walker Milling Company, Union City, Tenn. Danco Feed Daily, C. C., Bristol, R. R. 5, Ind. Bonneyville No. 1 Chop Feed ... Dalrymple, J. W., Rising Sun, Ind. Bran & Shorts Daniels & Pickering Company, Middletown, Ind. 9 Com Feed Meal Darlington Grain Company, Darlington, Ind. Chop Feed j Corn and Oats Chop Darlington Grist Mill, Darlington, Ind. Chop Feed 0 Succeeded by J. M. Walker & Son 24 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Deck, James M., Roann, Ind. 10 Pure Winter Wheat Bran Pure Wheat Middlings Delp Grain Company, E. E., Bourbon, Ind. Crushota Wheat Bran & Screenings Wheat Middlings & Screenings Special Corn Feed Meal Deutsch & Sickert Company, Milwaukee, Wis. Coarse Wheat Bran Pure Wheat Middlings Mystic Bran Eagle Wheat Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings Wheat Bran with Screenings Corn Feed Meal Flour Middlings Including Mill Run Screenings Reddog Flour — Mixed Feed Rye Middlings Including Mill Run Screenings _ White Corn Bran Dickinson Company, The Albert, Chicago, 111. Corn Feed Meal Wheat Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings not to exceed Mill Run Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run Flour Middlings with Ground Wheat Screen- ings not to Exceed Mill Run Albert Dickinson Co. Red Dog Flour Dilger Bros., Mariah Hill, Ind. Mixed Bran Dilger Bros. Wheat Shorts Dilley Company, C. L., Logansport, Ind. Dilley’s No. 1 Chop Feed Dillsboro Milling Company, Dillsboro, Ind. Wheat Shorts Mixed Feed Dixie Mills Company, East St. Louis, 111. Dixie Corn & Oats Chop Dodd & Son, H. C., Charlestown, Ind. Mill Offal Dodge Mfg. Co., Mishawaka, Ind. Bran Middlings Donahue Stratton Company, Milwaukee, Wis. Wheat Bran with Screenings Not to Exceed Mill Run r - rrr-T" Wheat Middlings with Screenings Not to Ex- ceed Mill Run — . Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients 195 3.7 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran 196 4.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings 3C38 3.5 9.0 6.0 Corn, oats 7555 3.8 14.0 11.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings 7556 4.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings 8372 6.0 11.0 5.0 Corn feed meal 5389 4.0 15.0 12.0 Wheat bran 5472 5.0 15.0 7.0 Wheat middlings 7187 4.5 14.0 15.0 Wheat bran 7188 5.0 14.0 9.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings 7259 4.0 13.0 13.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings 8553 6.0 9.0 6.0 Corn feed meal from yellow and white corn 8555 4.3 16.0 7.7 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run 8582 5.0 15.0 4.0 Low grade wheat flour containing the finer particles of wheat bran 8705 4.8 15.3 10.4 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run 8761 3.0 14.0 5.5 Rye middlings, ground rye screen- ings S319 6.0 9.0 11.0 Corn bran 3616 2.5 7.0 5.0 Corn feed meal 5840 5.0 15.0 9.5 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run 5841 4.0 14.5 12.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run 6944 4.5 15.5 7.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run 8581 4.0 16.0 4.0 Low grade wheat flour containing the finer particles of wheat bran 3181 3.0 13.0 10.0 Wheat bran, corn bran 3632 2.5 12.0 8.0 Wheat shorts 7951 3.5 9.0 7.0 Corn, oats, corn feed meal 1008 4.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat shorts 4053 2.9 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, corn bran, wheat dust 7693 3.0 8.0 10.0 Corn and oats 2338 4.0 14.0 9.0 Wheat bran, shorts, middlings, ground wheat screenings 9290 4.0 15.0 10.0 Wheat bran 9291 4.5 15.0 6.0 Wheat middlings 8881 4.5 14.3 14.6 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run 8882 4.5 16.2 8.4 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run i" Succeeded by James H. Deck Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain a fi c fi c8 a LABEL £ .o 03 C*H 03 C ft i. -P O C'H following ingredients is '3 56 o iJg® J&g a a u JW 03 a, -g K s ? i ft t> O £ 3 £ 2> U P. o Donmeyer, Gardner & Co., Peoria, 111. Pure Wheat Middlings Wheat Bran with Screenings Not to exceed Mill Run Standard Middlings or Shorts Doolittle Mills, Doolittle Mills, Ind. Bran and Middlings Dotson & Sons, Chas., Parker, Ind. Rye Mixed Peed Dreyer Commission Company, St. Louis, Mo. Corn Peed Meal White Corn Feed Meal W. Corn Peed Meal Dubois Milling Company, Dubois, Ind. Bran & Shorts Duglay & Jones, Churubusco, Ind. 11 Wheat Middlings Wheat Bran Dunlap Grain Company, The J. M., Franklin, Ind. Middlings & Screenings j “Dairy” Wheat Bran Eagle Roller Mill Company, New Ulm, Minn. Superb Red Dog Wheat Middlings with Ground Screenings not Exceeding Mill Run Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings not Exceeding Mill Run Rye Middlings with Ground Screenings not Exceeding Mill Run Flour Middlings with Ground Screenings not Exceeding Mill Run Barley Mixed Peed with Ground Barley Screenings Early & Daniel Company, The, Cincinnati, Ohio Bran & Screenings Middlings & Screenings Mixed Peed and Screenings Eberts & Bro., Charlestown, Ind. “Bran” “Ship Stuff” ” Eberts’ Mixed Feed Pure Mixed Peed Bran & Screenings Middlings & Ground Screenings Eberts & Bro., North Vernon, Ind. Corn Bran Eberts’ Mix-Peed Eberts C. & O. Peed Mixed Feed 2612 4.5 15.0 8.0 6208 4.0 14.0 11.0 9009 4.5 15.0 8.0 8345 3.5 14.0 8.0 9232 2.0 11.0 8.0 8606 8.0 8.0 11.5 8632 3.0 10.0 6.0 8655 3.5 8.0 5.0 1192 3.6 13.0 10.0 7468 3.0 13.0 7.0 7469 3.0 13.0 10.0 8668 3.5 14.0 8.0 8669 3.8 14.0 10.0 3555 5.7 20.7 3.8 0687 4.5 15.4 9.5 7105 3.4 14.0 11.0 7604 3.5 16.0 7.0 7701 4.2 14.5 8.0 9404 2.0 8.0 20.0 7273 4.0 14.5 10.0 7274 4.0 15.0 8.0 8385 3.0 14.0 10.0 2014 3.9 14.1 10.0 2015 4.5 15.8 7.0 5241 4.3 16.0 11.0 5242 4.5 15.1 6.5 6570 3.5 14.1 10.0 6571 3.8 16.0 8.0 1242 5.0 8.0 13.0 2052 4.0 15.5 8.0 3742 3.5 9.0 6.0 4151 4.0 15.5 11.0 Wheat middlings Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings not to exceed mill run Wheat middlings Wheat bran, middlings Rye bran, rye middlings Corn feed meal Corn feed meal Corn feed meal Wheat bran, wheat shorts Wheat middlings Wheat bran Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings Wheat bran Low grade wheat flour containing the finer particles of wheat bran Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Rye middlings, ground rye screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Barley bran, barley middlings, barley hulls, ground barley screenings Wheat bran, whole wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings, not exceeding mill run Wheat bran Wheat middlings, wheat shorts Wheat bran, middlings, corn bran, ground wheat screenings Wheat bran, wheat middlings Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings Corn bran Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings Corn and oats Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings, corn bran 1 Succeeded by A. A. Jones 26 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Eberts & Bro., North Vernon, Ind. Wheat Shorts 5418 4.0 15.0 7.0 Wheat shorts “0” Mixed Feed _ _ 5612 3.5 11.0 12.0 Corn, wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings Corn Feed Meal 7669 2.5 7.5 5.0 Com feed meal Eberts Grain Company, Nabb, Ind. Eberts Grain Co. Mixed Feed ___ 4970 4.0 15.5 8.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings Eckert, Andrew W., Jasper, Ind. Mixed Feed 7756 4.0 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, middlings, whole wheat screenings Eckhart Milling Company, B. A., Chicago, 111. Bran and Screenings 6194 4.0 14.0 11.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings Wheat and Rye Middlings with Ground Wheat Screenings not Exceeding Mill Run__ 8673 4.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings, rye middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceed- ing mill run Mixed Feed - - 8674 4.0 14.0 11.0 Wheat bran, wheat middlings, rye middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Flour Middlings _ 8675 4.0 15.0 7.0 Wheat and rye flour middlings Eclipse Mill, The, Ramsey, Ind. Mill Feed _ . _ 2485 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, wheat middlings Eclipse Mixed Feed _ 3455 3.5 13.5 12.0 Wheat bran, middlings, screenings Edinger & Company, Louisville, Ky. Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat Bran & Wheat Screenings _ 7205 4.0 14.5 10.0 Wheat Middlings and Wheat Screenings 7206 4.5 15.5 8.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat Mixed Feed & Wheat Screenings. ___ 7207 4.0 15.0 10.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Arrow Feed Meal 7811 3.9 8.7 2.5 Corn feed meal Edgerton Milling Company, Edgerton, Ohio Dutsch’s Mixed Feed .. .. .. Edwardsport Mills, Edwardsport, Ind. 7213 3.0 14.0 10.0 Winter wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings not to ex- ceed mill run Wheat Shorts _ 6830 3.0 13.0 7.0 Wheat shorts Wheat Bran ... - 7210 3.0 13.0 10.0 Wheat bran Eesley & Company, Wm., College Comer, Ohio 7.0 Wheat middlings Wheat Middlings ... 2921 4.0 14.0 ■Rran 3220- 3.5 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Mixed Feed __ _ 4264 3.0 13.5 13.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screen- ings, corn bran Egloff Milling Company, Vincennes, Ind. Wheat Bran, Ground Screenings and Corn Wheat bran, ground wheat screen- ings, corn bran Wheat shorts Bran _ 6053 3.5 14.0 10.0 Wheat Shorts _ 6054 4.0 14.0 8.0 Mixed Feed __ _ 6873 3.5 14.0 8.6 Wheat bran, middlings, corn bran, ground wheat screenings Egloff Sons, A., St. Meinrad, Ind. Wheat bran, whole wheat screenings, com bran Bran & Screenings 2591 3.0 14.0 8.5 Shorts 2749 3.8 15.0 4.2 Wheat shorts Elizabeth Milling Company, Elizabeth, Ind. Wheat bran, middlings E. M. Co’s Wheat Bran and Middlings 8410 3.7 14.0 10.0 Emison, J. & S., Vincennes, Ind. Wheat middlings Middlings 1536 4.0 14.0 8.0 Mixed Feed 4237 3.0 14.0 9.0 Wheat bran, whole wheat screenings Emisons Mixed Feed & Middlings 5768 3.5 14.0 8.5 Wheat bran, middlings, whole wheat screenings Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) LABEL Emison & Company, J. & S., Vincennes, Ind. Feed Meal Emmert, C. B., Clarksburg, Ind. Mixed Feed Empire Milling Company, Minneapolis, Minn. Empire Milling Co. Wheat Bren with Ground Screenings not Exceeding Mill Run Empire Milling Company Wheat Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings Not Exceeding Mill Run Empire Milling Company Wheat Flour Mid- dlings with Ground Screenings Not Ex- ceeding Mill Run English Milling Company, English, Ind. English Milling Co. Mixed Feed Enos, M. T., New Albany, Ind. Corn Bran Wheat Middlings Wheat Bran Rolled Oats & Corn Corn Feed Meal Enterprise Milling Company, Milroy, Ind. Bran & Screenings Middlings Erie Elevator, The, Rochester, Ind. Corn & Oat Chop Erwin, J. C., Inwood, Ind. Corn and Oats Chop Etna Lumber & Milling Company, Etna Green, Ind. Mixed Feed Etna Bran & Screenings T__ Etna Middlings & Screenings Everett, Aughenbaugh & Company, Waseca, Minn. Eaco Winged Horse Mixed Feed E-A-CO Wheat Middlings and Ground Screen- ings — E-A-CO Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings. E-A-CO Mixed Feed Ewing Mill Company, Ewing, Ind. Ewing Mill Co’s Mixed Feed Fairplay Feed Mills, Linton, Ind. Feed Meal Farmers Elevator Company, The, Jamestown, Ind. Corn Feed Meal Mixed Bran & Screenings Wheat Middlings & Screenings Mixed Feed Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude nrotein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the i following ingredients 1 1 4464 3.0 8.0 5.0 Corn feed meal 6929 3.0 13.0 11.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings, corn bran 7393 4.0 14.0 11.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run 7394 4.0 15.0 9.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run 7395 4.5 17.0 5.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run 966 4.0 14.1 9.2 Wheat bran, middlings, corn bran, ground wheat screenings 2499 5.0 9.0 13.0 Corn bran 4082 3.4 15.0 8.0 Wheat middlings 4063 3.4 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran 4637 2.5 7.5 13.0 Corn, oats 5034 1.3 6.1 8.0 Com feed meal 2077 2.9 14.1 10.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings 2317 3.8 14.2 6.3 Wheat middlings 3416 3.5 8.5 10.0 Corn, oats 8430 3.5 9.0 6.0 Corn, oats 5860 4.0 9.0 8.0 Corn, oats, rye, corn bran 6659 4.0 14.5 11.0 Wheat bran, not exceeding mill’s run of ground cleaned wheat screenings 6660 4.0 16.0 8.0 Wheat middlings, not exceeding mill’s ran of ground cleaned wheat screen- ings 4397 3.0 15.0 12.0 Wheat bran, wheat middlings 5440 3.0 15.0 10.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run 6024 3.0 14.0 12.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run 9410 3.0 15.0 12.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings not to exceed mill run 2497 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, shorts 6503 2.5 7.0 5.0 Corn feed meal 8867 2.5 7.5 5.0 Corn feed meal 8868 3.0 13.5 10.0 Wheat bran, corn bran, ground wheat screenings 9135 3.0 13.0 7.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings 9136 3.0 13.0 10.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings, corn bran 28 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Farmers Feed Store, Borden, Ind. Wheat Bran - _ — — 1093 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Wheat Shorts - - 1094 4.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat shorts Mixed Feed 5261 4.0 14.0 9.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings Farmers Grain & Milling Company, Union City, Ind. Wheat Middlings & Screenings . __ - _ Farmers Mill, The, Huntingburg, Ind. 8259 2.5 12.5 7.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings Farmers Mixed Feed — Farmers Mill & Elevator Company, Columbia City, Ind. 9133 3.0 13.0 14.0 Wheat bran, shorts, corn bran, rye bran, rye shorts, crushed wheat screenings, mill sweepings, wheat scourings Chop Feed 8950 3.0 8.0 10.0 Corn, oats, rye, barley, corn feed meal Mixed Bran & Screenings 8951 3.0 13.0 11.0 Wheat bran, corn bran, ground wheat screenings Wheat Middlings & Screenings 8952 2.5 12.0 7.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings Farmers Milling & Elevator Company, Veedersburg, Ind. Wheat Bran _ 5000 3.0 12.0 14.0 Wheat bran No. 1 Mixed Feed 5598 4.0 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, middlings Wheat Shorts 7577 2.0 12.0 10.0 Wheat shorts No. 2 Mixed Feed __ __ 9321 2.0 8.0 10.0 Rye bran, rye middlings Farmland City Flour Mills, The, Farmland, Ind. Wheat Shorts — 1658 4.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat shorts Wheat Bran __ — _ 1659 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Feed Products Milling Company, Chicago, 111. Corn Feed Meal __ 5954 2.7 8.5 5.0 Corn feed meal Felknor, W. A., Prospect, Ind. Corn Bran . 9237 2.5 7.0 10.0 Corn bran Ferger Grain Company, The, Cincinnati, Ohio Nutritia Winter Wheat Bran and Screenings-- 8392 4.0 14.5 10.0 Wheat bran, 3% ground wheat screenings Nutritia Eye Middlings and Screenings _ Nutritia Winter Wheat Middlings and Screen- 8393 3.0 15.0 7.0 Rye middlings, 3% ground rye screen- ings ings — 8394 3.5 15.0 10.0 Wheat middlings, 3% ground wheat screenings Fette, Nicholas H., New Alsace, Ind. Fette’s Cleaned Wheat Middlings 2603 3.2 13.8 7.0 Wheat middlings Fette’s Cleaned Wheat Bran __ 2604 3.5 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Fisher Bros., Evansville, Ind. Wheat Middlings and Screenings 8715 4.0 14.0 9.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings Wheat Bran with Screenings 8718 3.5 13.0 13.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings Mixed Bran, Middlings and Wheat Screenings. 8876 3.5 14.0 13.0 Wheat bran, middlings, whole wheat screenings Rye Mixed Feed & Ground Rye Screenings 9213 3.0 13.6 11.0 Rye bran, rye middlings, ground rye screenings Diamond Corn and Oats Chops 9281 3.5 9.0 14.0 Corn, oats Fisher & Fallgatter, Waupaca, Wis. Rye Feed 8822 3.0 15.0 8.0 Rye bran, rye middlings Flater, Joda, Alfordsville, Ind. Joda Flater Wheat Bran 576 3.7 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Joda Flater Wheat Middlings _ 577 4.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Flat Rock Cave Mills, Shelbyville, R. R. 3, Ind. Wheat Bran - _ 1350 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Shorts 1351 4.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat shorts 29 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) LABEL Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain cn Cft O • n ^ -4J ZZ O and to be composed of the following ingredients Fohl & Son, Casper, Cedar Grove, Ind. Wheat Middlings Mixed Feed Follett & Company, R. J., Carmel, Ind. Mixed Feed Forest Park Mills, North Terre Haute, Ind. Mill Feed Corn Feed Meal Corn Bran Fornax Milling Company, Decatur, Ind. Wheat Middlings, Corn Bran and Ground Wheat Screenings Fortville Milling Company, Fortville, Ind. Fortville Milling Co’s Corn & Oats Chop Fourteen Mile Valley Mills, R. R. 2, Lexington, Ind. Mixed Middlings and Sweepings Wheat Bran and Sweepings ., Germ Middlings and Sweepings Fowler, A., Pittsboro, Ind. Corn & Oats Chop Fredericksburg Milling Company, The, Fredericksburg, Ind. Wheat Shorts Blue River Mixed Feed Freed & Lewis, Campbellsburg, Ind. Mixed Feed Freeport Roller Mills, Freeport, Ind. H. Baiting’s Composition Feed Friedrich & Son, C. W., Dyer, Ind. Buckwheat Feed Rye Mixed Feed Mixed Feed Friendship Milling Company, Friendship, Ind. Shorts _ Wheat Bran Fuhrer-Ford Milling Company, Mt. Vernon, Ind Mixed Feed — Wheat Bran, Middlings and Screenings Wheat Middlings Wheat Bran & Screenings Wheat Shorts Silver Feed Fulks, Willard, Stonehead, Ind. Fulks Mixed Feed Fyke Milling Company, LaGrange, Ind. Wheat Middlings & Screenings Wheat Bran & Screenings Gandy & Company, O., South Whitley, Ind. Chop Feed o Zi ft o Z, ft u 8418 4.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings 8419 3.8 14.0 11.0 Wheat bran, corn bran, ground wheat screenings 3163 3.7 13.0 10.0 Wheat bran, shorts, corn bran 5817 3.8 9.8 6.0 Wheat bran, middlings, corn bran, ground wheat screenings 7927 2.5 7.5 5.0 Corn feed meal 9227 3.8 7.0 12.0 Corn bran 9143 4.5 15.0 9.0 Wheat middlings, corn bran, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run 1230 3.9 9.5 6.0 Corn, oats 3879 2.5 13.0 8.0 Wheat middlings, sweepings 5303 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, sweepings 5304 2.5 14.0 9.0 Wheat middlings, sweepings 2648 3.5 9.0 9.0 Corn, oats 2280 3.0 13.0 7.0 Wheat shorts 3668 3.0 12.0 11.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings, corn bran 6062 3.0 13.0 10.0 Wheat bran, middlings, corn bran 406 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, shorts, middlings, wheat screenings, corn bran 2713 1.7 7.7 30.0 Buckwheat hulls, middlings 2715 2.0 12.0 10.0 Rye bran, rye middlings 271ff 3.5 14.0 12.0 Wheat bran, middlings, chaff 960 4.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat shorts 4379 3.5 14.0 9.5 Wheat bran 2386 3.9 14.0 9.5 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings 4682 3.5 14.0 6.3 Wheat middlings 8793 3.7 14.0 9.0 Wheat bran, mill run ground screen- ings 8794 4.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat shorts 9101 3.8 15.8 12.0 Wheat bran, shorts, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run 7113 3.5 14.0 8.0 Wheat bran, middlings 6422 3.5 13.5 10.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings 6423 3.5 13.5 10.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings 3927 3.0 8.5 8.0 Corn, oats, corn feed meal 30 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on SaleJ May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber Gard, Geo. N., Schererville, Ind. Chopped Feed 6946 3.0 9.0 6.0 Garland Milling Company, Greensburg, Ind. Garland Bran & Screenings 7279 3.7 15.0 10.9 Garland Mixed Feed — — 7280 4.0 15.5 9.4 Garland Middlings and Screenings 7281 4.3 .16.5 7.9 Rye Mixed Feed & Ground Rye Screenings 9235 3.0 17.0 8.0 Garrett & Funk, Liberty Center, Ind. Ship Stuff __ ______ 1561 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat Bran & Middlings 5123 2.5 12.5 10.0 Garrett Elevator Company, Garrett, Ind. Ground Mill Feed 9071 3.0 10.0 10.0 Gary Supply Company, Gary, Ind. Wheat Middlings ___ _ _ 1379 4.0 14.0 10.0 Mixed Feed — 2743 3.9 14.0 11.0 Gaston Roller Mill, Gaston, Ind. Wheat Bran & Middlings _ 5508 3.0 13.0 10.0 Wheat Middlings _ _ _ 5509 2.0 12.0 7.0 Geneva Milling & Grain Company, Geneva, Ind. Miller’s Wheat Bran __ 3109 3.3 14.0 10.0 Shorts & Middlings _ 7527 2.5 13.0 8.0 Mixed Feed 9.263 3.0 13.0 10.0 Gentryville Roller Mills, Gentryville, Ind. Gentryville Mixed Feed 3507 3.5 13.5 11.0 Gibson Live Stock & Feed Co., Princeton, Ind. Pilgrim Corn & Oats Chop __ _____ 9122 2.5 7.0 9.0 Gilman, S. B., Summitville, Ind. Gilman’s Mixed Feed __ 3216 3.7 12.5 12.0 Glen Echo Mills, Indianapolis, Ind. Bower’s Chop _ _ _ 1086 3:5 8.0 7.0 Corn Bran __ 4515 2.4 9.0 13.0 Corn Feed Meal (Siftings from Cracked Corn) 5637 2.0 7.0 8.0 Globe Mills, The, Fort Wayne, Ind. The Globe Mills Wheat Bran _ 425 3.8 14.0 10.0 The Globe Mills Wheat Shorts 426 4.0 14.0 8.0 The Globe Mills Corn & Oats Chop. 427 3.9 9.5 6.0 Goodrich Bros. Hay & Grain Company, Winchester, Ind. Climax Rye Middlings with Screenings 7841 3.0 14.0 11.0 Goshen Milling Company, The, Goshen, Ind. Bran _ _ _ _ 66 3.7 15.4 9.5 Mixed Bran 1594 3.8 14.0 11.0 “A” Mixed Feed 3155 3.8 13.5 11.5 Chop Feed _ _ 3238 3.7 9.8 4.5 Island Park Chop _ 5923 3.0 8.5 7.0 Wheat Middlings and Ground Wheat Screen- ings _ . 7471 3.2 13.5 7.0 Goshen Milling Co’s Mixed Feed 9064 4.0 14.0 10.0 and to be composed of the following ingredients Corn, oats Wheat bran, grouftd wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat bran, middlings, cleanings, ground wheat screenings not exceed- ing mill run Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Rye bran, rye middlings, mill run ground rye screenings Wheat bran, middlings Wheat bran, middlings Corn, oats, rye, barley, whole screen- ings from wheat, oats, rye and bar- ley Wheat middlings Wheat bran, screenings Wheat bran, middlings Wheat middlings Wheat bran Wheat shorts, middlings Wheat bran, middlings, corn bran Wheat bran, middlings, screenings Corn, oats Wheat bran, middlings, corn bran Corn, oats Corn bran Corn feed meal Wheat bran Wheat shorts Corn, oats Rye middlings, ground rye screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat bran Wheat bran, corn bran Wheat bran, ground wheat screen- ings, corn bran Corn, oats Corn, oats, rye Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings 3i Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Goshen Milling Company, The, Goshen, Tnd. Wheat Bran and Ground Wheat Screenings— Corn Mill Feed Goshorn, Jesse, Washington, Ind. Mixed Feed Chop Feed Gotto, O. W., Michigan City, Ind. Chop Feed Wheat Bran and Screenings Graft, C. V., Winchester, Ind. Wheat Bran Corn Bran — 1 Bran & Middlings Graft Wheat Middlings Great Northern Flour Mills Company, Minneapolis, Minn. Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings not Exceeding Mill Run Wheat Middlings.. Green Bros. & Oldfather, Warsaw, Ind. Wheat Bran Wheat Middlings Greenfield Mills, Greenfield Mills, Ind. Mixed Feed Greenfield Milling Company, Greenfield, Ind. Mixed Feed Bran Shorts Corn Bran Corn Feed Meal Griffin & Dix, Terre Haute, Ind. Chop Gross, L. J., Sandborn, Ind. 12 Wheat Shorts Habig Bros., Indianapolis, Ind. Habigs Corn Feed Meal Hales & Edwards Company, Chicago, 111. Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings (Not exceeding Mill Run) Wheat Middlings (With Screenings not ex- ceeding Mill Run) Wheat Middlings Hall Milling Company, W. C., Brazil, Ind. Hall’s Wheat Bran Hall’s Bran & Screenings Hall’s Wheat Shorts Corn Feed Meal Hall’s Mixed Feed Hammel Milling Company, Fremont, Ind. Wheat Bran Wheat Middlin gs 111111111111 12 Succeeded by Walker & Crane a c £ C rt £ .4, 1 2 +-> . o $ u a) and to be composed of the m ctf CO C«H Sc ft U 7Z 2 following ingredients A v IgS ^ a « 9129 3.5 14.5 11.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run 9273 3.5 8.5 5.0 Corn bran, corn meal 6840 3.0 10.0 9.0 Corn, wheat bran, ground wheat screenings 7168 2.8 8.7 7.0 Corn, oats, rye, com feed meal 6885 3.2 9.0 8.0 Corn, oats, corn feed meal 8403 3.5 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, whole and ground wheat screenings 3484 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran 3833 3.5 8.5 10.0 Corn bran 3904 4.0 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, middlings 5097 3.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings 7486 4.0 14.5 12.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run 7487 5.0 15.0 9.5 Wheat middlings 7919 3.5 14.0 12.0 Wheat bran 8369 4.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings 2412 4.0 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, middlings 4488 3.0 15.0 10.0 Wheat bran, shorts 44-39 3.0 15.0 10.0 Wheat bran 4470 3.0 15.0 8.0 Wheat shorts 5140 2.0 6.0 13.0 Corn bran 7540 2.5 7.0 6.0 Corn feed meal 893 3.9 9.0 5.0 Wheat bran, corn, oats 4267 3.5 14.0 7.4 Wheat shorts 7844 1.8 8.0 6.0 Corn feed meal 7509 3.0 14.0 11.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run 7643 3.5 14.0 12.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run 8476 3.0 15.0 7.0 Wheat middlings 412 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran 3806 3.0 13.0 9.0 W T heat bran, ground wheat screenings 5023 2.0 13.0 8.0 Wheat shorts 5131 3.0 7.0 5.0 Corn feed meal 9162 3.5 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceed- ing mill run 3154 3.8 14.0 12.0 Wheat bran 3578 4.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat middlings 32 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Hampton, W. D., Worthington, Ind. 13 Wheat Bran 1124 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Mixed Feed 1788 3.3 11.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, ground wheat screen- ings Wheat Shorts 2220 2.3 12.8 8.0 Wheat shorts Corn Bran __ __ _____ _ 3673 4,0 7.8 13.0 Corn bran Hamilton & Kellner, Rensselaer, Ind. 14 “A” Chop Feed Hanks Company, The Howard H., Chicago, 111. 5087 3.0 8.0 9.0 Corn, oats, corn feed meal Wheat Bran _ _ ___ __ 5555 3.0 14.0 11.0 Wheat bran Corn Feed Meal .__ __ _ Wheat Middlings and Ground Wheat Screen- 6101 2.7 8.5 5.0 Corn feed meal ings _ 6581 3.7 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat Bran & Screenings „ 6070 3.0 14.0 11.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings Hanna, L. G., Logansport, Ind. Hanna’s Corn & Oats Chop _ 3535 3.5 9.0 9.0 Corn, oats Hanover Star Milling Company, Germantown, 111. Hanover Star Milling Co. Winter Wheat Bran 743 3.7 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Hanover Star Milling Co. Wheat Middlings— 744 5.0 15.4 5.0 Wheat middlings Hardin & Son, Ladoga, Ind. Hardin & Son’s Mill Feed 3482 2.5 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, shorts, middlings, low grade flour, corn bran Harmon & Wallace Milling Company, Owens ville, Ind. Royal Mixed Feed _ __ _ _ Harris & Bell, Montgomery, Ind. 15 7559 3.5 13.0 10.0 Wheat bran, middlings, whole and ground wheat screenings, corn bran, dust collector dust, chaff Wheat Bran, Screenings and Corn Bran_ 3938 3.6 12.0 10.0 Wheat bran, crushed wheat screen- ings, corn bran Mixed Feed 7167 3.0 13.0 10.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings, corn bran Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings, corn feed meal Fine Mixed Mill Feed 8143 2.5 12.5 9.0 Harris Milling Company, Greencastle, Ind. Harris’ Middlings 211 3.6 14.5 7.5 Wheat middlings Harris’ Mixed Feed 212 3.5 14.1 1Q.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings Harris’ Cracked Corn Siftings 5139 3.2 8.0 5.6 Corn feed meal Corn Bran __ _ 7667 3.5 7.0 14.0 Corn bran Harris’ Rye Mixed Feed 9389 2.0 12.0 5.0 Rye bran, rye middlings Harris Milling Company, Montgomery, Ind. Wheat bran, crushed wheat screen- ings, corn bran Wheat Bran, Screenings and Corn Bran._ 8745 2.5 12.0 10.0 Fine Mixed Mill Feed 8746 2.5 12.5 9.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings, corn feed meal Hartford City Grain & Milling Company, Hartford City, Ind. “Cooley’s Corn & Oat Chop” 340 3.9 9.5 6.0 Corn, oats Cooley’s Mixed Feed _______ 2371 3.0 12.0 11.0 Wheat bran, middlings, whole wheat screenings Hartman & Sons, Louis, New Albany, Ind. Wheat bran, middlings, ground corn screenings Mixed Feed __ __ 1979 3.5 14.0 10.0 Hartz, Bernard, Chrisney, Ind. Corn feed meal Corn Feed Meal _ _. 1 8487 I 2.5 1 7.0 5.0 13 Succeeded by Hayes Milling Co. 14 Succeeded by Kellner & Callahan 15 Succeeded by Harris Milling Co. 33 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL and to be composed of the following ingredients Hartz & Carey Milling Company, Chrisney, Ind. Shipstuff — Mixed Feed Bran and Screenings Harvest City Mills, R. R. 28, Edinburg, Ind. Mixed Feed Havens, P. W., Hartford City, Ind. Havens’ Chop Feed Haynes Milling Company, The, Portland, Ind. Wheat Bran Corn & Oats Chop Feed Bran Wheat Middlings “Haynes Mixed Feed” Haynes Special Mixed Feed Mary Putney Chop Feed Corn Feed Meal Hays Milling Company, Worthington, Ind. Wheat Bran Wheat Shorts Haysville Milling Company, Haysville, Ind. Mixed Feed Wheat Shorts Hazleton Flour Mills, The, Hazleton, Ind. Mixed Feed Wheat Shorts Heaton, E. H., R. R. 12, Indianapolis, Ind. Mixed Feed Corn Bran Heitschmidt, A. C., Michigan City, Ind. Chop Feed Hendrix & Abel, Putnamville, Ind. Corn & Oats Chop Henline, M. S., Ossian, Ind. Corn & Oats Chop Mixed Feed "III! Herbert & Sons, Joseph, Millhousen, Ind. Herbert’s Mixed Feed Hering & King, R. R. 5, Shelbyville, Ind. Mixed Bran and Screenings Hershman & Son, Tipton, Ind. Chop Feed Hills, H. B., Fremont, Ind. Wheat Bran Wheat Middlings IIIIIIIIIIIIIII,! 8685 4.0 16.0 7.0 Wheat shorts, middlings, reddog flour 8686 4.0 16.0 7.0 Wheat bran, shorts, ground wheat screenings, corn bran Wheat bran, corn bran, ground wheat screenings 8687 3.8 14.0 10.0 2563 3.5 13.5 12.0 Wheat bran, middlings, corn bran 7688 3.5 8.5 8.0 Corn, oats, corn feed meal 92 3.7 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran 93 3.9 9.5 6.0 Corn, oats 4094 3.5 15.2 9.0 Wheat bran, corn bran Wheat middlings 4389 3.0 14.0 7.0 7893 3.5 15.0 10.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run 7894 3.5 14.5 10.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run 8542 3.2 9.0 6.5 Corn, oats, corn feed meal 9246 5.0 8.0 10.0 Corn feed meal 9037 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran 9038 2.3 12.8 8.0 Wheat shorts 60£0 3.0 13.0 10.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings 6439 2.0 12.0 6.0 Wheat shorts 7174 3.0 12.0 11.0 Wheat bran, corn bran, ground wheat screenings, dust collector dust, wheat chaff 7475 3.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat shorts 5931 3.0 13.5 11.0 Wheat bran, middlings 5932 3.0 6.0 13.0 Corn bran 5672 3.0 9.0 8.0 Corn, oats, corn feed meal 9357 3.0 9.0 8.0 Corn, oats 3263 3.5 9.0 8.0 Corn, oats 6806 2.5 12.5 10.0 Wheat bran, middlings, corn bran 7101 4.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat bran, middlings, shorts, corn bran 7219 3.2 13.0 12.0 Wheat bran, corn bran, ground wheat screenings 4898 3.2 8.7 14.0 Corn, oats, rye, corn feed meal 1653 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran 4 0 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) — Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. — 7 Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Hitch, J. H., Princeton, Ind. 1 9384 3.0 6.0 13.0 Corn bran Hoag, N. S., Huntington, Ind. 8588 2.8 8.5 9.0 Corn, oats, corn feed meal Hogan Milling Company, The, Junction City, Kansas. 7972 3,5 14.5 10.0 Wheat bran, whole wheat screenings Holland, Thos. A., Port Ritner, Ind. 8678 3.5 13.0 10.0 Wheat bran, shorts, corn bran, whole wheat screenings Holland, W. R., Shelbyville, R. R. 3, Ind. 5459 3.0 12.5 7.0 Wheat middlings 5460 3.0 13.0 14.0 Wheat bran, corn bran Holland Mills, The, Holland, Ind. 7131 3.0 13.0 • 11.0 Wheat bran, middlings, crushed 8200 2.0 12.0 7.0 wheat screenings, corn bran Wheat middlings Holliday & Son, John, Greentown, Ind. Chop Feed - -- -- 6188 3.0 9.0 5.0 Corn, oats Hollingsworth, S. P., Russiaville, Ind. Corn & Oats Chop Hollingsworth Wheat Shorts - 1518 2941 3.9 2.5 9.0 13.0 9.0 7.0 Corn, oats Wheat shorts Hollingsworth Mixed Feed 7829 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, shorts, corn bran Holton Milling Company, The, Holton, Ind. Corn & Oats Chop - 3290 3.5 9.0 8.0 Corn, oats A Mixed Feed - - 7404 3.5 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, shorts, ground wheat screenings, corn bran Home Grain Company, LaGrange, Ind. Middlings 8573 4.0 16.5 6.0 Wheat middlings Home Mill & Grain Company, Mt. Vernon, Ind. Corn Bran - 2598 5.0 8.0 13.0 Corn bran Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings Mixed Feed 3237 3.2 14.4 10.5 Wheat Middlings & Screenings _ 7686 4.0 16.0 6.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings Hornung, J. M., Greensburg, Ind. Middlings 415 3.8 14.2 9.7 Wheat middlings Wheat Bran _ 417 3.7 14.1 9.7 Wheat bran Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings Wheat Bran & Screen ings 2577 3.7 14.1 11.0 A IVTivpd Pppd 8864 3.5 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings Hosmer Milling Company, 0. I., Leavenworth, Ind. 0 I Hosmer Mixed Feed 7822 3.4 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, middlings, shorts, whole wheat screenings, corn bran Hubbard, J. W., Monrovia, Ind. Mixed Fppd 7550 3.0 13.0 11.0 Wheat bran, com bran, ground Wheat Middlings 7551 3.5 14.0 8.0 wheat screenings Wheat middlings Hubbard Milling Company, Mankota, Minn. Standard Fine Middlings & Ground Screen- mgs _ 8538 5.0 16.0 11.5 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat bran Pure Flakey Bran 8603 3.0 15.0 13.0 White Flour Middlings 8607 5.5 18.0 5.0 Wheat middlings Low grade wheat flour containing Sterling Red Dog -- - - 8608 4.0 17.0 4.0 the finer particles of wheat bran Huffman, L. R., R. R. 5, Valparaiso, Ind. Buckwheat Mixed Feed 4823 2 5 12.0 25.0 Buckwheat middlings, hulls 35 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude nrotein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Hughes, John F., Elwood, Ind. Rye Middlings and Ground Screenings 8012 3.0 14.0 7.0 Rye middlings, ground rye screenings Hunsicker & Bender, Bluffton, Ind. Mixed Bran . . 1558 4.0 14.0 11.0 Wheat bran, corn bran “A. Wheat Shorts” 1559 4.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat shorts Hunter & Company, 0. L., Chicago, 111. Calumet Mixed Feed __ 4960 3.0 13.0 10.0 Wheat bran, middlings Calumet Rye Feed . 5352 3.0 14.0 7.0 Rye bran, rye middlings Calumet Bran with Ground Screenings not Exceeding Mill Run _ __ .. 6042 3.5 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings Calumet Middlings with Ground Screenings not Exceeding Mill Run 6131 4.0 14.5 8.0 not exceeding mill run Wheat middlings, ground wheat Calumet Mixed Feed with Ground Screenings not Exceeding Mill Run ___ 8841 4.8 15.3 10.4 screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat bran, wheat middlings, Hunter-Robinson-Wenz Milling Company, St. Louis, Mo. Mixed Feed 5218 4.0 15.0 10.0 ground w r heat screenings not exceed- ing mill run Wheat bran, middlings, whole wheat Bran and Screenings 5219 4.0 14.5 9.5 screenings Wheat bran, whole wheat screenings Middlings and Screenings 5220 4.0 15.0 6.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat Huntington Mill Company, Huntington, Ind. Bran 491 3.6 14.2 10.0 screenings Wheat bran Mixed Feed _ _ __ 492 3.8 13.5 6.4 Wheat bran, shorts, ground wheat screenings, corn bran Wheat bran, shorts Bran and Shorts _ 493 3.9 14.2 9.5 Shorts 495 3.9 14.3 5.4 Wheat shorts Hurn Milling Company, W. D., New Salisbury, Ind. Mixed Feed _ __ __ __ 7959 3.5 13.0 11.0 Wheat bran, corn bran, ground Wheat Middlings _ 8089 3.5 13.0 7.0 wheat screenings Wheat middlings Hutchinson Flour Mills Company, The, Hutchinson, Kansas. Mill Run Bran - — . 4995 3.5 15.5 9.0 Wheat bran Wheat Shorts _ _ 4996 4.0 16.5 6.0 Wheat shorts Fancy White Shorts 7835 3.0 14.0 3.5 Wheat shorts Wheat Shorts and Wheat Screenings not Exceeding Mill Run _ __ _ 7836 3.5 16.0 5.5 Wheat shorts, ground wheat screen- Wheat Bran and Wheat Screenings Not Exceeding Mill Run ... 7838 3.5 14.5 10.0 ings not exceeding mill run Wheat bran, whole wheat screenings Wheat Mixed Feed and Wheat Screenings 7865 3.5 15.5 8.5 not exceeding mill run Wheat bran, wheat shorts, whole Ideal Milling & Grain Company, Ridgeville, Ind. Mixed Bran and Screenings . 7353 2.5 12.5 10.0 wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat bran, corn bran, ground Mixed Feed _ . 7797 2.5 11.0 6.0 wheat screenings Wheat shorts, middlings, corn feed Igleheart Bros., Evansville, Ind. Pure Wheat Bran __ . ... . __ 5771 4.0 14.5 10.0 meal Wheat bran Pure Wheat Middlings & Screenings not Exceeding Mill Run .. 5772 5.0 16.0 7.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat bran, middlings, ground Pure Mixed Feed . 5773 4.5 15.5 9.0 Rye Mixed Feed 9141 3.0 13.6 11.0 wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Rye bran, rye middlings, ground rye Ilene Grain Company, Ilene, Ind. Crax. Corn and Oats 8442 3.5 9.0 6.0 screenings Corn, oats Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL £ § c e i .1 9 +* % ? -.a and to be composed of the 03 £ 03 C & In -t-> TZ O fi«H following ingredients '5 £ o .2 8® jo T3 g 1 2 A ft o and to be composed of the £££ ® C fl s-i rt: O C«H following ingredients ||g ^ ft u g J)® £ ft 0 Katterjohn, Q. F., Boonville, Ind. Elkhorn Mixed Feed Corn Feed Meal —l. Kaw Milling Company, The, Topeka, Kansas Wheat Shorts . Mill Run and Screenings Wheat Bran and Screenings “Kaw Kaw” White Middlings Kaw Kaw Shorts and Ground Screenings Not to Exceed 5% — Kaw Kaw Bran & Scourings Kaw Kaw Pure Middlings Keene, A. C., Elkhart, Ind. Keene’s Chop Feed Wheat Bran & Ground Screenings Wheat Middlings & Ground Screenings Kehlor Flour Mills Company, St. Louis, Mo. Neptune White Middlings Palace Brim — Rex Middlings and Ground Screenings Kehlor’s Millfeed Keilman Company, The L., Dyer, Ind. Corn & Oats Chop Kemper Mill & Elevator Company, Kansas City, Mo. Crown Shorts Diamond Bran Crescent Middlings with Ground Screenings.— Anchor Bran with Ground Screenings Anchor Mixed Feed with Screenings Not Exceeding Mill Run Crescent Mixed Feed and Screenings Not Exceeding Mill Run Carnation Gray Middlings and Screenings Not Exceeding Mill Run Kennedy Bros., Crawfordsville, Ind. Chop Feed Kennedy Milling Company, The Geo. W., Shelbyville, Ind. Middlings Mixed Feed Corn Bran Kennedy’s Winter Wheat Bran Kennedy Milling Company, M. W., 17 La Fontaine, Ind. Chop Feed Kent Milling Company, Kent, Ind. Kent Mixed Feed , Corn Feed Meal 3310 3.5 13.5 12.0 Wheat bran, shorts, ground wheat screenings, corn bran 6862 2.5 7.5 5.0 Corn feed meal 3826 4.0 13.6 6.0 Wheat shorts 6128 4.0 17.0 9.6 Wheat bran, shorts, middlings, low grade flour, ground wheat screen- 7935 4.0 16.0 9.6 ings Wheat bran, not to exceed 8% ground wheat screenings 8083 3.0 14.5 3.5 Wheat middlings 8304 4.0 17.0 5.5 Wheat shorts, ground wheat screen- ings not to exceed 5% 8305 3.5 15.5 10.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat scourings not to exceed 5% 8306 3.0 15.0 3.5 Wheat middlings 3281 3.5 9.0 8.0 Com, oats 7361 3.5 13.5 11.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings 7362 3.5 13.5 9.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings 4191 4.0 17.0 4.0 Wheat middlings 5808 4.0 14.5 10.0 Wheat bran 6682 4.0 16.0 7.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run 7508 4.0 15.0 8.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run 2493 3.9 9.5 6.0 Corn, oats 2065 4.7 16.0 5.7 Wheat shorts 2076 4.0 14.5 9.5 Wheat bran 6028 4.2 16.0 8.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run 6030 4.0 14.5 10.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run 7248 4.0 16.0 10.0 Wheat bran, shorts, ground wheat 7324 4.0 16.0 8.0 screenings Wheat bran, shorts, ground wheat screenings 7325 4.3 16.0 ■ 8.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings 5211 3.0 8.5 9.0 Com, oats, corn feed meal 2110 3.5 13.5 8.0 Wheat middlings 2477 3.5 13.5 12.0 Wheat bran, whole wheat screen- ings, corn bran Corn bran 7791 5.0 8.0 13.0 8201 3.5 16.0 10.0 Wheat bran . 6067 3.0 8.0 6.0 Corn, oats, corn feed meal 3364 3.2 13.5 12.0 Wheat bran, whole wheat screenings Corn feed meal _ 6914 2.5 7.5 5.0 1 7 Succeeded by Hares Feed Mill 39 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Kent Milling Company, Kent, Ii*l. Corn Bran __ 6915 4.0 7.0 10.0 Corn bran Wheat Middlings 7649 3.8 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Keplinger, Chas., Zanesville, Ind. 18 Chop Feed - 844 4.0 10.0 5.0 Corn, oats Keplinger’s Chop . 3485 3.5 9.5 7.0 Corn, oats, corn feed meal Wheat bran, corn bran Mixed Bran _ 3486 3.5 14.0 10.0 Kern & Sons, John B. A., Milwaukee, Wis. Eagle Rye Middlings with Ground Screenings Not Exceeding Mill Run _ ___ 7420 3.0 15.0 7.0 Rye middlings, ground rye screenings not exceeding mill run Kidder Flour Mills, R. E., Kansas City, Mo. Wheat Bran _ _ . . 6132 3.5 14.5 10.0 Wheat bran Wheat Shorts _ _ 6133 4.0 15.0 6.0 Wheat shorts Killian Elevator, The, Newberry, Ind. Mixed Feed 1196 3.5 8.5 8.0 Corn, wheat, ground wheat screen- ings, corn bran Corn Feed Meal _ ... 8139 2.5 7.5 6.0 Corn feed meal Kingman Grain & Milling Company, Kingman, Ind. Millfeed ------ __ ___ 3156 3.0 14.0 10.0 W T heat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings, corn bran, mill sweepings Corn Feed Meal 5607 2.5 7.5 7.0 Corn feed meal Kirlin & Hammond, Ashley, Ind. Wheat Middlings __ 9400 4.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Klemm, Geo. J., Milton, Ind. Mixed Feed _ 3465 3.5 13.0 11.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screen- ings, corn bran Wheat Middlings . _ 4738 2.0 10.0 7.0 Wheat middlings “A” Mixed Feed _ 4756 3.0 12.0 11.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings, corn bran Klondike Milling Company, Danville, Ind. The Mill Run Mixed Feed _ _____ 2654 3.5 13.0 13.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings, corn bran Klondike Chop Feed 4430 3.0 9.0 7.0 Corn, oats, corn feed meal Corn Bran __ 9016 2.5 6.0 10.0 Corn bran Koenemann, Ed. F., Hoagland, Ind. Corn & Oats Chop 1682 3.9 9.5 6.0 Corn, oats Kollar Flour & Feed Store, South Bend, Ind. Chop Feed _ 3374 3.5 9.0 8.0 Corn, oats Krackenberger, Jake, West Terre Haute, Ind. Corn Bran 814 5.8 9.0 12.7 Corn bran Krause Milling Company, Chas. A., Milwaukee, Wis. Badger Fancy Mixed Feed - _ 4341 3.0 11.0 9.0 Wheat bran, corn reddog flour Badger Wheat Middlings and Maizo (Corn) Red Dog Flour . . 4362 3.0 11.0 9.0 Wheat middlings, corn r,e . o 03 £ 03 S Pi « 0) £ C«H 0) m «•§ S-i 3 X £ ft o and to be composed of the following ingredients Valier & Spies Milling Company, St. Louis, Mo. Valier’s Mixed Feed Yalier’s Wheat Bran with/ Ground Wheat Screenings Valier’s Wheat Middlings with Ground Wheat Screenings Valparaiso Grain & Elevator Company, Valparaiso, Ind. Wheat Bran Corn & Oats Chop Wheat Shorts Red Dog Flour Wheat Bran & Screenings Victoria Milling Company, Jasper, Ind. Mixed Feed Victoria Wheat Shorts Wabash Milling Company, Wabash, Ind. Middlings — — Summerton’s Mixed Feed Wagner-White Company, Inc., Jackson, Mich. Bran with Screenings not to Exceed Mill Run_ Middlings with Screenings not to Exceed Mill Run Rye Middlings Mixed Feed __ Wakarusa Milling Company, Wakarusa, Ind. Wakarusa Wheat Bran — Wakarusa Corn & Oats Chop Wheat Middlings Walden, Sam, West Terre Haute, Ind. Corn Grit Walker & Company, Peter M., Loogootee, Ind. Wheat Middlings Bran & Screenings 539 Walker & Son, J. M., Middletown, Ind. Gilt Edge Bran Gilt Edge Middlings Walker’s Mixed Feed Corn Bran Wallace Milling Company, The, Dale, Ind. Wallace’s Pure Wheat Middlings Wallace’s Mixed Feed “Rye Mixed Feed and Ground Rye Screen- ings” — Walnut Creek Milling Company, Great Bend, Kansas Wheat Bran Wheat Shorts Walton, A. G., Atlanta, Ind. Mixed Feed Walton & Whisler, Atlanta, Ind. 32 A. Mixed Feed--— 6127 4.0 15.0 9.0 6156 3.5 14.5 10.0 6157 5.0 16.0 8.0 1402 3.8 14.0 10.0 1403 3.5 9.0 9.0 1405 4.0 14.0 8.0 1406 2.0 16.0 1.7 6008 3.8 14.0 11.0 2608 3.5 14.0 8.0 7170 3.3 15.0 8.0 2 4.0 14.0 7.0 5068 3.0 13.0 11.0 8854 5.0 14.0 11.0 8855 4.5 14.0 7.0 9251 3.0 14.0 8.0 9374 3.0 9.0 17.0 1249 3.8 14.0 10.0 1250 3.9 9.5 10.0 7642 3.7 13.0 7.0 845 4.3 9.0 2.0 538 4.0 14.2 5.7 539 3.6 14.0 10.5 8161 3.2 12.0 10.0 8162 3.7 14.0 7.0 8163 3.5 13.0 10.0 9247 1.0 8.0 12.0 7747 4.0 15.0 6.0 9204 3.9 14.2 10.0 9207 3.0 14.0 10.0 8121 3.5 14.5 10.0 . 8122 3.5 16.0 5.5 . 8677 3.4 14.9 11.1 . 7638 3.0 14.0 10.0 wheat screenings Wheat bran, 5% ground wheat screenings Wheat middlings, 5% ground wheat screenings Wheat bran Com, oats Wheat shorts Low grade wheat flour containing the finer particles of wheat bran Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings Wheat bran, shorts Wheat shorts Wheat middlings Wheat bran, ground wheat screen- ings, corn bran Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings not to exceed mill run Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings not to exceed mill run Rye middlings Barley bran, barley middlings, barley hulls, ground barley screenings, oat middlings, oat hulls Wheat bran Corn, oats Wheat middlings Corn product Wheat middlings Wheat bran, whole wheat screenings Wheat bran Wheat middlings Wheat bran, middlings, corn bran Com bran Wheat middlings Wheat bran, middlings, corn bran, 5% ground wheat screenings Rye bran, rye middlings, mill run ground rye screenings Wheat bran Wheat shorts Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings Wheat bran, middlings, ground I wheat screenings 32 Succeeded by A. G. Walton 67 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guara ntecd by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Waltz & Company, J. W., New Palestine, Ind. New Palestine Wheat Middlings > 685 2.0 12.0 5.0 Wheat middlings Mixed Peed 2923 3.7 13.0 12.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screen- ings, corn bran Corn feed meal Corn Peed Meal 3341 3.0 8.5 6.0 Washburn-Crosby Company, Minneapolis, Minn. Washburn-Crosby Co’s Rye Middlings 7018 3.0 14.0 6.0 Rye middlings Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings not Exceeding Mill Run ___ Wheat Standard Middlings with Ground 7229 4.0 13.0 13.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Screenings not Exceeding Mill Run Wheat Mixed Peed with Ground Screenings 7230 4.0 14.0 11.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run not Exceeding Mill Run Wheat Plour Middlings with Ground Screen- 7231 4.0 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run ings not Exceeding Mill Run __ 7232 4.0 16.0 8.0 Wheat middlings, reddog flour, ground wheat screenings not exceed- ing mill run Red Dog Plour (Adrian) 7233 4.0 16.0 4.0 Low grade wheat flour containing the finer particles of wheat bran Corn Peed Meal 9356 5.0 8.0 10.0 Corn feed meal Waterloo Mills, Waterloo, Ind. Buckwheat Mixed Peed 1965 4.0 15.0 20.0 Buckwheat hulls, middlings Watson, Gilf. L., Redkey, Ind. Mix Peed 7310 3.5 8.0 10.5 Corn, oats, rye Chop Peed _ 8187 3.5 9.0 8.0 Corn, oats Weber Milling Company, Brookville, Ind. Mixed Peed 7890 3.0 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, middlings, corn bran, ground wheat screenings Wellington Milling Company, Anderson, Ind. Wellington’s A. X. A. Bran 4986 3.0 15.7 11.0 Wheat bran Wellington’s A. X. A. Middlings 4987 4.0 16.0 6.0 Wheat middlings Wellington A. X. A. Mixed Bran 6225 3.0 14.0 11.0 Wheat bran, corn bran Wellington Milling & Elevator Company, Wellington, Kansas Bran 3257 3.0 13.0 12.0 Wheat bran Shorts 3258 4.0 15.0 8.0 Wheat shorts Wells, Guy M., Knox, Ind. Wells’ Chop Peed __ 6065 3.2 8.3 9.0 Corn, oats, corn feed meal Wells^Abbott-Nieman Company, Schuyler, Neb. Wheat Bran _ ___ _ __ ... 6941 3.5 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Wheat Shorts - 6042 4.0 16.0 6.5 Wheat shorts Wheat Middlings 6943 3.5 15.0 5.5 Wheat middlings Wells Plour Milling Company, Wells, Minn. Peedwell Germ Middlings __ 3244 8.0 20.2 3.0 Wheat middlings Peedwell Plour Middlings _____ 4731 5.5 17.0 5.0 Wheat middlings Feedwell Bran with Ground Screenings. 8322 3.0 13.3 11.2 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Peedwell Standard Middlings _ 8323 5.2 15.0 7.0 Wheat middlings ( Western Plour Mill Company, Davenport, Iowa Black Hawk Bran with Ground Screenings not to Exceed Mill Run 7895 3.0 13.3 11.2 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings Black Hawk Standard Middlings 7806 5.2 16.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Wheat middlings Black Hawk Germ Middlings 7807 10.0 25.0 3.5 Black Hawk Plour Middlings Western Grain Company, Kansas City, Mo. 7898 3.5 15.5 4.5 Wheat middlings Wheat Bran & Screenings _ _ _ 7000 3.5 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill fun 68 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) ■ Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Wheatland Milling Company, Wheatland, Ind. 8664 3.0 10.0 10.0 . Wheat bran, shorts, corn bran, Whelan, Omer G., Richmond, Ind. 7155 5.0 11.9 12.0 ground wheat screenings, mill sweep- ings Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings 7700 2.5 7.5 5.0 not exceeding mill run Corn feed meal Whitelock Mill Company, Petersburg, Ind. 8465 3.0 13.0 11.5 Wheat bran, middlings, corn bran, Wiedner & Speck, Pendleton, Ind. 33 6308 3.5 9.0 9.0 corn feed meal, ground wheat screenings Corn, oats Wiegman & Zelt, Fort Wayne, Ind. 34 5170 3.2 8.0 10.0 Corn, oats, corn feed meal Wildcat Roller Mills, Cutler, Ind. 1001 4.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat shorts 3208 3.3 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Wilkinson & Company, T. B., Knightstown, Ind. Middlings - - - 110 3.5 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Bran - 120 3.2 12.0 10.0 Wheat bran Chop Feed 3456 3.3 8.5 10.0 Com, oats Mixed Mill Feed 4518 2.5 12.0 8.0 Wheat bran, middlings, corn bran Williams Milling Company, Williams, Ind. Williams Millin 0- Co’s Mixed Feed 135 3.9 13.0 9.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground Williamson Milling Company, The, Clay Center, Kansas Wheat Shorts - - -- 4487 4.0 17.0 5.0 wheat screenings, corn bran Wheat shorts Wheat Bran 4655 3.5 15.5 10.0 Wheat bran White Middlings 4656 4.5 15.0 6.0 Wheat middlings Wilmot Flouring Mill, Wilmot, Ind. Shorts - 4226 3.0 12.0 8.0 Wheat shorts Wheat, Bran - 6432 3.0 13.0 10.0 Wheat bran Wiltrout, Francis M., Corunna, Ind. Mixed Fe^d - - 5847 3.5 9.0 8.0 Corn, oats Winslow Milling Company, Winslow, Ind. Pikes Mixed Fppd 0098 3.0 12.5 12.1 Wheat bran, middlings, corn bran, ground wheat screenings, wheat scourings Wheat bran, middlings, corn bran, corn feed meal, ground wheat screenings, ground wheat scourings Corn, oats Pikes “A” Mixed F^ed _ 9009 3.0 13.0 11.0 Pikes Corn and Oats Feed 9100 3.5 9.0 8.0 Witmer Grain Company, Grabill, Ind. Wheat Middlings - 1679 4.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Wheat Bran 2940 3.5 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Wolff & Company, Lee, Lakeville, Ind. Corn and Oats Chop 9252 3.5 9.0 8.0 Corn, oats Woodbury-Elliott Grain Company, Muncie, Ind. Chop Feed - ’ 4118 3.0 9.0 8.0 Corn, oats, corn feed meal Woolard, C., Hagerstown, R. R. 20, Ind. Wheat Middlings - . 6716 2.5 14.0 6.0 Wheat middlings Wheat bran, corn bran, ground Mixed Feed - . 6747 2.5 13.5 11.0 wheat screenings 33 Succeeded by Baker & Hodges 34 Succeeded by Zelt Bros. 69 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Wright, John H., Clinton, Ind. Wheat Middlings ___ 7077 3.5 15.5 7.0 Wheat middlings Venus Bran & Screenings Wright Milling Company, Paris Crossing, Ind. 7250 3.5 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, corn bran, unground wheat screenings not to exceed mill run “A" Mixed Feed _ 2508 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings Corn Bran 2849 4.0 7.0 11.0 Corn bran Corn Feed Meal 6235 2.0 7.0 5.0 Corn feed meal Yaw Bros., Terre Haute, Ind.. Com Bran 6490 4.8 8.0 13.0 Com bran Yerxa, Andrews & Thurston, Inc., Minneapolis, Minn. Flour Middlings _ 6515 5.5 16.5 6.5 Wheat middlings Bran . _ ______ 6616 5.5 12.0 13.0 Wheat bran Nokomos Durum Wheat Middlings 6055 5.5 14.5 10.5 Wheat middlings Hector Durum Wheat Red Dog __ _ 6956 5.0 18.0 3.0 Wheat reddog flour Golden Durum Wheat Mixed Feed 6967 5.5 15.5 8.5 Pure durum wheat bran, pure durum wheat reddog flour Yoder, Marion J., Middlebury, Ind. Wheat Middlings and Ground Wheat Screen- ings _ 8783 3.7 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat Bran & Ground Wheat Screenings 8784 3.7 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Yohn, W. B., North Webster, Ind. Wheat Bran _ 6836 3.5 13.5 10.0 Wheat bran Wheat Middlings 6837 3.5 13.5 7.0 Wheat middlings Yorktown Lumber Company, Yorktown, Ind. Corn Bran 6630 3.0 9.0 11.0 Corn bran Yost, W. H., South Bend, Ind. Chop Feed 2927 3.5 9.0 8.0 Com, oats Youngscreek Milling Company, Youngscreek, Ind. Youngscreek Mixed Feed 7127 2.5 12.5 10.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings Zabel & Son, New Albany, Ind. Wheat Middlings _ 9041 2.5 14.0 6.5 Wheat middlings Zabel & Son’s Mixed Feed _ __ 9042 3.0 13.5 11.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Zehner, J. A., Plymouth. Ind. Wheat Middlings __ _ 6449 3.0 13.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Zehner Milling Company, Plymouth, Ind. 35 Wheat Middlings 1429 4.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Corn & Oats Chop __ 1430 3.9 9.5 6.0 Corn, oats Wheat Bran 1431 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Corn Bran 4205 2.5 6.0 15.0 Corn bran Zelt Brothers, Fort Wayne, Ind. Chop Feed 9183 3.2 8.0 10.0 Corn, oats Zenith Milling Company, Kansas City, Mo. Wheat Shorts 7372 3.5 16.0 9.0 Wheat shorts Wheat Bran & Screenings not Exceeding Mill Run 7373 3.2 15.0 13.5 Wheat bran, whole wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Ziliak & Schafer Milling Company, Haubstadt, Ind. Ziliak’s Mixed Feed 276 3.7 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, shorts, middlings, crushed wheat screenings Middlings __ 4059 3.5 14.5 9.0 Wheat middlings 85 Succeeded by Plymouth Roller Flour Mills 70 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) ' Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Ziliak & Schafer Milling Company, Haubstadt, Ind. 6857 2.5 7.5 5.0 Corn feed meal 7215 4.5 16.5 10.0 Wheat shorts, ground wheat screen- Wheat Shorts, Screening, Corn Bran and 8291 4.5 16.5 10.0 ings Wheat shorts, ground wheat screen- 8292 3.7 14.0 10.0 ings, corn bran, corn feed meal Wheat bran, shorts, corn bran, corn 8597 4.0 14.0 10.0 feed meal, ground wheat screenings Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings Zionsville Milling Company, Zionsville, Ind. 4298 3.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat shorts 4783 3.0 13.0 12.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground Zook Bros., Logansport, Ind. Chop Feed 4358 3.5 9.0 9.5 wheat screenings, corn bran Corn, oats MISCELLANEOUS CHOP FEED, CQN- TAINING CORN AND COB MEAL (CRUSHED EAR CORN) Daily, C. C., Bristol, R. R. 5, Ind. Bonnpyv'llo Nn, 9 Chop Feed 5502 2.5 7.3 14.0 Corn and cob meal (crushed ear Loogootee Milling Conipany, The, Loogootee, Ind. Standard MiVed Feed 3146 3.5 10.0 19.0 corn) oats, corn bran Wheat bran, corn bran, ground Millersville Feed Mill, Millersville, Ind. Chop Feed 3823 2.5 8.0 10.0 wheat screenings, oats, corn and cob meal (crushed ear corn) Corn and cob meal (ground ear corn) Milner & Sons, Darlington, Ind. Chopped Feed 3231 3.0 9.0 10.0 oats, corn bran, corn feed meal Corn and cob meal (ear corn) oats, Ogl&Cook Grain Company, Hamlet, Ind. Fermnmy Feed 8557 3.5 8.0 18.0 rye, corn bran Corn and cob meal (crushed ear corn) r« ; 0. K. Livery & Feed Company, South Bend, Ind. Chop Feed 5670 2.8 8.5 10.0 oats Corn and cob meal (ground ear corn) oats Pancost Milling Company, Elkhart, Ind. Fermmny Chop Feed 9019 3.0 8.0 20.0 Oats, corn and cob meal (crushed ear Reeve & Son, G. E., Washington, Ind. M'd Clhnp Feed 8493 3.0 9.0 10.0 corn) wheat middlings, wheat bran, corn feed meal Wheat bran, corn bran, corn and cob Ruoff, Geo. D., Osgood, Ind. Mixed Feed 2870 3.5 9.5 10.0 meal (crushed ear corn) Corn and cob meal (ground ear corn) Sheward & Company, B. F., Rochester, Ind. Shawflrd’p Chop Feed 8312 2.5 7.5 8.0 wheat bran Corn and cob meal (crushed ear conP Walker & Company, Peter M., Loogootee, Ind. Mixed Feed Zook Bros., Logansport, Ind. No, 2 Chop Feed 3136 4993 3.5 2.8 10.0 7.0 10.0 13.0 oats Wheat bran, middlings, corn bran, corn and cob meal, oats Corn and cob meal (crushed ear corn) oats, corn bran, com feed meal MISCELLANEOUS CHOP FEED CON- TAINING COB MEAL, OAT HULLS, WHEAT SCREENINGS OR OTHER FILLER 1 Acme-Evans Company, Indianapolis, Ind. F-Z C!hr>p Feed 5635 3.3 8.4 11.0 Corn, oats, oat hulls, salt Acme C. O. & B. Chop . 6200 4.0 8.0 7.0 Corn, oats, barley, oat hulls 7 1 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL ft O g £ i a & < and to be composed of the following ingredients Acme Grain Company, North Manchester, Ind. Chop Feed 6.0 Com, oats, ground wheat screenings Akron Milling Company, The, Akron, Ind. Mixed Chop Feed Am o Mill & Elevator Company, Bargersville, Ind. Chop Feed Ashbrook Company, The J. S., Mattoon, 111. Egyption Mixed Feed Badenoch Company, J. J., Chicago, 111. Badenoch’s C. & O. Chop 7510 8381 8057 8762 Belt Elevator & Feed Company, Indianapolis, Ind. “A” Chop Feed '3978 Brown, W. W., Goshen, Ind. Favorite Feed 2596 2.5 8.0 8.0 Corn, oats, rye, corn bran, ground wheat screenings, mill sweepings 3.0 9.0 16.0 Corn, oats, whole and shrivelled wheat, weed seeds, cob meal, chaff, whole wheat screenings 2.0 8.0 12.0 Corn, oats, oat middlings, oat shorts, oat hulls 3.0 8.0 12.0 Hominy feed, corn feed meal, oat middlings, oat shorts, oat hulls, salt 3.0 7.5 16.0 Com, oat bran, oat middlings, oat hulls, corn feed meal 3.5 8.0 18.0 Com, oats, cob meal Canal Elevator Company, Peru, Ind. Chop Feed 9.0 Corn, oats, ground corn screenings City Mills, South Whitley, Ind. Scrap Feed Clinton Grain Company, Frankfort, Ind. Chop Feed Colfax Grain Company, Colfax, Ind. Chop Feed Daugherty, S. P., Edwardsburg, Mich. S. P. Daugherty’s Chop Feed 8027 9061 3108 6492 2.5 2.5 2.0 3.3 8.0 8.5 7.0 8.7 9.5 10.0 16.0 10.0 Corn, oats, com bran, com feed meal, ground wheat screenings, mill sweepings Corn, oats, com feed meal, ground screenings from wheat, com, rye and oats Corn, oats, ground screenings from wheat, corn and oats Com, oats, cob meal Dickinson Company, The Albert, Chicago, 111. Rival Chop Feed 8132 Fairplay Feed Mills, Linton, Ind. Winner Chop Farmland City Flour Mills, Farmland, Ind. Chop Feed Friedrich & Son, C. W., Dyer, Ind. Friedrich’s Chop Feed Goodrich Bros. Hay & Grain Company, Winchester, Ind. “Climax Chop” Hamlet Grain Company, The, Hamlet, Ind. Chop Feed j Hammel Milling Company, Fremont, Ind. Chop Feed Hutchinson Flour Mills Company, Hutchinson, Kansas Hutchinson Chop Feed International Sugar Feed Company, Minneapolis, Minn. International Chop Feed 7714 3703 2714 0010 7914 4048 7837 7185 3.0 9.0 13.0 Corn, oat shorts, oat hulls 3.0 7.0 12.0 Corn, oats, com feed meal, oat shorts, oat groats, oat hulls, salt 2.0 3.0 7.0 9.0 11.0 Wheat bran, corn, oats, oat bran, oat middlings, oat hulls, corn feed meal 13.0 Corn, oats, cob meal 3.5 9.5 6.0 Wheat, corn, oats, rye, corn feed meal, ground screenings from wheat, corn, oats and rye 3.5 9.0 9.5 Corn, oats, ground screenings from wheat and corn 2.5 9.0 9.0 Com, oats, whole wheat screenings, corn feed meal 3.5 9.0 4.0 Corn, whole wheat screenings 4.0 10.5 16.0 Corn, barley, ground screenings from wheat, oats, barley and flax, oat middlings, oat shorts, oat hulls 72 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain s « e 9 LABEL £ cl £ 1.1 £ Ss ® .ja and to be composed of the oj +> ci 01 C'H Sea Sh -M 77- O following ingredients '3 € .2 8.2 o & g .2 8® -P . 'O O 3 o b g O Hr J U ft O Hr 2 ^ Z ft o P-7 ® P ft o Killian Elevator, The, Newberry, Ind. Chop Feed 8140 2.8 8.7 8.0 Klondike Milling Company, Danville, Ind. Cracked Corn & Screenings _ 4009 2.5 7.5 7.0 Lash Flour Mills, Fred B., Farmersburg, Ind. Chop Feed 1780 3.5 11.0 5.0 Lewis Milling Company, Lewis, Ind. Chop Feed 7023 • 3.5 11.0 5.0 Maegerlein, E. S., Patricksburg, Ind. Chop Feed 8102 3.2 9.0 7.0 Maegerlein Roller Mills, Arthur, Clay City, Ind. Chop Feed 3800 3.2 9.0 9.0 McMillen & Son, J. W., Fort Wayne, Ind. 36 Eagle Brand Chop Feed 8138 2.5 7.5 8.0 Noragon & Sons, Butler, Ind. Chop Feed 6275 2.8 8.5 7.0 Pendleton Feed & Fuel Company, Pendleton, Ind. Chop Feed 1477 3.0 10.0 6.0 Prairie State Milling Company, Chicago, 111. Prairie State Chop Feed 7727 2.5 8.0 11.0 Prater-Mottier Company, Terre Haute, Ind. Praters Chop Feed 7585 3.0 10.0 15.0 Probst & Kassebaum, Indianapolis, Ind. Special C. 0. & B. Chop 8444 4.0 8.0 7.0 Sage, L. L., Adamsville, Mich. L. L. Sages Chop Feed __ 4620 3.4 9.0 12.0 Smock & Caca, Noblesville, Ind. Mixed Feed 2633 3.7 9.2 8.0 Walker, H. L., Montpelier, Ind. Chop Feed 8130 3.5 8.0 9.0 CHOP FEEDS CONTAINING CORN BRAN Akron Milling Company, The, Akron, Ind. Akron Chop _ _ 2794 3.5 9.0 8.0 Albion Roller Mills, Albion, Ind. Chop Feed 8609 3.5 9.0 8.0 Anderson Bros., Huntington, Ind. Chop Feed 5460 3.0 8.0 12.0 Angola Flouring Mills, Angola, Ind. Chop Feed 7241 3.0 9.0 8.0 Ashley-Hudson Milling & Grain Company, Ashley, Ind. 37 Ashley-Hudson Chop Feed 3783 3.5 9.5 8.0 Corn, oats, corn bran, corn feed meal, ground wheat screenings Corn, wholev wheat screenings Corn, oats, ground wheat screenings Com, oats, ground wheat screenings Corn, oats, ground whqat screenings Corn, oats, ground wheat screenings Oats, com feed meal, corn screenings Corn, oats, ground wheat screenings, corn feed meal Corn, oats, wheat screenings Com, oats, barley, corn feed meal, ground barley screenings, ground oat hulls Corn, oats, wheat bran, corn feed meal, alfalfa meal, ground wheat screenings Corn, oats, barley, oat hulls Corn, oats, cob meal Corn, oats, corn bran, cob meal Corn, oats, ground wheat screenings Corn, oats, corn bran, whole wheat screenings Corn, oats, corn bran, wheat bran, ground wheat screenings not exceed- ing mill run Com, oats, corn feed meal, corn bran Com, oats, rye, corn bran, corn feed meal Corn, oats, corn bran 36 Succeeded by The McMillen Co. 37 Succeeded by Kirlin & Hammond 73 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) LABEL Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain a eS ia "*■* . m -n> cD M C«H 2 | 2 ft o l.f TJ o Si 3 ft V a c8 g+sa o C«H ^ I w and to be composed of the following ingredients Bainbridge Mill & Elevator Company Bainbridge, Ind. Chop Eeed Berlein Mills, Angola, R. R. 2, Ind Chop Eeed Besser, W. T., Greencastle, Ind. Besser’s Chop Eeed Bicknell Mill Company, Bicknell, Ind Chop Eeed Blackmore, D. M., Greensburg, Ind Blackmore’s Chop Eeed Blackwell, R. A., Hamlet, Ind. Chop Eeed Bluffton Milling Company, Bluffton, Ind Chop Eeed Boldt & Son, Waynetown, Ind. Chop Feed Bristol Milling Company, Bristol Ind “Chop Feed” Broad Ripple Flour & Eeed Mills Indianapolis, Ind. Chop Eeed Brooks & Son, L., Vincennes, Ind 38 New Chop Feed Chop Eeed Burrell & Morgan, Elkhart, Ind. Burrell &. Morgan’s Chop Feed Butler Milling Company, Butler, Ind. Chop Eeed City Feed Store, Plymouth, Ind. Plymouth Chop Eeed City Milling Company, Kendallville, Ind. Chop Eeed C cSp D P6ed n . g ..°?. mB “ y ’ ° ,a5,t0n ' Ind ' Clover Leaf Flour Mills, Kokomo, Ind Clover Leaf Chop Eeed l__ C Chop e Ee^ lling Company > Collamer, Ind. 0o cho1 *_ ?°° k - Nappanee - Ind - Coppock Cyrus L., Jonesboro, Ind 40 Coppock’s Chop Eeed 1 Q A 0.4 O Q 8.3 ll.l Z .0 4.1 8.7 9.( XU. 0 7.1 3.5 9.0 8.C 3.5 9.0 7.5 2.8 8.7 8.0 3.0 9.0 8.0 . 7926 2.8 8.7 8.0 . 7417 3.0 9.0 7.0 . 8065 2.8 8.7 8.0 . 4407 4.0 9.0 7.5 7341 3.0 9.0 8.0 5836 3.0 8.0 10.0 6940 3.0 8.7 7.0 7542 3.0 8.7 7.0 7339 3.0 8.7 7.0 7663 3.0 9.0 9.0 4448 3.0 7.9 11.0 7057 3.0 9.0 7.0 6009 3.0 8.0 9.0 6086 3.0 9.0 9.0 Corn, oats, corn bran, corn feed meal Corn, oats, rye, corn bran, corn feed meal Corn, oats, corn bran Corn, oats, corn bran, corn feed meal Corn, oats, corn bran, com feed meal Corn, oats, corn bran, corn feed meal Corn oats, rye, corn bran, corn feed meal Corn, oats, corn bran, corn feed meal Corn, oats, corn bran, corn feed meal Com, oats, corn bran, corn feed meal Corn, oats, com bran, corn feed meal Com, oats, corn bran, corn feed Succeeded by U. G. McCoy & Co. “ c „ cee ^ by Thomas Milling Co. Succeeded by L. A. Shields Com, oats, corn bran, corn feed meal Corn, oats, corn bran, com feed meal C meal ° atS ’ fye ’ C ° rn bran » corn fee(i Corn, oats, corn bran, corn feed meal Corn, oats, com bran, com feed meal Corn, oats, com bran, corn feed meal, ground wheat screenings Com, oats, corn bran, corn feed meal Com, oats, corn bran, corn feed meal Corn, oats, wheat, rye, corn bran corn feed meal ’ 74 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Crawford, J. C., Gas City, Ind. Chop Feed Creitz & Deardoff, Centerville, Ind. Chop Feed Cronk & Cronk, Shirley, Ind. Chop Feed Darlington Feed Mill, Darlington, Ind. Chop Peed De Armitt, James B., Huntington, Ind. Chop Peed Delp Grain Company, E. E., Bourbon, Ind. Chop Peed Dotson & Sons, Chas., Parker, Ind. Chop Peed Farmers Elevator Company, Kempton, Ind. Chop Peed Parmers Grain & Milling Company, Union City, Ind. Chop Peed Farmers Milling & Elevator Company, Veedersburg, Ind. No. 1 Chop Peed „ — : — F inkle, Jacob, Warren, Ind. Chop Peed Fornax Milling Company, Decatur, Ind. Fornax Chop Peed T ----- French, Hubert, Linn Grove, Ind. French Chop Feed._^~ — — -— Perfecto Chop Peed — Purr & Cohee, Bunker Hill, Ind. Chop Peed Fyke Milling Company, LaGrange, Ind. Fyke’s Chop Peed Garrett & Punk, Liberty Center, Ind. Chop Peed Gas City Elevator Co., Gas City, Ind. Chop Peed Gaston Roller Mill, Gaston, Ind. Chop Feed Geneva Milling & Grain Company, Geneva, Ind. Egly’s Chop Peed . S. B. Gilman, Summitville, Ind. Gilman’s .Corn and. Oats Chop tv,- Glen Echo Mills, Indianapolis, Ind. Three In One z+ia O ° v Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. 4 Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Martin, John D., Lafayette, Ind. Duree Hog Feed 9414 4.0 18.0 7.0 Wheat middlings, rye middlings, Mexico Roller Mills, Mexico, Ind. Black’s Balanced Hog Feed 5053 3.5 10.0 7.0 com feed meal, wheat bran, linseed oil meal, blood meal, tankage, not over y 2 % salt Corn, wheat bran, wheat middlings, Milan Mill & Elevator, Milan, Ind. Horse Feed & Fattener 6367 3.2 10.5 10.0 wheat shorts Corn, oats, rye, wheat bran, wheat Milan Milling Company, Milan, Ind. Horse Feed _ __ _ 7739 3.0 8.5 11.0 middlings, corn bran, corn feed meal Corn, oats, rye, corn feed meal Molassine Company of America, Boston, Mass. Molassine Meal __ _ 5718 0.5 7.0 7.0 Cooked spaghmun moss, molasses Moutoux, P. & H., Evansville, Ind. “XL” Pig Meal 9427 3.0 14.5 16.5 Corn, corn feed meal, cottonseed “X L” Dairy Feed 9428 2.5 10.0 17.0 meal, feeding tankage, wheat mid- dlings with mill run ground wheat screenings, linseed meal, y 2 % salt Com, corn feed meal, cottonseed Mueller, E. P., Chicago, 111. M V C 0 Dried Grains 8631 5.0 21.0 19.0 meal, wheat bran, wheat middlings with mill run ground wheat screen- ings, corn bran, y 2 % salt Barley malt, malt sprouts, corn dis- Munn Brokerage Company, Little Rock, Ark. Tiger Brand Molasses Fattener 7399 0.7 4.0 21.0 tillers dried grains Cottonseed hulls, cane molasses McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis, Ind. Cracker Jack Horse Feed 9512 2.0 10.0 12.0 Com, cats, alfalfa meal, salt, mo- Green Pasture 1 9513 0.5 12.0 20.0 lasses Alfalfa meal, salt, molasses National Elevators, Branch, American Hominy Company, Indianapolis, Ind. A. Cow Feed 6557 2.5 9.0 16.0 Ground screenings from corn, oats, National Feed Company, St. Louis, Mo. Alfalfa Molasses Feed 4260 . 1.0 10.0 20.0 wheat and rye Alfalfa meal, molasses “Oat Hull Feed” 5832 2.7 6.7 32.6 Ground oat hulls National Produce Company, Evansville, Ind. National Horse Feed 8059 2.0 9.0 16.0 Corn, oats, alfalfa meal, molasses Neumann Company, John G., Evansville, Ind. Black Beauty Horse Feed 7988 2.0 9.0 16.0 Corn, oats, alfalfa meal, molasses Newsome Feed & Grain Company, Pittsburgh, Pa. Special Palmo Midds _ 7624 6.0 15.0 7.0 Cleaning wheat middlings, cotton- Palmo Mixed Feed 9173 6.0 10.0 16.0 seed oil, palm oil Cleaning wheat middlings (with Special Palmo Mixed Feed 9365 5.0 10.0 18.0 ground wheat screenings) cob meal, palm oil, (by-product from manu- facture tin plate) Cleaning wheat middlings, ground Palmo Midds 9891 7.0 16.0 9.0 wheat screenings, ground delinted cottonseed hulls, palm oil from manufacture tin plate Cleaning wheat middlings, ground Northern Illinois Cereal Company, Lockport, 111. Peru C. & 0. Horse Feed 4116 3.0 8.5 12.0 wheat screenings, palm oil from manufacture tin plate Corn, oat middlings, oat shorts, oat Famous Feed _ 6514 3.0 9.0 12.0 hulls Corn, oat middlings, oat shorts, oat hulls Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than percent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Odon Milling Company, Odon, Ind. Omco Dairy Feed Ohio Valley Seed Company, Evansville, Ind. 8384 3.2 13.7 11.0 Cottonseed meal, wheat bran, wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings, corn bran, corn meal, 1% salt Excello Horse Feed 5111 4.0 14.0 11.0 Com, oats, barley, wheat bran, cot- tonseed meal, brewers dried grains, alfalfa meal, molasses Sunny South Horse & Mule Feed 76418 2.5 10.0 14.0 Corn, oats, alfalfa, molasses Big Deal Horse & Mule Feed 8341 2.0 8.0 16.0 Corn, oats, alfalfa meal, com bran, kafir com bran, molasses Olney Milling Company, Olney, 111. General Purpose Perfection Feed 5001 2.8 10.3 10.5 Com meal, wheat bran, alfalfa meai, molasses Omaha Alfalfa Milling Company, Omaha, Neb. Peerless Alfalmo Horse Feed 5715 2.0 10.0 12.0 Corn, oats, alfalfa meal, molasses Cream Alfalfa Dairy Feed No. 2 6602 2.5 16.0 18.0 Corn, wheat bran, cottonseed meal, alfalfa meal, molasses Peerless Summer Feed __ __ 8778 2.0 10.0 12.0 Oats, alfalfa meal, molasses Omaha Special Horse Feed 8974 1.5 9.0 18.0 Corn, oats, alfalfa meal, molasses Peerless Horse Feed 8075 1.5 p.o 18.0 Corn, oats, alfalfa meal, molasses Alcorno Horse Feed 8976 1.5 9.0 18.0 Corn, oats, alfalfa meal, molasses Evergreen Horse Feed . 8977 1.5 9.0 18.0 Corn, oats, alfalfa meal, molasses Green Meadow Dairy Feed 8978 0.5 10.0 25.0 Alfalfa meal, molasses Alfalmo _ 8979 0.5 10.0 20.0 Alfalfa meal, molasses Beauty Dairy Feed 8981 3.0 24.0 20.0 Corn, wheat bran, alfalfa meal, cot- tonseed meal, linseed oilmeal Cream Alfalfa Dairy No. 3 _ 8982 2.0 11.0 16.0 Corn, alfalfa meal, molasses Cream Alfalfa Dairy No. 1 8983 3.0 20.0 18.0 Corn, wheat bran, alfalfa meal, cot- tonseed meal, molasses Perfection Horse Feed 8984 2.0 9.0 16.0 Corn, oats, alfalfa meal, molasses Park & Pollard Company of Illinois, The, Chicago, 111. Stevens 44 Dairy Ration Peters Mill Company, M. C., Omaha, Neb. 8046 5.0 24.0 14.0 Linseed oil meal, cottonseed meal, wheat bran with mill run ground wheat screenings, corn gluten feed, cocoanut oil meal, pea meal, corn distillers’ grains, brewers’ dried grains, ground barley, wheat mid- dlings, hominy meal, corn germ meal, buckwheat middlings, corn feed meal, salt Peters’ King Com Sugar Feed 4660 1.5 9.0 18.0 Corn, oats, alfalfa meal, molasses Peters’ Alfalfa Queen Dairy Feed 4750 3.0 17.5 12.0 Cottonseed meal, corn gluten meal, corn meal, alfalfa, molasses Peters’ Rabbit Mule Feed 6566 1.5 9.0 18.0 Corn, oats, alfalfa, molasses Peters’ High-Score Alfalfa Molasses Feed 6815 0.5 10.0 26.0 Alfalfa, molasses Peters’ Arab Horse Feed 9164 2.0 10.0 16.0 Corn, oats, alfalfa, molasses Peters’ Re-Peter Horse Feed 9166 1.5 10.0 18.0 Corn, oats, alfalfa, molasses Peters’ June Pasture Alfalfa & Molasses Feed 9166 0.5 10.0 26.0 Alfalfa, molasses Peters’ Alfal-Fat Alfalfa & Molasses Feed 9167 0.5 10.0 26.0 Alfalfa, molasses Peters’ Sell-A-Gen Horse & Mule Feed 9199 2.0 10.0 20.0 Oats, alfalfa, molasses Prairie State Milling Company, Chicago, 111. Greenfield Brand Alfalfa & Molasses. 6846 0.5 10.0 26.0 Alfalfa meal, molasses Emerald Horse Feed 7004 2.0 10.0 12.0 Corn, oats, barley, alfalfa meal, mo- lasses American Horse Feed 7922 3.0 9.0 12.0 Corn, rolled oats, rolled barley Purina Mills, Branch, Ralston Purina Company, St. Louis, Mo. Purina Feed with Molasses 7867 1.7 9.3 13.0 Corn, oats, alfalfa meal, 1% salt, molasses Purina Dairy Feed 7869 3.5 20.0 16.5 Cottonseed meal, brewers dried grains, corn gluten feed, alfalfa meal, 1% salt, molasses Purina Fatena Feed 7871 2.5 12.0 10.0 Corn, cottonseed meal, alfalfa meal, dried peat, ground wheat screenings, 1% salt, molasses n6 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed 1 LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber Purina Mills, Branch, Ralston Purina Company, St. Louis, Mo. Purina O’Molene Peed _ 7874 3.2 9.7 8.0 Purina Peed __ __ 8477 3.2 11.0 12.0 Purina Pig Chow 8743 3.2 14.0 9.0 Purina Cow Chow Peed 8744 3.7 24.0 16.0 Purity Oats Company of Davenport, Davenport, Iowa Tom Boy Horse Peed 7083 2.0 9.0 18.0 Iowa Hog Peed _ _ 9030 4.0 10.0 12.7 Iowa Stock Peed _ _ 9040 4.0 10.0 12.7 Iowa Dairy Feed 91158 4.5 16.0 14.0 Loyal Stock Peed __ _ 9399 4.0 10.0 14.0 Quaker Oats Company, The, Chicago, 111. Green Cross Horse Feed (Molasses Mixed Feedl 5610 2.5 10.0 12.0 Schumacher Special Horse Peed 5735 3.7 9.7 8.0 Vim Feed 61547 2.0 5.0 28.0 Mogul Mixed Molasses Peed _ _ _ _ 6714 3.0 10.0 15.0 Molac Molasses Dairy Feed _ _ 6864 3.0 12.0 19.0 Maz-All Peed 6889 1.4 8.0 2.0 Shamrock Alfalfa Molasses Peed 6907 0.5 10.0 18.0 Big Mule Molasses Peed Mixture 7683 2.5 10.0 15.0 Boss Peed 8228 3.0 8.0 12.0 Sterling Peed 8229 3.2 10.0 10.0 and to be composed of the following ingredients Corn, oats, alfalfa meal, 1% salt, molasses Corn, oats, brewers dried grains, corn feed meal, alfalfa meal, 1% salt, molasses Corn feed meal, alfalfa meal, diges- ter tankage, dried peat, 1% salt, molasses Cottonseed meal, corn gluten feed, brewers’ dried grains, alfalfa meal, 1% salt, molasses Corn, oats, cottonseed meal, alfalfa meal, oat middlings, oat shorts, oat hulls, molasses Wheat middlings, com meal, hominy feed, brewers dried grains, oat mid- dlings, oat shorts, oat hulls, 1% salt Wheat middlings, corn meal, hominy feed, brewers dried grains, oat mid- dlings, oat shorts, oat hulls, 1% salt Cottonseed meal, corn meal, hominy feed, brewers dried grains, oat mid- dlings, oat shorts, oat hulls, 1% salt Corn gluten feed, corn feed meal, hominy feed, oat middlings, oat shorts, oat hulls, 1% salt Cora, oats, alfalfa meal, cottonseed meal, oat middlings, oat shorts, oat hulls, molasses Corn, oats, oat middlings, oat shorts, oat hulls, y 2 % salt Oat middlings, oat shorts, oat hulls Corn, oats, cottonseed meal, alfalfa meal, ground screenings from wheat, rye and barley, oat mid- dlings, oat shorts, oat hulls, mo- lasses Cottonseed meal, ground screenings from wheat, rye and barley, clipped oat by-product, molasses Toasted corn flakes by-product Alfalfa meal, molasses Corn, oats, cottonseed meal, alfalfa meal, ground screenings from wheat, corn, oats, flax, barley and rye, oat middlings, oat shorts, oat hulls, V 2 % salt, molasses Corn, hominy feed, corn feed meal (by-product from manufacture of corn meal by degerminator process with partial extraction of oil), oat middlings, oat shorts, oat hulls, V 2 % salt Corn, barley, hominy feed, corn feed meal (by-product from manufac- ture of corn meal, by degerminator process with partial extraction of oil) wheat flour, wheat middlings (with ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run) cottonseed meal, ground puffed rice, ground puffed wheat, oat middlings, oat shorts, oat hulls, %% salt Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Quaker Oats Company, The, Chicago, 111. Victor Feed 8230 3.0 8.0 12.0 Corn, hominy feed, com feed meal (by-product from manufacture of corn meal by degerminator process with partial extraction of oil), oat middlings, oat shorts, oat hulls, V 2 % salt White Diamond Feed 8231 3.2 8.0 9.0 Corn, hominy feed, corn feed meal (by-product from manufacture of corn meal by degerminator process with partial extraction of oil), oat. middlings, oat shorts, oat hulls, y 2 % salt Red Star Feed 8232 3.2 8.0 9.0 Corn, hominy feed, corn feed meal, (by-product from manufacture of corn meal by degerminator process with partial extraction of oil) oat middlings, oat shorts, oat hulls, %% salt Schumacher Feed 8234 3.2 10.0 10.0 Corn, barley, hominy feed, corn feed meal, (by-product from manufac- ture of corn meal by degerminator process with partial extraction of oil) wheat flour, wheat middlings, with ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run), cottonseed meal, ground puffed rice, ground puffed wheat, oat middlings, oat shorts, oat hulls, %% salt Blue Ribbon Dairy Feed 8281 5.0 26.0 14.0 Hominy feed, corn feed meal (by- product from manufacture corn meal by degerminator process with partial extraction of oil), wheat bran, (with ground wheat screen- ings not to exceed mill run), corn distillers dried grains, cottonseed meal, new process linseed oil meal, oat middlings, oat shorts, oat hulls, %% salt, molasses Market Top Feed 8380 3.0 9.0 9.0 Corn, barley, hominy feed, corn feed meal (by-product from manufac- ture of corn meal by degerminator process with partial extraction of oil), wheat flour, wheat middlings, (with ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run), cottonseed meal, ground puffed wheat, ground puffed rice, oat middlings, oat shorts, oat hulls, molasses Big Q Dairy Ration 8458 6.0 21.0 10.5 Cottonseed meal, corn distillers’ grains and solubles, corn gluten feed, linseed oil meal, corn feed meal, (by-product from manufac- ture of corn meal by degerminator process with partial extraction of oil), white wheat middlings, wheat bran (with ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run), oat mid- dlings, oat shorts, oat hulls, 1% salt Vim Horse Feed 8819 2.5 12.0 15.0 Corn, oats, alfalfa meal, cottonseed meal, oat middlings, oat shorts, oat hulls, %% salt, molasses Golden Sweet Mule Feed 8872 2.0 9.0 18.0 Corn, cottonseed meal, alfalfa meal, oat middlings, oat shorts, oat hulls, *4% salt, molasses n8 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) LABEL Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain tn G«h O $3 s % l! e and to be composed of the following ingredients Quaker Oats Company, The, Chicago, 111. Quaker Dairy Deed with Molasses.. 8898 5.5 16.0 16.0 Cottonseed meal, corn distillers grains and solubles, palm kernel oil meal, ground screenings from wheat, barley, rye and oats, oat middlings, oat shorts, oat hulls, tricalcium phosphate, %% salt, molasses Big Pig Hog Peed Ralston Purina Company, St. Louis, Mo. 8949 4.0 13.5 13.0 Wheat middlings, (with ground screenings not exceeding mill run), com feed meal, ground barley, old process linseed oil meal, corn gluten feed, palm kernel oil meal, ground flax screenings, oat middlings, oat shorts, oat hulls, calcium phos- phate, %% salt Brown Mule Peed with Molasses ._ 78(77 1.5 9.0 15.0 Corn, oats, alfalfa meal, 1% salt, molasses XX Good Peed with Molasses . 7879 1.5 9.0 16.0 Corn, oats, alfalfa meal, 1% salt, molasses Good Luck Peed with Molasses __ 7880 1.5 9.0 15.0 Corn, oats, alfalfa meal, 1% salt, molasses Rapier Sugar Feed Company, Owensboro, Ky. Rapier’s Mixed Peed _ . ... . _____ 5623 4.9 16.6 8.5 Wheat bran, shorts, ground screen- ings from wheat, oats, barley and flax Rapier’s Molasses-Alfalfa Hog Peed 6094 2.5 10.0 12.8 Alfalfa meal, ground and bolted screenings from wheat, oats, barley and flaxseed, molasses Rapier’s Big Pour Horse & Mule Peed. 6528 2.0 9.0 12.0 Corn, oats, alfalfa, 1% salt, mo- lasses Rapier’s Red Wing Horse and Mule Feed __ _ 6738 2.0 9.0 12.0 Corn, oats, alfalfa meal, 1% salt, cane molasses Rapier’s Honey Meal ___ 6878 1.0 9.0 18.0 Alfalfa meal, cane molasses Rapier’s Pig Meal __ 7072 2.5 12.0 12.0 Alfalfa meal, corn feed meal, linseed meal, ground and bolted screenings from wheat, oats, barley and flax- seed, salt, cane molasses Rapier’s Creamo Dairy Peed _ 7589 3.5 16.5 16.0 Cottonseed meal, distillers dried grains, alfalfa meal, linseed meal, ground and bolted wheat screenings, salt, molasses Rapier’s Otene Horse & Mule Peed _ 7696 2.0 9.0 12.0 Corn, oats, alfalfa meal, 1% salt, molasses Rapier’s Molasses Pat Maker Schaefer, Karl H., Indianapolis, Ind. 8117 2.0 9.0 18.0 Alfalfa meal, ground and bolted screenings from wheat, oats, barley and flaxseed, clipped oat by-prod- uct, 1% salt, molasses Corn, corn bran, wheat bran, ground wheat screenings, cob meal Schaefer’s Special Filler for Malt 7376 1.0 3.0 25.0 Schaefer’s Special Horse Feed 7700 2.0 8.0 14.0 Corn, oats, corn bran, alfalfa meal, salt, molasses Shellabarger Elevator Company, Decatur, 111. Big S. Horse Peed 7173 2.5 9.0 10.0 Corn, oats, alfalfa, molasses Big “S.” Dairy Peed Simmons & Norris, Cincinnati, Ohio 8592 4.0 18.0 7.0 Wheat bran, alfalfa meal, corn glu- ten feed, corn feed meal, linseed meal Simmons’ More-Milk Dairy Peed 6812 3.5 16.5 12.0 Cottonseed meal, linseed meal, corn gluten feed, ground and bolted wheat screenings, clipped oat by- product, salt, molasses Simmons Molasses Chop 8461 3.0 10.5 12.0 Corn, oats, brewers dried grains, al- falfa meal, molasses Excello Hog Peed 9337 4.5 19.0 6.0 Corn feed meal, hominy feed, wheat middlings, old process linseed oil meal, digester tankage, corn gluten feed Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Slick & Company, L. E., Bloomington, 111. Slick’s Safety First Milkmaker Feed Slick’s Safety First Hogmaker Feed Slick’s Safety First Hog Fattener Feed Slick’s Safety First Steer Fatner Mixed Feed- Slick’s Safety First Steer Developer Mixed Feed Southern Seed Company, Louisville, Ky. Atlas Horse & Mule Feed Atlas Alfalfa and Molasses Economy Horse and Mule Feed Indiana Atlas Dairy Feed Indiana Economy Dairy Feed Econo Horse and Mule Feed Eagle Horse & Mule Feed Economy Dairy Feed Econo Dairy Feed Atlas Hog Feed Eagle Dairy Feed Spink Milling Company, The, Washington, Ind. Spink’s Standard Horse Feed Steinmesch Feed & Poultry Supply Company, St. Louis, Mo. Steinmesch’s Alfalfa Cow Feed m -i-> c$ cn C«h _i_> U c e £ 2 +J . O w cp C ft ® a) m jj . 'O £ 1 2 A ft w and to be composed of the following ingredients 8818 9342 9343 3.0 18.0 4.5 18.0 5.0 13.0 4.5 12.5 3.0 15.0 16.0 10.0 7.5 13.0 Alfalfa meal, corn feed meal, wheat bran, wheat middlings, cottonseed meal, cottonseed feed (cottonseed meal, cottonseed hulls) malt sprouts, brewers dried grains, 1% salt, molasses Alfalfa meal, com feed meal, wheat middlings, wheat bran, linseed oil meal, tankage, molasses Alfalfa meal, com feed meal, wheat middlings, linseed oil meal, tank- age, molasses Wheat bran, wheat middlings, cot- tonseed meal, corn feed meal, al- falfa meal, molasses Wheat bran, cottonseed meal, corn feed meal, alfalfa meal, molasses 4510 4722 4745 5422 5423 8375 8548 8817 9005 7454 2.5 10.0 4.0 18.0 3.0 16.0 2.5 9.0 2.0 9.0 3.0 16.0 3.0 16.0 3.5 12.0 2.0 12.0 3.5 9.5 12.0 25.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 22.0 12.0 26.0 8.0 Com, oats, alfalfa, hominy meal, cottonseed meal, wheat bran, wheat middlings, y 2 % salt, molasses Alfalfa, molasses Corn, oats, wheat bran, alfalfa, clover hay, clipped oat by-product, y 2 % salt, molasses Wheat bran, corn meal, cottonseed meal, alfalfa, brewers dried grains, distillers dried grains, y 2 % salt, mo- lasses Wheat bran, com meal, cottonseed meal, alfalfa meal, clover meal, brewers dried grains, distillers dried grains, clipped oat by-product, y 2 % salt, molasses Com, oats, alfalfa meal, clover meal, cottonseed meal, ground cot- tonseed hulls, flax plant by-product, y 2 % salt, molasses Corn, oats, alfalfa meal, clover meal, brewers dried grains, clipped oat by-product, ground cottonseed hulls, flax plant by-product, y 2 % salt, molasses Brewers dried grains, alfalfa meal, clover meal, cottonseed meal, flax plant by-product, ground cotton- seed hulls, clipped oat by-product, y 2 % salt, molasses Brewers dried grains, alfalfa meal, clover meal, cottonseed meal, ground cottonseed hulls, clipped oat by- product, flax plant by-product, y 2 % salt, molasses Wheat shorts, wheat bran, com feed meal, alfalfa meal, tankage, y 2 % salt Brewers dried grains, alfalfa meal, clover meal, cottonseed meal, ground cottonseed hulls, clipped oat by-product, flax plant by-product, y 2 % salt, molasses Corn, oats, wheat bran, corn bran, ground wheat screenings 770 3.0 12.0 7.0 Grains, seeds, alfalfa hay, molasses 120 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Sugarine Company, The, Peoria, 111. Sugarine Dairy Peed ___ _ 8284 3.5 16.5 14.0 Cottonseed meal, corn gluten feed, ground and bolted wheat screenings, clipped oat by-product, corn dis- tillers dried grains and solubles, salt, molasses Sugarine Horse Feed, with Alfalfa 8285 2.5 10.0 12.0 Corn, oats, barley, alfalfa, distillers com solubles, salt, molasses Sugarine Horse & Mule Peed 0286 2.5 9.0 12.0 Corn, oats, com distillers dried grains and solubles, oat middlings, oat shorts, oat hulls, salt, molasses Sueo Pat Maker 8287 3.5 10.0 12.0 Corn, oats, corn distillers dried grains and solubles, clipped oat by- product, salt, molasses Ideal Sugared Feed 9044 2.5 12.0 14.0 Cottonseed meal, corn distillers dried grains and solubles, palm kernel meal, clipped oat by-product, ground and bolted wheat screen- ings, calcium carbonate, salt, mo- lasses Suco Dairy Peed ___ 9045 8.0 25.0 16.0 Cottonseed meal, corn gluten feed, corn distillers dried grains and solu- bles, clipped oat by-product, palm kernel meal, calcium carbonate, salt Sugarine Hog Meal Summitt, L. C., Vincennes, Ind. 9102 4.0 18.0 14.0 Corn germ meal, corn feed meal, corn distillers dried grains and solu- bles, alfalfa meal, linseed meal, blood flour, palm kernel meal, cal- cium carbonate, salt, molasses Summitt’s Horse Peed 7726 2.0 S.O 14.0 Corn, oats, alfalfa meal, salt, mo- lasses Tarkio Molasses Peed Company, Kansas City, Mo. Tarkio Molasses Peed __ 7007 2.0 9.0 8.0 Corn, wheat bran, ground and bolted screenings from wheat, barley and flaxseed, charred peat, cane mo- lasses Tarkio Sugared Molasses Pattener Teel Milling Company, Owensville, Ind. 8889 2.5 17.0 16.7 Wheat bran, cottonseed feed, fcot- tonseed meal, cottonseed hulls), ground corn, charred peat, cane mo- lasses Daisy Feed 6137 3.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat bran, middlings, crushed wheat screenings, corn bran Ubiko Milling Company, The, Cincinnati, Ohio Ubiko Horse and Stock Peed Unions Grains, Ubiko, Biles Ready Dairy 6861 6.0 16.0 9.0 Wheat bran, wheat middlings, hom- iny meal, brewers dried grains, old process linseed meal Ration . __ Union Grain & Peed Company, The, Anderson, Ind. 9068 5.0 24.0 10.0 Fourex distillers dried grains, choice cottonseed meal, old process linseed meal, white wheat middlings, winter wheat bran, hominy meal, corn germ meal, corn gluten feed, brew- ers dried grains, barley malt sprouts, y 2 % salt Union Horse Feed 7151 2.5 8.5 11.0 Corn, oats, alfalfa, molasses Union Dairy Peed . . 8885 2.7 16.5 20.0 Cottonseed meal, alfalfa meal, sor- ghum bagasse meal, corn feed meal, ground screenings from wheat, corn, oats, y 2 % salt, molasses Union Hog Feed __ 9421 4.0 21.0 9.0 Corn feed meal, corn gluten meal, wheat bran, wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings, old pro- cess linseed oil meal, digester tank- age, corn bran, molasses Daisy Dairy Peed 9424 2.7 11.5 20.0 Cottonsed meal, alfalfa meal, sor- ghum bagasse meal, corn feed meal, ground screenings from wheat, corn and oats, y 2 % salt, molasses 121 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients United States Stock Food Company, Kansas City, Mo. Eagle Brand Horse & Mule Feed _ 4954 3.5 10.0 12.0 Corn, oats, alfalfa, molasses Eagle Brand Alfalfa— Molasses Feed 6063 1.0 9.0 16.0 Alfalfa meal, molasses Walsh & Company, James, Lawreneeburg, Ind. Kuhmele 8803 6.0 21.8 16.1 Corn, wheat middlings, cottonseed Morlac 8914 6.0 21.8 16.1 meal, brewers dried grains, alfalfa meal, salt Corn, corn distillers dried grains, Morlac “B” 9181 6.0 21.8 16.1 wheat bran, wheat middlings, brew- ers dried grains, alfalfa meal, cot- tonseed meal, salt Corn, corn distillers dried grains. Morlac “C” _ 9261 5.0 21.0 17.0 ground barley screenings, brewers dried grains, alfalfa meal, cotton- seed meal, salt Corn, corn distillers dried grains, al- Morlac “D” 9262 3.3 15.0 26.3 falfa meal, brewers dried grains, cottonseed meal, ground barley screenings, salt Brewers dried grains, ground barley screenings, wheat middlings, corn distillers dried grains, cottonseed meal, alfalfa meal, salt Corn, wheat middlings, cottonseed Kuhmele “B” __ _ 9350 5.5 21.8 19.5 Walsh Hog Feed _ 9387 5.0 23.5 18.5 meal, brewers dried grains, alfalfa meal, salt Wheat middlings, clover meal, corn Wash-Co. Alfalfa Mixed Feed & Milling Company, Fort Calhoun, Neb. Wash-Co. Horse and Mule Feed 3755 2.0 10.0 12.0 germ meal, alfalfa meal, corn dis- tillers dried grains, linseed oil meal, tankage, salt Corn, oats, alfalfa meal, salt, mo- Alfalgreen __ _ - 3839 0.5 12.0 20.0 lasses Alfalfa meal, 1% salt, molasses Butlers Strong Horse Feed • 6876 2.0 9.0 25.0 Corn, oats, alfalfa, molasses Special Horse Feed _ _ __ 8278 2.0 10.0 12.0 Corn, oats, alfalfa meal, molasses Weiss Alfalfa Stock Food Company, The Otto, Wichita, Kansas The Otto Weiss Alfalfa Stock Food 2983 3.5 11.0 14.0 Alfalfa, corn chop, wheat bran, The Otto Weiss Alfalfa & Corn Chop 3600 3.0 11.0 14.0 shorts, linseed oil meal, salt Alfalfa, crushed corn Western Grain Products Company, West Hammond, 111. Hammond Horse Feed . 4864 2.8 12.0 11.0 Com, oats, barley, linseed meal, Special Hammond Dairy Feed 7347 3.5 15.5 12.0 ground screenings from wheat, corn, oats and barley, 3 /io % salt, mo- lasses Cottonseed meal, distillers dried corn Calumet Alfalfa Horse Feed 8327 2.5 10.0 15.0 grains, malt sprouts, ground clip- ped oat by-product, ground screen- ings from wheat, corn, oats and barley, salt, molasses Corn, rolled oats, alfalfa meal, lin- Calumet Dairy Feed 9236 4.6 20.0 14.8 seed meal, salt, molasses Corn, wheat bran, cottonseed meal. Hammond Dairy Feed 9417 3.5 16.5 14.2 corn gluten feed, brewers dried grains, ground wheat screenings, ground clipped oat by-product, salt Cottonseed meal, corn distillers Wiedlocher & Sons, Springfield, 111. Wiedlochers’ Faultless Horse Feed 8450 3.0 10.0 10.0 grains, malt sprouts, ground clip- ped oat by-product, ground screen- ings from wheat, corn, oats and barley, ground cocoa shells, salt, molasses Corn, oats, alfalfa meal, y 2 % salt, Wiedlochers’ Congress Horse Feed ___ 8451 3.0 9.0 7.0 molasses Corn, oats, barley, %% salt 122 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL i Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Wilkinson & Company, T. B., Knightstown, Ind. Combination Dairy Deed Wood, Stubbs & Company, Louisville, Ky. 7654 3.0 11.0 10.0 Oats, rye, corn and cob meal (crushed ear corn) cottonseed meal, salt Red Mill Molasses Feed 7107 2.0 9.0 16.0 Com, oats, corn meal, alfalfa meal, salt, cane molasses CALF MEALS American Milling Company, Peoria, 111. Sucrene Calf Meal Arcady Farms Milling Company, Chicago, 111. 6722 4.0 20.0 3.0 Wheat middlings, corn meal, linseed meal, malt flour, soluble starch from corn, dried skim milk, soluble blood flour, bone meal Arcady (R. K. D.) Calf Meal Blatchford Calf Meal Company, Waukegan, IU 9259 5.0 25.0 7.0 Wheat flour, malt flour, cottonseed meal, linseed oil meal, oat meal, powdered milk, y 2 % salt Blatchford’s Calf Meal Butler & Company, Edw. J., Chicago, 111. 8722 5.0 24.0 6.7 Fenugreek, anise, locust bean meal, flaxseed, wheat flour, blood flour, barley meal, malt sprout meal, bean meal, pea meal, rice polish, old process linseed oil meal, cocoa shell meal, cocoanut meal, cottonseed meal, dried milk, salt Butler’s Station Calf Meal Hales & Edwards Company, Chicago, 111. 7989 4.0 32.0 3.5 Blood flour, barley flour, linseed oil meal, reddog flour Red Horn Calf Meal International Stock Food Company, Minneapolis, Minn. 8789 6.0 18.0 6.0 Dried buttermilk, oat flour, barley flour, reddog flour, com flour, old process linseed oil meal, alfalfa leaf flour, dextrose, not over 1% cal- cium carbonate, y 2 % salt International Grofast Calf Meal International Sugar Feed Company, Minneapolis, Minn. 6880 5.0 25.0 10.0 Fenugreek seed, locust bean meal, linseed oil meal, reddog flour, ground screenings from wheat, oats, barley, flax International Grofast Calf Meal Krause Milling Company, Chas. A., 9091 5.0 25.0 10.0 Fenugreek seed, locust mean, linseed oil meal, ground screenings from wheat, oats, barley, flax Milwaukee, Wis. Krause Calf Meal Martin & Company, John C., 9080 3.5 30.0 7.0 Blood flour, old process linseed oil meal, hominy feed, wheat middlings, wheat reddog flour Mineral Point, Wis. Martin’s Calf Meal Maumee Valley Mills, New Haven, Ind. 5047 6.0 26.0 6.0 Fenugreek, cottonseed meal, wheat germ middlings, wheat flour, corn meal, linseed oil meal, flaxseed, blood meal, charcoal, salt Star Calf Feed Peters Mill Company, M. C., Omaha, Neb. 9326 5.0 24.0 6.0 Blood meal, linseed oil meal, hominy feed meal, reddog flour, wheat mid- dlings, cottonseed meal, copra oil meal, salt Peters’ Submilk Calf Meal 8636 3.0 22.0 8.0 Linseed oil meal, alfalfa meal, corn feed meal, blood meal, reddog flour Prussian Remedy Company, St. Paul, Minn. Prussian Calf Meal Purina Mills, Branch, Ralston Purina Company, St. Louis, Mo. 7801 5.5 25.0 5.5 Anise seed, fenugreek seed, lime, so- dium chloride, locust bean meal, oat meal, blood meal, corn meal, cot- tonseed meal, linseed meal, corn glu- ten meal, wheat flour, rye middlings Purina Calf Chow _ 7872 4.0 33.0 3.5 Hominy feed, wheat flour, blood flour, linseed meal Quaker Oats Company, The, Chicago, 111. Schumacher Calf Meal Roberts Veterinary Company, Dr. David, Waukesha, Wis. 8942 8.0 18.0 4.0 Oat meal, wheat meal, ground flax- seed, milk albumen, old process lin- seed oil meal, %% bicarbonate of soda Dr. David Roberts Calf Meal 6023 7.0 25.0 6.5 Sassafras, salt, chalk, charcoal, lo- cust bean meal, blood meal, flax- seed oil cake meal, oat meal 123 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) LABEL Ryde & Company, Chicago, 111. Rydes Cream Calf Meal Simmons & Norris, Cincinnati, Ohio. Simmons’ Butter-Fat Calf Meal Slick & Company, L. E., Bloomington, 111. Slick’s Safety First Calf Meal Sugarine Company, The, Peoria, 111. Sugarine Calf Meal Sugarota Calf Meal Company, The, Winona, Minn. Sugarota Calf Meal Ward & Company, Montgomery, Chicago, 111. Pilgrim’s Calf Meal Wilbur Stock Food Company, Milwaukee, Wis. Wilbur’s Calf Meal Williams & Son, F. I., North Adams, Mich. “Williams Calf Meal” POULTRY AND SCRATCH FEED Acme-Evans Company, Indianapolis, Ind. E-Z. Chick Feed E-Z. Scratch Feed Acme Scratch Feed Acme Chick ^ Alfocorn Milling Company, East St. Louis, 111. Alfocorn Hen Feed Diamond “D” Hen Feed (With Grit) Alfocorn Chick Feed Wish-Bone Scratch Feed Wish-Bone Chick Feed Wish-Bone Scratch Feed With Grit Amendt Milling Company, Monroe, Mich. Amco Chick Feed American Hominy Company, Indianapolis, Ind. Homco Chick Feed Homco Poultry Developer Homco Scratch Feed Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients 8856 5.0 25.0 6.0 Fenugreek, anise, cottonseed meal, wheat flour, blood flour, flaxseed meal, hominy feed, beans, locust bean meal, lentils, cocoa shell meal, salt 6810 5.0 26.0 6.0 Fenugreek, anise seed, wheat flour, cottonseed meal, flaxseed meal, carob beans, bean meal, lentils, co- coa shells, salt 9844 4.0 30.0 7.0 Wheat middlings, reddog flour, corn feed meal, linseed oil meal, fine blood meal 6796 4.0 20.0 3.0 Wheat middlings, corn meal, linseed meal, malt flour, soluble starch from corn, dried skim milk, soluble blood flour, bone meal 6174 6.0 25.0 6.0 Cottonseed meal, old process linseed meal, ground wheat, ground malt 3034 5.0 24.0 5.0 Locust bean meal, wheat flour, flax- seed, cottonseed meal, beans, lentils 6618 2.0 10.0 10.0 Gentian, fenugreek, anise seed, blood root, elecampane, ginger, quassia, elm bark, bicarbonate of soda, char- coal, salt, ground screenings from flax, wheat, rye 7838 1.2 13.5 6.2 Anise, linseed oil meal, blood meal, toasted corn flakes by-product 5641 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, millet seed, steel cut oats, charcoal, mica grit 5721 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, sunflower seed, charcoal, oyster shells, granite and mica grit 6292 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oyster shells, limestone grit 6493 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, carbonate of lime (limestone) 5339 3.5 10.0 4.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo maize, sun- flower seed 5990 3.5 10.0 4.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo maize, sun- flower seed, carbonate of lime (limestone) 6780 3.5 10.0 4.0 Corn, kafir, millet seed, whole wheat screenings 9078 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, wild buckwheat, sunflower seed 9079 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, pigeon grass 9140 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, wild buckwheat, sunflower seed, carbon- ate of lime (limestone) ■ 5022 2.5 10.0 5.0 Corn, kafir, milo maize, hulled oats, millet seed, whole wheat screenings, limestone and quartz grit 6568 2.5 9.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, hen-e-ta grit, (sodium, lime, silica, phos- phorus compounds) . 8491 3.0 11.0 4.0 Wheat, com, kafir, homcoline, (corn germ meal) buckwheat . 8609 2.5 10.5 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, buck- wheat, sunflower seed, homcoline (corn germ meal) 124 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients American Hominy Company, Indianapolis, Ind. Standard Scratch Heed With Grit 8754 2.5 9.0 6.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, whole wheat screenings, carbonate of lime (limestone) Standard Scratch Feed 8795 2.5 9.0 6.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, whole wheat screenings Hexite Scratch Feed With Grit __ 8756 2.5 10.0 7.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, homcoline (corn germ meal) sun- flower seed, carbonate of lime (lime- stone) Hexite Scratch Feed 8757 2.5 10.0 7.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, homcoline (corn germ meal) sun- flower seed Homco Dry Mash 8795 5.0 15.0 9.0 Homcoline (corn germ meal) homco hominy feed, wheat bran, wheat middlings, linseed meal, meat scraps, alfalfa, molasses Shrivelled wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed Homco Chick Feed American Milling Company, Peoria, 111. 9274 3.0 9.0 3.0 Tip Top Chick Feed ,5664 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, pigeon grass seed Tip Top Chick Feed With 5% Grit 5665 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, pigeon grass seed, marble grit Sucrene Chick Feed 6569 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet Sucrene Chick Feed with 5% Grit 6561 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, marble grit Cluck Cluck Scratch Feed 8241 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, com, kafir, barley, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed Sucrene Scratch Feed 8242 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed Tip Top Scratch Feed 8243 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, com, kafir, barley, oats, wild buckwheat, sunflower seed Tip Top Scratch Feed, With 5% Grit. 8244 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, wild buckwheat, sunflower seed, marble grit Sucrene Scratch Feed, With 5% Grit 8246 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed, marble grit Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed, marble grit Cluck Cluck Scratch Feed, With 5% Grit 8253 2.5 10.0 5.0 Sucrene Poultry Mash 8730 3.5 18.0 12.0 Corn feed meal, alfalfa meal, meat scraps, corn distillers dried grains, wheat bran, linseed meal, palm ker- nel meal, calcium carbonate, salt Sucrene Pigeon Feed Arcady Farms Milling Company, Chicago, 111. 9951 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, peas, buck- wheat, sunflower seed Sunkist Poultry Feed 8801 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, whole wheat screenings, wild buck- wheat, sunflower seed Atlantic Poultry Feed Atlantic Poultry Feed With Grit, Shell and 9034 2.0 9.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, buckwheat, sunflower seed, wild buckwheat, whole wheat screenings Charcoal __ Sunkist Poultry Feed With Grit, Shell, Char- 9035 2.0 9.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, buckwheat, sunflower seed, wild buckwheat, whole wheat screenings, 1% charcoal, 5% oyster shell, 5% limestone grit coal Arcady Farms Milling Company, Rondout, 111. 9260 2.0 9.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, wild buckwheat, whole wheat screenings, 1% charcoal, 5% oyster shell, 5% limestone grit Arcady (R. K. D.) Poultry Feed Arcady (R. K. D.) Poultry Feed— With Grit- 7510 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, buckwheat, sunflower seed Shell— Charcoal 7520 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, com, kafir, oats, barley, buckwheat, sunflower seed, 1% charcoal, 3% oyster shell, 3% lime- stone grit 125 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Arcady Farms Milling Company, Rondout, 111. Arcady (R. K. D.) Chick Feed, With Grit— Charcoal 7521 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, hulled oats, 1% charcoal, 6% limestone grit Arcady (R. K. D.) Chick Feed 7522 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, hulled oats Arcady (R. K. D.) Baby Chick Feed . Arcady (R. K. D.) Baby Chick Feed With 7523 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, hulled oats Grit — Charcoal __ Ashbrook Company, The J. S., Mattoon, 111. 7524 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, hulled oats, 1% charcoal, 6% limestone grit Peerless Scratch Feed _ 4181 3.6 10.0 6.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed, linseed meal Peerless Chick Feed 5095 3.5 10.5 6.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, steel cut oats, millet seed Diamond A. Scratch Feed 7904 2.5 9.0 6.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, inilo, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed iDamond A. Scratch Feed (With GritV 7941 2.5 9.0 6.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, milo maize, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed, 5% quartz grit Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, oats, buck- wheat, sunflower seed, linseed oil cake, oyster shell, quartz grit Peerless Scratch Feed With Grit 8043 3.0 10.0 6.0 Diamond A. Chick Feed 9386 3.0 10.0 6.0 Corn, kafir, milo, millet seed Badenoch Company, J. J., Chicago, 111. Eg-a-day Meat-Cereal Mash ___ 4496 4.0 15.0 8.0 Wheat bran, wheat middlings, al- falfa meal, oat meal, corn meal, beef scraps, linseed oil meal, shells C-er-lay Special Poultry Feed 6100 2.5 9.5 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, rye, wild buckwheat, sunflower seed, char- coal, limestone grit Sunflower Pigeon Feed With Grit 6647 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, hemp seed, peas, milo maize, millet, buckwheat, char- coal, limestone grit Sunflower Pigeon Feed No Grit 6648 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, hemp seed, peas, milo maize, millet, buckwheat, char- coal C-er-lay Poultry Feed With Grit 8765 2.5 9.5 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, milo, buckwheat, sunflower seed, oyster shells, limestone grit C-er-lay Poultry Feed No Grit 8766 2.5 9.5 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, milo, buckwheat, sunflower seed Daily Egg Poultry Feed No Grit 8768 2.5 9.5 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, . milo, whole screenings from wheat and barley, sunflower seed C-er-lay Developing Feed No Grit 8769 2.5 9.5 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, milo, millet seed, hulled oats Daily Egg Poultry Feed With Grit 8770 2.5 9.5 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, milo, whole screenings from wheat and barley, sunflower seed, oyster shells, limestone grit C-er-lay Developing Feed With Grit 8771 2.5 9.5 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, milo, millet seed, hulled oats, limestone grit C-er-lay Fine Chick Feed With Grit 8772 2.5 9.5 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, millet seed, steel cut oats, hulled oats, lime- stone grit C-er-lay Fine Chick Feed No Grit 8773 2.5 9.5 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, millet seed, steel cut oats, hulled oats Egspay Poultry Feed No Grit 8774 2.5 9.5 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, milo, wild buckwheat, sunflower seed, whole screenings from wheat and barley Egspay Poultrv Feed With Grit 8775 2.5 9.5 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, milo, wild buckwheat, sunflower seed, whole screenings from wheat and barley, oyster shells, lime- stone grit 126 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Barrett, J. C., South Bend, Ind. Barrett’s Henola Dry Mash Bash & Company, Inc., C. E., Huntington, Ind. 6924 2.0 12.0 3.0 Wheat bran, wheat middlings, corn meal, corn gluten meal, linseed oil meal, heneta grit (sodium, lime, sil- ica, phosphorous compounds) Busy Biddy Scratch Eeed 5679 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed, linseed oil meal Busy Biddy Egg Mash & Chick Grower Bash’s Seed Store, Indianapolis, Ind. 6102 3.0 17.5 7.0 Wheat bran, wheat middlings, corn feed meal, alfalfa meal, linseed oil meal, meat scraps, charcoal, salt Bash’s Scratch Eeed Bauermeister Company, Inc., Chas. W., Terre Haute, Ind. 4479 2.0 9.0 7.0 Corn, whole wheat screenings, cane seed, sunflower seeds, non-germinat- ing garden seeds, charcoal, lime- stone grit, oyster shells Bauermeister’s Star Eeed 2408 2.0 8.0 8.0 Wheat, com, kafir, millet seed Bauermeister Scratch Eeed 3215 2.0 9.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, hen-e-ta grit (sodium, lime, silica, phosphor- ous compounds) Bauermeister’s Chick Eeed 5221 2.0 8.0 3.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, steel cut oats, millet seed, hen-e-ta grit (lime, sodi- um, silica, phosphorous compounds) Wheat bran, wheat middlings, corn feed meal, linseed oil meal, corn glu- ten meal, hen-e-ta grit (sodium, lime, silica, phosphorous com- pounds) Bauermeister Dry Mash __ Belt Elevator & Eeed Company, Indianapolis, Ind. 5302 2.0 12.0 5.0 Mixed Hen Feed 5905 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed, charcoal, oyster shell Hen-O-La Mash _ Berdan & Company, Toledo, Ohio 8015 2.0 10.0 5.0 Wheat bran, wheat middlings, corn gluten feed, com feed meal, hominy feed, linseed oil meal, ground wheat screenings, heneta grit (sodium, lime, silica, phosphorous com- pounds) Old Tavern Scratch Eeed (With Grit) _ 3582 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, buckwheat, sunflower seed, charcoal, marble grit Old Tavern Scratch Eeed 5744 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, com, kafir, barley, buck- wheat, sunflower seeds Old Tavern Chick Eeed With Grit 6469 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, com, kafir, millet seed, oat meal, wild buckwheat, (with not to exceed %% miscellaneous wild seeds occurring in above seeds and grains) charcoal, marble grit Old Tavern Chick Eeed Without Grit Big Four Elevator & Milling Company, Mattoon, 111. 6470 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, oat meal, wild buckwheat (with not to exceed y 2 % miscellaneous wild seeds occurring in above seeds and grains) charcoal Big 4 Scratch Eeed 8588 3.6 10.0 6.0 Wheat, com, kafir, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed, linseed meal Bonner & Company, E. J., Lafayette, Ind. Bonner’s Scratch Eeed 8142 2.5 10.0 6.0 Wheat, com, kafir, oats, barley, sun- flower seed Boonville Milling Company, Boonville, Ind. Boone Poultry Eeed £ 7193 2.5 9.5 5.0 Wheat, corn, sorghum cane seed, sun- flower seed Boone Chick Eeed 7433 3.0 8.5 4.0 Wheat, corn, sorghum cane seed, sun- flower seed, millet Brizius Company, The Chas. W., Newburgh, Ind. Log Cabin Scratch Eeed 7979 2.5 9.0 6.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, milo, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed Loe: Cabin Scratch Grains, With Grit 8083 2.5 9.0 6.0 Wheat, com, kafir, barley, milo, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed, quartz grit Wheat, corn, kafir, milo Log Cabin Chick Feed 8515 3.0 10.0 6.0 127 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Brook Flour & Feed Mill, Brook, Ind. Rising Sun Poultry Feed 6636 2.0 9.0 6.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, millet seed, meat scraps, mica grit Browning Milling Company, W. A., Evansville, Ind. Brownings Mxd Chicken Feed 0477 2.0 9.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, oats, granite grit Burrell & Morgan, Elkhart, Ind. Morgans Feed 5876 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seeds Burge-Thomas Milling Company, Marion, Ind. 50 Tip Top Scratch Feed . 7340 2.5 9.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, oats, barley, buck- wheat, charcoal, oyster shells Butler & Company, Edw. J., Chicago, 111. Butler’s Special Poultry Feed, “With Grit”___ 6201 2.5 9.5 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, sun- flower seed, shells, charcoal, mica grit Butler’s Special Poultry Feed, “No Grit” 6202 2.5 9.5 5.0 Wheat, com, kafir, oats, barley, sun- flower seed, charcoal Byrnes & Company, W. J., Chicago, 111. Royal Meat Mash 4786 4.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat bran, wheat middlings, kafir, corn meal, alfalfa meal, linseed oil meal, beef scraps, oyster shells Royal Brand Poultry Feed 4787 3.0 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, buckwheat, sunflower seed, oyster shell, limestone grit Daisy Chick Feed, With Grit 5065 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, com, kafir, oats, millet, peas, limestone grit Daisy Chick Feed 5066 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, millet, peas Jewel Poultry Feed 5260 2.5 9.5 10.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, buckwheat, sunflower seed, oyster shell, mica grit Royal Eigeon Feed 5780 3.0 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, hemp, peas, mil- let, buckwheat, mica grit Royal Poultry Feed No Grit 6274 3.0 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo maize, oats, barley, buckwheat, sunflower seed Jewel Poultrv Feed Without Grit 6934 2.5 9.5 5.0 Wheat, com, kafir, barley, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed Cairo Milling Company, Cairo, 111. Prize Poultry Feed 8457 3.5 10.0 6.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, sunflower seed, whole wheat screenings Callahan Company, The C., Lafayette, Ind. Purdue Line First Prize Chick Feed 6608 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, hulled oats, millet Purdue Line White Hen Scratch Feed Carroll & Son, E. L., Decatur, Ind. 6600 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed, linseed oil cake Carrolls Chicken Feed 6786 3.0 9.5 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, milo maize, millet, sunflower seed Carrolls Chick Feed With Grit 8408 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, oat meal, wild buckwheat (with not to exceed y 2 % miscellaneous wild seeds occurring in above seeds and grains) charcoal, marble grit Carrolls Scratch Feed With Grit 8400 2.5 8.5 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed, lime- stone grit Chamberlain Company, F. B., St. Louis, Mo. Acorn Hen Feed _ 4849 3.5 10.0 6.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, sun- flower seed, whole screenings from wheat, oats and barley Acorn Chick Feed 4850 3.5 10.0 6.0 Wheat, com, kafir, whole screenings from wheat, oats and barley Premium Chick Feed 5965 3.5 10.0 6.0 Wheat, corn, whole wheat screenings Premium Hen Feed 5066 3.5 10.0 6.0 Wheat, com, barley, oats, sunflower seed, whole screenings from wheat, oats and barley 60 Succeeded by Thomas Milling Co. 128 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Chamberlain Company, F. B., St. Louis, Mo. Chamberlain’s Perfect Chick Feed 8255 2.5 10.0 6.0 Wheat, kafir, oat meal, millet, milo, field seeds from wheat screenings, meat, bone, charcoal, limestone grit Chamberlain’s Perfect Hen Feed 8526 3.5 11.0 4.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, rolled oats, buckwheat seed, sunflower seed, meat, bone, charcoal Chamberlain’s Perfect Mash Egg Feed Chapman-Doake Company, The, Decatur, 111. 8257 3.5 11.0 7.0 Com, rolled oats, wheat bran, corn meal, alfalfa meal, cottonseed meal, linseed meal, meat, bone, charcoal, salt Laymore Scratch Feed 8370 2.0 10.0 10.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, oats, rye, sunflower seed Diamond “F” Scratch Feed 8431 3.0 10.0 12.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, oats, sun- flower seed Laymore Fine Chick Chicago Heights Oil Mfg. Company, 8660 2.0 10.0 9.0 Wheat, corn, millet seed, whole field seeds from wheat screenings, oyster shell Chicago, 111. “Prize” Scratch Feed With Grit 6335 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, barley, buckwheat, sun- flower seed, charcoal, limestone grit “Prize” Scratch Feed, No Grit ' 6838 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, barley, buckwheat, sun- flower seeds, charcoal Cincinnati Grain & Hay Company, Cincinnati, Ohio “No-Better” Poultry Feed 8505 2.5 10.0 4.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, milo, buckwheat, sunflower seed Citizens Hay & Grain Company, Indianapolis, Ind. Citizen’s Scratch Feed 8865 5.0 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, sunflower seed City Feed Store, Plymouth, Ind. Plymouth Scratch Feed 7163 2.5 8.7 7.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, millet seed, buckwheat, sunflower seed, oyster shells, charcoal Plymouth Chick Feed _ 7541 2.5 9.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, hulled oats, charcoal, oyster shell Plymouth Egg Mash __ __ Clover Leaf Flour Mills, Kokomo, Ind. 7543 4.0 15.0 11*0 Wheat bran, wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings, hominy feed, alfalfa meal, meat scraps, cot- tonseed meal, charcoal, salt, oyster shell Clover Leaf Egg Mash __ Corno Mills Company, The, St. Louis, Mo. 8321 3.0 18.0 10.0 Com, oats, wheat bran, wheat mid- dlings, corn gluten feed, alfalfa meal, linseed oil meal, meat scraps, charcoal, molasses Corno Hen Feed 8971 3.0 10.0 3.5 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, sunflower seed, ground wheat screenings Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Company, Lafayette, Ind. Thrift Chick Feed 8689 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, steel cut oats Thrift Scratch Feed 8690 3.0 11.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, buckwheat, sunflower seed Star City Scratch Feed 9395 3.0 10.5 5.0 Corn, kafir, oats, barley, buckwheat, sunflower seed Star City Chick Feed 9396 2.5 9.5 5.0 Corn, kafir, millet, steel cut oats Cyphers Incubator Company, Buffalo, N. Y. Fattening Mash 4201 3.0 11.0 5.0 Kafir, wheat bran, wheat shorts, red- dog flour, com meal, alfalfa meal Complete Chick Food 7626 2.5 9.5 4.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo maize, mil- let, whole wheat screenings, lime- stone grit Standard Chick Food 7627 2.5 9.5 4.0 Wheat, com, kafir, milo maize, mil- let, whole wheat screenings Complete Developing Food 7628 2.5 9.5 4.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo maize, whole wheat screenings, oyster shell, lime- stone grit 129 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Cyphers Incubator Company, Buffalo, N. Y. Standard Developing Food 7629 2.5 9.5 4.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo maize, buckwheat, whole wheat screenings Complete Scratching Food 7680 2.5 9.5 4.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo maize, whole wheat screenings, oyster shell, lime- stone grit Standard Scratching Food 7631 2.5 9.5 4.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo maize, oats, buckwheat, whole wheat screenings Meat Mash 7632 3.0 15.0 8.0 Wheat middlings, corn gluten feed, corn meal, corn bran, alfalfa, red- dog flour, meat, bone, oyster shell Laying Mash ___ 7633 3.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat bran, wheat middlings, corn meal, kafir meal, alfalfa, reddog flour, blood meal, oyster shell Fertile Egg Mash 7684 3.0 9.5 12.0 Oats, wheat bran, wheat middlings, corn meal, alfalfa, oyster shell Pigeon Food _ 7635 3.0 10.0 4.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo maize, peas, hemp, millet, whole wheat screenings Growing Mash 7637 3.0 10.0 10.0 Oats, com meal, wheat middlings, alfalfa, meat, bone, oyster shell Delp Grain Company, E. E., Bourbon, Ind. Bourbon Scratch Feed 4965 3.2 10.0 6.0 Wheat, com, kafir, barley, millet, buckwheat, sunflower seed, bone, charcoal, limestone grit Bourbon Chick Feed 5006 3.2 10.0 6.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, limestone grit Dickinson Company, The Albert, Chicago, 111. Crescent Chick Feed, With Grit 2807 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, hulled oats, mil- let, limestone grit Crescent Chick Feed, No Grit 2806 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, hulled oats, millet King Pigeon Feed, With Grit 2812 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, com, kafir, peas, buckwheat, millet, hemp, grit (limestone, mica) King Pigeon Feed, No Grit 2813 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, peas, buckwheat, millet, hemp Colonial Developing Feed, With Grit 2814 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, hulled oats, buckwheat, millet, limestone grit Colonial Developing Feed, No Grit 2815 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, hulled oats, buck- wheat, millet White Cross Chick Feed, No Grit 3051 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet Queen Poultry Mash 4232 2.5 11.0 10.0 Alfalfa meal, wheat bran, wheat feed meal, corn bran, corn feed meal, beef scraps, linseed meal, y 2 % salt Pine Tree Chick Feed No Grit 4050 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet Pine Tree Chick Feed— With Grit 4051 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, limestone Globe Chick Feed With Grit 5615 2.5 10.0 5.0 grit Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, hulled oats, limestone grit Globe Chick Feed, No Grit _ 5616 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, com, kafir, millet, hulled oats Globe Developing Feed With Grit _ 5647 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, hulled oats, buck- wheat, millet, granite grit Globe Developing Feed No Grit __ 5648 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, com, kafir, hulled oats, buck- wheat, millet Colonial Chick Feed, With Grit 5777 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, limestone White Cross Chick Feed With Grit _ 5925 2.5 9.0 5.0 grit Wheat, com, kafir, millet, limestone Globe Scratch Feed With Grit . 6385 2.5 10.0 5.0 grit Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed, linseed oil cake, limestone grit Globe Scratch Feed No Grit _ . 6386 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed, linseed oil cake Crescent Scratch Feed With Grit _ .. __ 6387 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed, linseed oil cake, limestone grit Crescent Scratch Feed No Grit 6388 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed, linseed oil cake 130 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Dickinson Company, The Albert, Chicago, 111. White Cross Scratch Teed No Grit 6890 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, Pine Tree Scratch Feed No Grit 6392 2.5 10.0 5.0 buckwheat, sunflower seed Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed, lime- stone grit Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, wild Colonial Scratch Teed With Grit 6398 2.5 10.0 5.0 Rival Scratch Feed With Grit 6638 2.5 9.5 5.0 Rival Scratch Teed No Grit 6539 2.5 9.5 5.0 buckwheat (with not to exceed 1% miscellaneous wild seeds occurring in above seeds and grains) limestone grit Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, wild buckwheat (with not to exceed 1% miscellaneous wild seeds occurring in above seeds and grains) Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed Wheat, corn, kafir, millet Colonial Scratch Feed No Grit 6640 2.5 10.0 5.0 Colonial Chick Feed No Grit 0541 2.5 10.0 5.0 White Cross Scratch Feed With Grit 6968 2.5 9.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed, lime- stone grit Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, Pine Tree Scratch Feed With Grit 6969 2.5 9.0 5.0 Globe Egg Mash 6999 3.0 15.0 10.0 buckwheat, sunflower seed, lime- stone grit Wheat bran, wheat middlings, al- Globe Pigeon Feed No Grit 7088 2.5 10.0 5.0 falfa meal, corn bran, corn feed meal, linseed oil meal, meat scraps, Vz% salt Wheat, peas, kafir, millet, buck- Dixie Mills Company, East St. Louis, 111. Dixie Poultry Mash __ 7621 3.0 17.0 9.0 wheat, hemp Wheat bran, wheat middlings, alfalfa Polo Hen Feed 8262 3.0 10.0 5.0 meal, corn meal, linseed meal, gran- ulated meat, 1% charcoal, 1% salt Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, barley, em- mer, sunflower seed, whole wheat screenings Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, barley, em- mer, sunflower seed, whole wheat screenings, limestone grit Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, barley, Polo Hen Feed (With Grit) 8263 2.0 9.0 5.0 Dixie Hen Feed 8633 3.0 10.0 5.0 Polo Chick Feed (Grit) 9221 2.0 9.0 5.0 oats, emmer, sunflower seed Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, whole screenings from wheat and flax, limestone grit Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, whole screenings from wheat and flax Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, millet, whole screenings from wheat and flax Wheat, corn, oats, barley, timothy Dixie Chick Feed 9222 3.0 10.0 5.0 Polo Chick Feed 9242 2.0 9.0 5.0 Early & Daniel Company, The, Cincinnati, Ohio Eadon Chick Feed 4436 2.5 10.0 11.0 Tuxedo Scratch 4606 2.5 10.0 5.0 seed, clover seed, whole screenings from timothy and clover seeds Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, sun- flower seed Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, sun- Tuxedo Scratch (With Grit) ___ 4607 2.5 10.0 5.0 Ce-re-a-lia Egg Mash 4867 5.0 20.0 7.5 flower seed, marble grit Ground wheat, wheat bran, wheat Eadon Scratch Feed (No Grit) 5862 2.5 10.0 5.0 middlings, corn meal, ground oat groats, alfalfa leaf meal, linseed meal, beef scraps Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, rye, Tuxedo Chick 5863 2.5 10.0 5.0 buckwheat, sunflower seed Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, oat groats Eadon Chick With Grit ! 9363 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, oat groats, mil- let, limestone grit Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Eberts & Bro., North Vernon, Ind. Quality Scratch Feed 3063 2.5 10.0 14.0 Wheat, corn, barley, oats, kafir, buckwheat, sunflower seed D D Hen Feed Edinger & Company, Louisville, Ky. 8001 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, wild buckwheat, millet seed, (with not to exceed *4% miscellaneous wild seeds occurring in above seeds and grains) charcoal, marble grit Arrow Egg and Growing Mash 6694 4.0 17.0 9.0 Oats, wheat bran, wheat middlings, corn meal, alfalfa meal, linseed meal, meat scraps, bone meal, char- coal, 1% salt Arrow Chick Feed (With Grit) 6695 2.7 10.5 4.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo maize, mil let, whole wheat screenings, lime- stone grit Arrow Chick Feed (No Grit) 6696 2.7 10.5 4.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo maize, mil- let, whole wheat screenings Arrow Hen Feed (With Grit) 6697 3.0 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo maize, bar- ley, clipped oats, sunflower seed, limestone grit Arrow Hen Feed (No Grit) 6698 3.0 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo maize, bar- ley, clipped oats, sunflower seed Producer Scratch Feed 7263 3.0 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, milo maize, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed, linseed oil cake Producer Developing Feed 7264 3.0 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, hulled oats, milo maize, millet, buckwheat Producer Chick Feed 7265 3.0 10.0 4.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, hulled oats, mil- let, milo maize Emison & Company, J. & S., (Baltic Mills) Vincennes, Ind. Blue Diamond Little Chick Feed 5071 2.5 8.5 6.0 Wheat containing field seeds, corn, kafir, barley, millet, carbonate of lime (limestone) Blue Diamond Poultry Feed Enos, M. T., New Albany, Ind. 6248 2.5 8.5 6.0 Wheat containing field seeds, corn, kafir, barley, oats, rye, sunflower seed, corn germ, carbonate of lime (limestone) Enos’ Chick Feed 3650 3.2 9.5 6.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo maize, mil- let, charcoal Eureka Mills Company, St. Louis, Mo. Eureka Chick Feed 5794 3.0 10.0 4.7 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, whole wheat screenings, heneta grit (lime, sodium, silica, phosphorous com- pounds) Eureka Hen Feed Everitt’s 0. K. Seed Store, Indianapolis, Ind. 5795 2.4 10.0 2.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, sunflower seed, heneta grit (sodium, lime, sil- ica, phosphorous compounds) 0. K. Scratch Feed Fairplay Feed Mills, Linton, Ind. Success Scratch Feed (With Grit & Oyster 8706 2.7 10.0 6.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, buckwheat, whole wheat screenings, non ger- minating garden seeds Shell) 6454 2.5 ‘ 9.5 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, sun- flower seed, charcoal, oyster shell, mica grit Success Chick Feed With Grit Fairplay Scratch Feed With Grit & Oyster 6720 2.5 9.5 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, charcoal, mica grit Shell 7753 2.5 9.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, sun- flower seed, charcoal, oyster shell, mica grit Fairplay Scratch Feed 7826 2.5 9.5 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, barley, oats, sunflower seed, charcoal Ferger Grain Company, The, Cincinnati, Ohio Columbia Scratch Grains 5356 3.0 10.0 4.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, buckwheat, sunflower seed, millet seed Columbia Little Chick Feed 7655 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn grits, kafir, oat groats, millet seed 132 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Fisher Bros., Evansville, Ind. Diamond Scratch Feed 8928 2.5 9.0 7.0 Wheat, corn, oats, sunflower seed, whole wheat screenings, charcoal Wheat, corn, oats, sunflower seed, whole wheat screenings, charcoal, limestone grit Wheat, corn, millet seed Diamond Scratch Feed With Grit 8029 2.5 9.0 7.0 Diamond Chick Feed 9282 2.5 9.0 7.0 Diamond Chicken Chowder 9348 3.0 17.0 8.0 Wheat bran, wheat middlings, corn Gandy & Company, 0., South Whitley, Ind. Chick Feed Standard A. Brand 4747 2.5 10.0 5.0 feed meal, alfalfa meal, linseed meal, meat scraps, 1% charcoal Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, millet Standard A. Brand Poultry Feed .. 4748 2.5 9.5 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, mil- let, buckwheat, sunflower seed Wheat, com, kafir, oats, milo, sun- flower seed, charcoal Corn, oats, kafir, whole wheat screen- Gas City Elevator Company, Gas City, Ind. Scratch Feed 8569 2.5 9.0 5.0 Gibson Live Stock & Feed Company, Princeton, Ind. Pilgrim Scratch Grains 9123 2.5 8.0 7.0 Gienger & Company, J., Jeffersonville, Ind. Blue Bell Scratch Feed 6014 2.5 9.0 6.0 ings, oyster shells Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, sunflower Glen Echo Mills, Indianapolis, Ind. Indian Scratch Feed 5638 2.0 8.0 10.0 seed Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, sunflower Golden Grain Milling Company, East St. Louis, 111. Golden Grain Scratch Feed 7366 3.0 10.0 6.0 seed Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, milo maize, sunflower seed Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, milo Economy Scratch Feed 7367 3.0 10.0 6.0 Golden Grain Chick Feed 7368 3.0 10.0 5.0 maize Wheat, corn, kafir, milo maize, millet Gotto, 0. W., Michigan City, Ind. “Peerless” Scratch Feed 8609 2.5 10.0 6.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, buckwheat, charcoal, oyster shells, mica grit Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, steel cut Graft, O. V., Winchester, Ind. Imperial Chick Feed 7896 2.5 10.0 5.0 Imperial Scratch Feed 7867 2.5 10.0 5.0 oats Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, cane seed, Grain Belt Mills Company, St. Joseph, Mo. “Gee-Bee” Hen Feed 9187 3.0 10.0 6.0 buckwheat, sunflower seed Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, “Gee-Bee” Chick Feed 9188 3.0 10.0 6.0 milo, sunf lower seed Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, millet Habig Bros., Indianapolis, Ind. Habig Brothers Chick Food 2621 5.0 8.0 4.0 Wheat, com, kafir, millet, limestone Pigeon Feed 4112 3.0 10.5 5.0 grit Wheat, corn, kafir, buckwheat, peas, hemp seed, charcoal, limestone grit Corn, kafir, millet, whole wheat Yankee Chick Food 5673 3.0 8.0 6.0 Hales & Edwards Company, Chicago, 111. Morning Glory Scratch Feed (With Grit, Shell & Charcoal) 7467 2.5 10.0 5.0 screenings, limestone grit Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, wild buckwheat, sunflower seed, 1% char- coal, 4% oyster shell, 4% quartz grit Corn feed meal, old process linseed Red Comb Chick Mash With Buttermilk 8738 4.0 16.0 9.0 Morning Glory Scratch Feed (With Grit & Shell) 8939 2.0 9.0 7.0 oil meal, dried buttermilk, oat flour, barley flour, wheat mid- dlings, alfalfa leaf flour, dextrose, not over 1% calcium carbonate, %% salt Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, wild buckwheat, sunflower seed, not over 4% oyster shell, 4% limestone grit 133 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Hales & Edwards Company, Chicago, 111. Red Comb Poultry Peed (No Grit) Red Comb Mash Peed (With Dried Butter- 8953 2.0 9.0 7.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed milk) and Shell 9036 4.0 15.0 10.0 Oats, dried buttermilk, linseed oil meal, corn feed meal, meat scrap, wheat bran, wheat middlings, al- falfa meal, not over 5% oyster shell Red Comb Poultry Peed (With Grit & Shell)- 9103 2.0 9.0 7.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed, not over 3% oyster shell, 3% calcium carbon- ate Red Comb Coarse Chick Peed (With Grit) 9104 2.0 9.0 7.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, hulled oats, not over 6% calcium carbon- ate Red Comb Coarse Chick Feed (No Grit) 9106 2.0 9.0 7.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, hulled oats Red Comb Pine Chick Peed (With Grit) 9106 2.0 9.0 7.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, steel cut oats, not over 6% calcium car- bonate Red Comb Pine Chick Peed (No Grit) Red Comb Crate Pattener (With Dried But- 9107 2.0 9.0 7.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, steel cut oats termilk) _ __ 9108 4.0 15.0 8.0 Oat flour, barley flour, reddog flour, wheat middlings, alfalfa meal, corn feed meal, dried buttermilk Cackle Poultry Peed (With Grit & Shell) 9100 2.0 9.0 7.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, sun- flower seed, not over 4% oyster shell, 4% calcium carbonate Cackle Poultry Feed (No Grit) 9110 2.0 9.0 7.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, sun- flower seed Cackle Fine Chick Peed (With Grit) 9111 2.0 9.0 7.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, not over 8% calcium carbonate Cackle Fine Chick Peed (No Grit) 9112 2.0 9.0 7.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed Morning Glory Scratch Peed (No Grit) 9113 2.0 9.0 7.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, wild buckwheat, spnflower seed Pound Squab Pigeon Peed (With Grit) 9114 2.0 9.0 7.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, hemp, peas, buckwheat, millet, not over 6% cal- cium carbonate Pound Squab Pigeon Feed (No Grit) 9115 2.0 9.0 7.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, hemp, peas, buckwheat, millet Hanks Company, Howard H., Chicago, 111. Golden Egg Mash Feed 5372 4.0 15.0 8.0 Wheat bran, wheat middlings, al- falfa meal, oat meal, corn meal, ground cake from flaxseed and field seeds, (wheat, wild buckwheat, pig- eon grass, wild mustard) meat scraps, charcoal, oyster shell, mica grit Gold Egg Chick Peed (No Grit) _ _ _ 5889 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, steel cut oats, charcoal Kukoo Chick Feed (No Grit) _ 5061 2.5 9.5 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, char- Gold Egg Pigeon Peed, With Grit 6165 2.5 10.0 5.0 coal Wheat, corn, kafir, hemp seed, peas, millet seed, buckwheat, charcoal, mica grit Early Bird Scratch Feed, No Grit, No Shell- 6186 2.5 9.5 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, sun- flower seed, charcoal Early Bird Scratch Feed, With Grit & Shell 6311 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed, char- coal, oyster shell, mica grit Golden Egg Fine Chick Feed With Grit 6684 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, steel cut oats, charcoal, oyster shells, mica grit Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, char- coal, oyster shells, mica grit Kukoo Fine Chick Peed With Grit 6685 2.5 9.5 5.0 Kukoo Coarse Chick Feed With Grit 6754 2.5 9.5 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, char- coal, oyster shell, mica grit Golden Egg Scratch Feed With Grit & Shell.. 7036 2.5 9.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, milo maize, barley, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed, charcoal, oyster shell, limestone grit 134 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1913 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Hanks Company, Howard H., Chicago, 111. Kukoo Scratch Feed With Garit & Shell 7037 2.5 8.5 5.0 Wheat, corn, milo maize, barley, sun- flower seed, charcoal, oyster shells, limestone grit Golden Egg Scratch Feed No Grit No Shell 7040 2.5 9.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, milo maize, barley, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed, charcoal Golden Egg Coarse Chick Feed With Grit 7564 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, hulled oats, charcoal, oyster shells, mica grit Kukoo Scratch Feed No Grit No Shell 7583 2.5 8.5 5.0 Wheat, corn, milo maize, barley, sun- flower seed, charcoal Hartman & Sons, Louis, New Albany, Ind. Chicken Feed Havens, P. W., Hartford City, Ind. 2022 2.5 10.0 7.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, sunflower seed, whole wheat screenings, mica, feld- spar, quartz grit Havens’ Best of All Chicken Feed 5540 2.2 8.5 6.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, milo maize, buckwheat, sunflower seed, charcoal, limestone grit Start Me Eight _ Haynes Milling Company, The, Portland, Ind. 5541 2.5 9.0 4.5 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, charcoal, oyster shell “U. B. Developer” __ 5083 2.5 9.5 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, whole wheat screenings “Hens Will Lay” _ Heitschmidt, A. C., Michigan City, Ind. 8061 3.0 17.5 9.0 Wheat bran, wheat middlings, corn gluten meal, corn meal, linseed oil meal, meat scraps Heitschmidt’s Screenings Henderson & Company, W. D., 2551 2.5 10.0 6.0 Wheat, corn, barley, oats, kafir, buckwheat, sunflower seed, shells, mica grit Fort Wayne, Ind. Atlas Poultry Mash H. 0. Company, The, Buffalo, N. T. 5333 3.0 14.0 10.0 Wheat shorts, corn meal, alfalfa meal, linseed oil meal, beef scraps, charcoal, salt The H. 0. Company’s Steam Cooked Chick Feed 6653 3.0 12.0 9.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, peas, cut oat meal The H-0 Co’s Algrane Scratching Feed Holser & Company, B. I., Walkerton, Ind. 6838 3.5 11.0 9.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, hulled oats, barley, milo maize, peas, buckwheat, sunflower seed, whole wheat screen- ings Ho osier Scratch Feed 5814 2.5 9.5 6.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, rye, buck- wheat, sunflower seed, linseed cake, oyster shells Hoosier Chick Feed _ 5815 2.5 9.0 5.0 Wheat, com, kafir, millet seed, oyster shells Hoosier Egg Mash Humphreys & Company, J. F., Bloomington, 111. 5816 3.0 14.0 10.0 Oats, wheat bran, wheat middlings, alfalfa meal, wheat feed meal, corn bran, corn feed meal, linseed meal, meat scraps Wish Bone Poultry Feed, Hen Size 5543 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, buck- wheat, sunflower seed Wish Bone Chick Feed With Grit 6473 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, oat meal, wild buckwheat, (with not to exceed V 2 % miscellaneous wild seeds occurring in above seeds and grains) charcoal, marble grit Wish Bone Chick Feed Without Grit Indiana Elevator, Indianapolis, Ind. 6474 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, oat meal, wild buckwheat, (with not to exceed y 2 % miscellaneous wild seeds occurring in above seeds and grains) charcoal Hoosier Scratch Feed _ Indiana Milling Company, Terre Haute, Ind. 8579 2.0 8.5 6.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, oats, buck- wheat, sunflower seed, whole wheat screenings, charcoal, oyster shell, limestone grit 3—7 Chick Feed 3133 3.0 7.0 20.0 Whole oat screenings, whole corn screenings Eggo Chicken Feed 3965 2.0 10.0 2.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley Everybodys Poultry Feed 4768 4.0 10.0 4.0 1 Wheat, corn, oats *| i35 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Indiana Seed Company, Indianapolis, Ind. Monument Brand Chick Food 2245 3.0 10.5 4.5 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, flaxseed, Monument Brand Pigeon Feed 3041 2.5 10.5 4.5 charcoal, whole and ground screen- ings from wheat, corn, oats and barley Wheat, corn, kafir, buckwheat, mil- Monument Brand Scratch Food 3421 3.0 10.5 5.0 let, peas, hemp seed. Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, Monument Brand Poultry Mash 5113 3.0 10.5 9.0 cane, buckwheat, sunflower seed, linseed oil cake, whole screenings from wheat, corn, oats and barley Wheat bran, alfalfa meal, linseed oil Monument Brand Mixed Feed 5643 2.0 9.0 6.0 meal, corn bran, siftings from crushed wheat, corn and kafir, beef scraps, charcoal Millet seed, corn bran, siftings from Indiana Squab Company, The, Terre Haute, Ind. “Hoosier Pigeon Feed” _ 7407 2.5 10.0 7.0 cracked wheat, corn, kafir and cane seed, charcoal Corn, kafir, peas, peanut kernels International Sugar Feed Company, Minneapolis, Minn. International Poultry Feed ('Chick Size') 5823 3.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, International Poultry Feed (With Grit) 8090 3.5 10.0 5.0 milo maize, millet seed Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, oats, bar- ley, buckwheat, sunflower seed, quartz and limestone grit Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, International Poultry Feed 9090 3.5 10.0 5.0 Iroquois Roller Mills, Rensselaer, Ind. Iroquois Hen Feed 5089 2.5 8.0 11.0 milo, buckwheat, sunflower seed Wheat, corn, kafir, buckwheat, oys- Iroquois Chick Starter 5797 2.8 8.7 5.0 ter shells Wheat, corn, millet, charcoal, mica J Street Milling Company, Laporte, Ind. Scratch Feed _ .. 2735 2.5 9.0 7.0 grit Wheat, corn, oats, barley Maple City Scratch Feed 9255 2.5 9.0 7.0 Corn, oats, barley, whole wheat Jordan, Geo. M., Vincennes, Ind. G. M. J. Red Hen — “Scratch Feed” 8993 2.5 10.0 6.0 screenings Corn, kafir, oats, milo, sunflower G. M. J. Chick Feed 9269 2.5 9.5 13.0 seed, oyster shells Screened cracked corn, millet seed, Kasch, C. C., Logansport, Ind. “Kay” Chick Feed . ___ ___ 7594 2.5 9.0 6.0 oyster shells Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, charcoal. Kiest Milling Company, Knox, Ind. Kiest Milling Co’s Poultry Feed 5107 2.5 8.0 7.0 limestone grit Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, milo maize, buckwheat, sunflower seed, charcoal Oats, corn, wheat bran, wheat mid- Kiest’s Poultry Mash _ 9072 3.0 15.0 12.0 Kingman Grain & Milling Company, Kingman, Ind. Busy Bee Chick Feed 5792 2.0 9.0 5.0 dlings, ground wheat screenings, al- falfa meal, meat scraps, linseed oil meal Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, charcoal, Kingsbury Milling Company, Kingsbury, Ind. Interstate Producer Feed 5009 2.9 10.0 12.0 limestone grit Wheat, corn, kafir, buckwheat, mil- Interstate Chick Feed 5837 2.5 10.0 5.0 let, shells, mica grit Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, hulled Interstate Scratch Feed 5838 2.5 10.0 5.0 oats, oyster shells, limestone grit Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, buck- Knecht Milling Company, Hartford City, Ind. Sunflower Scratch Feed __ ... 6143 2.5 10.0 5.0 wheat, clipped oats, sunflower seed, linseed cake, oyster shell, limestone grit Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, sun- ft. flower seed, charcoal, oyster shell 136 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Knoke & Company, H. C., Chicago, 111. Perfecto Poultry Food _ Knollenberg Milling Company, Quincy, 111. 8455 2.5 9.5 5.0 Wheat, com, kafir, oats, barley, peas, buckwheat, sunflower seed, whole screenings from wheat and barley, limestone grit National High Protein Egg Scratch 4246 3.5 12.5 3.5 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, buck- wheat, sunflower seeds, beef scraps Kornfalfa Feed Milling Company, Kansas City, Mo. Kluk Scratch Feed 3725 3.2 10.0 4.5 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo maize, buckwheat, sunflower seed Kluk Chick Feed 3726 3.5 9.5 4.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo maize, millet seed Krause Milling Company, Chas. A., Milwaukee, Wis. Blue Top Fine Chick Feed (No Grit) 6560 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, com, kafir, millet seed Blue Top Fine Chick Feed (With Grit) 6534 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, char- coal, mica grit Blue Top Scratch Feed (With Grit) 7327 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed, lime- stone grit Blue Top Scratch Feed (No GritV 7328 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed Blue Top Chick Feed, With Grit _ 7752 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, car- bonate of lime (crysco grit) Krause Mash 8058 3.5 18.0 7.0 Wheat bran, wheat middlings, malzo (corn) reddog flour, corn feed meal, corn germ oil meal, hominy feed, alfalfa meal, meat scraps Cream City Scratch Feed, With Grit 8828. 2.5 8.5 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, barley, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed, carbonate of lime (crysco grit) Cream City Scratch Feed, No Grit 8820 2.5 8.5 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, barley, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed Conservation Scratch No Grit 8958 2.5 10.0 5.0 Corn, kafir, milo, barley, oats, buck- wheat, sunflower seed Krause Chick Feed With Grit 0006 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, carbonate of lime (crysco grit) Krause Chick Feed No Grit 0181 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet Conservation Chick With Grit 9347 2.5 9.0 5.0 Corn, kafir, milo, millet, carbonate of lime (limestone) Conservation Chick No Grit 0350 2.5 9.0 5.0 Corn, kafir, milo, millet Conservation Developing With Grit 9860 2.5 10.0 5.0 Corn, kafir, milo, buckwheat, millet, carbonate of lime (limestone) Conservation Developing No Grit 9861 2.5 10.0 5.0 Cora, kafir, milo, buckwheat, millet Conservation Scratch With Grit Kuhn & Son, John H., Michigan City, Ind. 9862 2.5 10.0 5.0 Corn, kafir, milo, barley, oats, buck- wheat, sunflower seed, carbonate of lime (limestone) Heneatta Scratch Feed, No Grit 7798 2.2 9.0 8.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, rye Kuhn’s Scratch Feed LaPorte Milling Company, LaPorte, Ind. 9052 2.5 9.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, rye, buckwheat, sunflower seed, lime- stone grit U-Need-Me Chick Feed 4305 3.0 9.0 8.0 Wheat, corn, oats, whole wheat screenings Linkhart & Son, J. W., North Vernon, Ind. Linkhart’s Chick Feed 7616 2.0 9.5 8.0 Salvage wheat, corn, kafir, millet, charcoal Linton Mill Company, Linton, Ind. Success Scratch Feed _ 5843 2.5 10.0 4.5 Wheat, corn, kafir, wild buckwheat Success Scratch Feed With Grit 5844 2.5 10.0 4.5 Wheat, corn, kafir, wild buckwheat, marble grit Success Little Chick Feed 5846 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, pigeon grass, mil- let, marble grit Loogootee Milling Company, Loogootee, Ind. Mixed Chicken Feed 3824 2.5 10.0 8.0 Wheat, corn, oats L. M. C. Chick Feed 8567 4.0 10.0 10.0 Wheat, corn, peas, oyster shell, mica grit i37 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) LABEL Official No. Guaranteed 1 Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber 2523 2.5 10.0 4.5 2524 2.5 10.0 4.5 6237 2.5 10.0 4.0 3888 2.0 10.0 6.0 3512 2.5 10.0 5.0 4128 2.5 11.0 11.0 8038 2.0 9.0 7.5 3501 3.5 15.0 8.0 3548 3.0 10.0 4.0 5274 3.5 12.0 10.0 5724 2.5 10.0 6.0 7462 3.0 17.0 6.0 7646 3.0 17.0 5.0 8006 4.0 17.0 6.0 5125 2.5 10.0 5.0 5805 2.5 10.0 6.0 1732 2.5 10.0 2.0 1733 2.5 10.0 2.0 4956 3.0 12.5 14.0 i 2363 2.9 10.0 2.5 1 2364 3.1 9.4 2.5 j 3091 3.0 8.0 13.8 3540 2.7 10.0 4.8 4499 3.5 15.0 7.0 4983 3.0 12.0 8.5 and to be composed of the following ingredients Loughry Bros. Milling & Grain Company, Monticello, Ind. Loughry’s Star Poultry Feed Loughry’s Star Chick Feed Louisville Cereal Mill Company, Louisville, Ky. Nonesuch Poultry Feed Maginot Bros., Hammond, Ind. Magnet Poultry Feed “Magnet” Chick Feed “Magnet” Poultry Mash Majot & Morgan, Michigan City, R. R. 1, Ind. Scratch Feed Martin, John D., Lafayette, Ind. Duree Poultry Mash Duree Chick Feed Duree Mash Feed 5074 Duree Chick Milk Mash 7646 Duree Milk Egg Mash _ 8006 Maumee Valley Mills, New Haven, Ind. Atlas Chicken Feed Vim and Vigor Chicken Feed Mayflower Mills, Fort Wayne, Ind. Merchants Hay & Grain Company, Indianapolis, Ind. Midland Poultry Food Company, I Kansas City, Mo. Midland Poultry Food Chick Fc Midland Poultry Food Scratch Midland Scratch Feed Developer No. 2 Growing Chick Food Wheat, com, oats, buckwheat, kafir, sunflower seed, whole wheat screen- ings, shells, charcoal, quartz grit Wheat, corn, millet, kafir, oats, whole wheat screenings, charcoal, quartz grit Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, sun- flower seed Wheat, corn, oats, kafir, barley, buckwheat, sunflower seed, linseed cake, shells, charcoal, limestone grit Wheat, corn, kafir, hulled oats, mil- let, limestone grit Corn, wheat bran, wheat middlings, alfalfa meal, wheat flour, corn feed meal, meat, blood, bone Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, buckwheat, oyster shells, mica and quartz grit Wheat bran, middlings, oats, corn meal, gluten meal, alfalfa meal, oil meal, beef scraps, blood flour Wheat, corn, kafir, steel cut oats, millet, hemp, bone Oats, wheat bran, wheat middlings, corn meal, alfalfa meal, linseed oil meal, beef scraps, blood meal Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, barley, buckwheat, sunflower seed Wheat bran, wheat middlings, corn feed meal, corn gluten feed, beef meal, blood meal, linseed oil meal Gentian, wheat bran, wheat mid- dlings, corn feed meal, milk albu- men, beef meal, blood meal, linseed oil meal Wheat bran, wheat middlings, corn germ meal, alfalfa meal, meat meal, linseed oil meal, blood meal, milk albumen, %% salt Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, mil- let Corn, kafir, oats, barley, rye, buck- wheat, whole wheat screenings, oys- ter shell, limestone grit Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, sunflower seeds, milo maize, flaxseed, millet, limestone grit, charcoal Wheat, corn, barley, kafir, oats, milo maize, flaxseed, buckwheat, sun- flower seeds, limestone, charcoal Mustard, wheat bran, wheat mid- dlings, alfalfa meal, corn feed meal, beef scraps, linseed oil meal, charred bone Wheat, corn, kafir, millet Wheat, corn, kafir, sunflower seed Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, cane, sand grit Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, sand grit Corn, wheat bran, wheat shorts, dried blood, charcoal, sand grit Corn, wheat bran, wheat shorts, dried blood, charcoal, quartz grit Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) LABEL Midland Poultry Pood Company, Kansas C'ity, Mo. 4084 4.0 9.0 7.0 Wheat bran, wheat shorts, wheat flour, corn meal, dried blood, char- Milan Mill & Elevator, Milan, Ind. 9845 2.5 9.5 5.0 coal, quartz grit Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed Moutoux, P. & H., Evansville, Ind. 9239 2.5 9.0 9.0 Wheat, corn, oats, whole wheat 92-83 2.5 9.0 9.0 screenings, sunflower seed Wheat, corn, millet, whole wheat screenings, charcoal McCormick & Son, Chas. W., Logansport, Ind. Balanced Poultry Peed McCoy Bros., Liberty, Ind. 6045 3857 3.0 3.0 9.0 10.0 6.0 8.0 Wheat, com, kafir, oats, milo maize, millet, buckwheat, sunflower seed, linseed oil cake, charcoal, oyster shells, limestone grit Wheat, corn, oats, barley, sunflower 3358 5.0 18.0 7.0 seed Wheat bran, wheat middlings, corn 3663 5.0 16.0 8.0 meal, old process linseed oil meal, beef scraps, charcoal Wheat bran, middlings, corn meal, Reliance Chick Scratch Peed 3664 3.0 9.0 5.0 alfalfa meal, beef scraps, linseed oil cake meal, (old process) Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, pin head oats, charcoal McCoy & Company, U. G., Vincennes, Ind. Star Scratch Chicken Peed 7944 2.5 7.5 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, sunflower seed, charcoal, oyster shell Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, sunflower seed, charcoal Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, sunflower seed, charcoal, oyster shell Star Scratch thicken Peed Without Grit. 8002 3.0 9.0 6.0 Our Choice Scratch Chieken Peed 8063 3.0 8.0 5.0 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis, Ind. Eureka Hen Peed 5871 2.5 10.0 6.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, buckwheat, sunflower seed, charcoal Wheat bran, corn gluten meal, al- Eureka Poultry Mash 6572 3.0 12.0 11.0 Eureka Chick Peed 6611 2.5 10.0 5.0 falfa meal, wheat feed meal, corn feed meal, linseed meal, meat scraps, %% salt Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, car- bonate of lime (limestone) McCullough*, J. Charles, Cincinnati, Ohio Acme Chick 2926 3.0 10.0 11.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, buckwheat, millet seed, cane seed, whole screenings (principally from millet seed, cane seed and clover seed) limestone grit McCullough Seed Company, The J. Chas., Cincinnati, Ohio J. C. McC'. Poultry Peed 5674 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, mil- let, cane, buckwheat, sunflower seed McMahan Bros., Valparaiso, Ind. Perfection Poultry ivr^sh _ 4902 2.5 10.0 10.0 Corn, oats, wheat bran, wheat mid- dlings, alfalfa meal, corn gluten feed, lmseed meal, beef scraps, bone National Oats Company, St. Louis, Mo. Nitro Hen Peed . 8963 3.0 10.0 3.5 meal . , Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, Nutro Chick Feed - . 8972 3.0 10.0 3.5 ground wheat screenings Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, Diamond “O” H°n Peed With Grit, . 9020 3.0 10.0 3.5 ground wheat screenings Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, ground wheat screenings, marble National Produce Company, Evansville, Ind. National Scratch Peed . 8060 2.5 9.0 6.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, milo, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed Neumann Company, John G., Evansville, Ind. No Waste Perajeh PeCd 7087 2.5 9.0 6.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, milo maize, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain m C A .2 8 ® o * 0 } S ^ .Z o O P ft U and to be composed of the following ingredients 139 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) LABEL Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain M fl«H .2 8® o £ s >-7 2 S-I S ft u I .S tn +f J* « ft a ® o Vila a o +5 :2 G «H |E ft u Odon Milling Company, Odon, Ind. Champion Chick Feed _ _ 2.5 10.0 5.0 Ohio Valley Seed Company, Evansville, Ind. Bell Brand Chick Feed _ . 3589 3.5 10.5 7.0 Golden Egg Dry Mash J 5345 3.5 14.0 6.0 Bell Brand Poultry Feed _ _ - 6306 3.0 10.0 6.0 Full-Nest Scratch Feed _ 6594 2.0 3.0 9.0 20.0 7.0 7.0 Ossian Roller Mills, Ossian, Ind. Dry Mash Chick Feed _ _ 7554 Egg Producer 8714 9094 3.0 3.5 i a n 1 A A Egg Mash ±*x . U i ct a XU .U 1 A A Oswego Milling Company, Oswego, N. T. Pontiac Scratch Feed _ 8601 9289 1.5 4.0 XO. U 1A A XU.O PC A Ovie’s Hatchery Company, Marion, Ind. Ovie’s Baby Chick Starter ___ XU .U 18.0 O.U 8.0 Pancost Milling Company, Elkhart, Ind Chick Food 6888 7 PC Q PC Park & Pollard Company of Illinois, Chicago, 111. Baby Buster Chick Feed _ 8423 8424 8425 8426 9397 9398 Ca . U 2.0 1 PC / .0 11 A 0.0 c A Red Ribbon Scratch Feed XX .U irt a O.U r A Red Ribbon Chick Feed . Intermediate Chick Feed 1 . 0 2.0 1 PC XU .U 10.0 1 A A o.U 5.0 ' PC A Peirce Company, 0. W., Lafayette, Ind Flag Brand Chick Feed J- . O 9 PC XU. 1/ Q PC O.U PC A t Flag Brand Scratch Feed . & . o 9 A y . o 1 A PC O.U f PC A 4 Peru Milling Company, Peru, Ind Peru Poultry Feed _ 'T(MR O .V 9 PC XU . D 1 A A O.U < Peters Mill Company, M. C., Omaha, Neb. Peters’ Red Feather Poultry Scratch Feed 1 tJ.U 9168 £ .u 3.0 XU. U 10.0 5.0 1 6.0 1 Peters’ Red Feather Poultry Mash Feed 9169 3.0 14.0 11.0 ( Peters’ Red Feather Poultry Chick Feed... Peters Re-Peter Poultry Scratch Feed 9170 9171 3.0 3.0 2.5 10.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 1 7.0 ( rr n x Prairie State Milling Company, Chicago, 111 . Prairie State Scratch Feed No Grit 6762 ff O.U V and to be composed of the following ingredients Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, oat meal, wild buckwheat, (with not to exceed. y 2 % miscellaneous wild seed occurring in above seeds and grains) charcoal Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, hulled oats, flaxseed, charcoal Wheat bran, shorts, corn meal, lin- seed meal, alfalfa meal, corn gluten feed, meat scraps, charcoal, heneta grit (sodium, lime, silica, phos- phorus compounds) Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, sun- flower seeds, charcoal Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, whole wheat screenings, oyster shells, mica grit Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings, wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings, corn meal, corn gluten meal, beef scraps, char- coal Wheat bran, wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings, oats, corn gluten feed, charcoal, salt Wheat bran, wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings, ground oats, corn gluten feed, old process linseed oil meal, cottonseed meal, corn bran, salt, charcoal Wheat, com, kafir, barley, milo, oats, buckwheat Millet seed, rape seed, wheat bran, wheat middlings, corn meal, corn germ meal, oat meal, meat scraps, bone meal, Epsom salt, charcoal Corn, oats, buckwheat, whole wheat screenings Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, oats, millet seed, shredded fish Vheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, milo, buckwheat, sunflower seed buckwheat sunflower seed Vheat, com, kafir, oats, cane seed, sunflower seed, oyster shells corn, kafir, barley, buckwheat, sunflower milo, middlings, corn germ meal, linseed oil meal, alfalfa flour, buttermilk sunflower , corn, kafir, barley, buck- wheat, sunflower seed, charcoal 140 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. JNot less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Prairie State Milling Company, Chicago, 111. 6763 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, buck- wheat, sunflower seed, charcoal, oyster shell, limestone grit Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, buck- wheat, sunflower seed, charcoal Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, buck- wheat, sunflower seed, charcoal, oyster shell, limestone grit Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, hulled oats, charcoal, limestone grit Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, steel cut oats, charcoal Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, steel cut 6764 2.5 10.0 5.0 6766 2.5 10.0 5.0 Prairie State Chick Peed, Coarse, With Grit— 6766 6767 2.5 2.5 10.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 6768 2.5 10.0 5.0 6769 2.5 10.0 5.0 oats, charcoal, limestone grit Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, steel cut oats, charcoal Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, steel cut oats, charcoal, limestone grit Wheat bran, wheat middlings, wheat 6770 2.5 10.0 5.0 7255 3.5 17.0 10.0 Red Crown Scratch Peed, No Grit 7266 2.5 10.0 5.0 meal, corn feed meal, kafir meal, al- falfa meal, linseed oil meal, meat scraps, charcoal, oyster shell Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, wild Red Crown Scratch Feed, W ith Grit - 7267 2.5 10.0 5.0 buckwheat, sunflower seed, charcoal Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, wild Prairie State Pig p on Bppri _ 7744 2.5 10.0 5.0 buckwheat, sunflower seed, oyster shells, charcoal, limestone grit Wheat, corn, kafir, buckwheat, peas, Prater-Mottier Company, Terre Haute, Ind. Praters Scratch BpppI 7682 1.5 6.0 3.0 hemp seed, millet seed, charcoal, limestone grit Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, sunflower Praters A. Scratch Peed 7612 3.0 8.0 15.0 seed, limestone grit Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, sunflower Praters Chick P p prJ 8400 2.0 7.0 15.0 Corn, kafir, whole screenings from Purina Mills, Branch, Ralston Purina Company, St. Louis, Mo. Purina Scratch P pp d 7827 2.5 10.0 4.0 wheat, millet and clover seed, lime- stone grit Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, milo, sun- Pni’inq. Gh i plr Ppfid 8004 2.5 10.0 4.0 flower seed Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, milo Purina ^hi p k p n T^at pr| a 8585 5.0 9.0 9.0 Ground corn, ground oats, kafir meal, barley meal, ground sunflower seeds, wheat middlings, corn germ meal, linseed meal Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, steel cut oats, millet, whole wheat screenings Wheat, corn, kafir, hulled oats, milo Purity Oats Company, Davenport, Iowa Iowa Chick Bfipri 6760 3.5 10.0 5.0 ppfnf.pl-i Ppprl 7121 3.2 10.0 5.0 Perfect Chick Peed Iowa Chick Peed, With Grit 7122 7464 3.5 3.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 maize, barley, buckwheat, sunflower seed, whole wheat screenings Wheat, corn, kafir, milo maize, steel cut oats, millet, whole wheat screenings Wheat, corn, kafir, milo maize, steel Tom Boy Ohiclr Pperi, With Grit, 7545 2.7 10.0 5.0 cut oats, millet, whole wheat screen- ings, limestone grit Wheat, corn, kafir, milo maize, steel cut oats, millet, whole wheat screen- ings, limestone grit Wheat, corn, kafir, milo maize, steel Tom Boy ^hick P pp d (Nn Grit) 7546 3.0 10.0 5.0 Tom Boy Scratch Bppr| (With Grit) 7786 2.7 10.0 5.0 cut oats, millet, whole wheat screen- ings Whej^t, corn, kafir, milo maize, bar- ley, hulled oats, buckwheat, sun- flower seed, limestone grit Wheat, corn, kafir, milo maize, bar- Tom Boy Scratch P pp d (Nn Grit) . 7787 2.7 10.0 5.0 ley, hulled oats, buckwheat, sun- flower seed Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) LABEL Purity Oats Company, Davenport, Iowa Iowa Scratch Peed (With Grit) Iowa Scratch Peed Tom Boy Poultry Mash Quaker Oats Company, The, Chicago, 111. Eureka Hen Peed (With Grit) Eureka Hen Peed (Without Grit) Purity Hen Peed (Without Grit) Mothers Peed (Hen Size) Mothers Feed (Chick Size) Quaker Poultry Mash Quaker Chick Peed With Grit Quaker Chick Peed Without Grit Schumacher Little Chick Feed Without Grit_. Schumacher Little Chick Peed With Grit. Purity Chick Peed With Grit Purity Chick Peed Without Grit Blue Ribbon Chick Peed With Grit Blue Ribbon Chick Feed Without Grit Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients 7788 2.7 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo maize, bar- ley, hulled oats, buckwheat, sun- flower seed, limestone grit 7780 2.7 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo maize, bar- ley, hulled oats, buckwheat, sun- flower seed 8146 4.0 15.0 10.0 Wheat, barley, kafir, milo, millet, buckwheat, meat, wheat bran, wheat middlings, oat meal, oat germ meal, oat middlings, corn meal, corn gluten feed, hominy feed, alfalfa meal, rock phosphate, salt, calcium carbonate, charcoal 4875 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, buckwheat, sun- flower seed, oyster shells, marble grit 4876 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, buckwheat, sun- flower seeds 5728 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, buck- wheat, sunflower seeds 5785 3.5 11.0 2.5 Wheat, corn, milo maize, buckwheat, sunflower seeds, oat meal, linseed oil cake 5786 3.0 10.5 2.5 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, rolled oats, oat meal, charcoal Wheat bran, alfalfa meal, hominy feed, corn gluten feed, oat meal, meat scraps, ground screenings from corn, oats, wheat, barley 6861 4.0 17.5 10.0 6411 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, oat meal, wild buckwheat (with not to exceed y 2 % miscellaneous wild seeds occurring in above seeds and grains) charcoal, marble grit 6412 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, oat meal, wild buckwheat, (with not to exceed y 2 % miscellaneous wild seeds occurring in above seeds and grains), charcoal 6457 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, oat meal, wild buckwheat, (with not to exceed y 2 % miscellaneous wild seeds occurring in above seeds and grains), charcoal 6458 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, oat meal, wild buckwheat, (with not to exceed y 2 % miscellaneous wild seeds occurring in above seeds and grains), charcoal, marble grit 6459 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, oat meal, wild buckwheat, (with not to exceed y 2 % miscellaneous wild seeds occurring in above seeds and grains), marble grit 6460 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, com, kafir, millet seed, oat meal, wild buckwheat, (with not to exceed y 2 % miscellaneous wild seeds occurring in above seeds and grains), charcoal 6461 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, oat meal, wild buckwheat, (with not to exceed y 2 % miscellaneous wild seeds occurring in above seeds and grains), charcoal, marble grit 6462 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, oat meal, wild buckwheat, (with not to exceed y 2 % miscellaneous wild seeds occurring in above seeds and grains), charcoal 142 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL and to be composed of the following ingredients Quaker Oats Company, The, Chicago, 111. American Little Chick Feed With Grit 6463 2.5 10.0 5.0 American Little Chick Feed Without Grit ___ 6464 2.5 10.0 5.0 Prize Winning Chick Feed With Grit 6465 2.5 10.0 5.0 Prize Winning Chick Feed Without Grit 6466 2.5 10.0 5.0 Sterling Chick Feed Without Grit 6468 2.5 10.0 5.0 Early Bird Chick Feed With Grit — 6497 2.5 10.0 5.0 Early Bird Chick Feed Without Grit 6408 2.5 10.0 5.0 Pansy Chick Feed With Grit _ — 6677 2.5 10.0 5.0 Pansy Chick Feed Without Grit 6661 2.5 10.0 5.0 Big Egg Chick Feed With Grit 7356 2.5 10.0 5.0 Big Egg Chick Feed Without Grit 7357 2.5 10.0 5.0 Prize Winning Hen Feed Without Grit 7963 2.5 8.5 5.0 Prize Winning Hen Feed With Grit 7964 2.5 8.5 5.0 Ful-O-Pep Dry Mash 8943 4.0 20.0 10.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, oat meal, wild buckwheat, (with not to exceed y 2 °J 0 miscellaneous wild seeds occurring in above seeds and grains), charcoal, marble grit Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, oat meal, wild buckwheat, (with not to exceed y 2 % miscellaneous wild seeds occurring in above seeds and grains), charcoal Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, oat meal, wild buckwheat, (with not to exceed y 2 % miscellaneous wild seeds occurring in above seeds and grains), charcoal, marble grit Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, oat meal, wild buckwheat, (with not to exceed y 2 % miscellaneous wild seeds occurring in above seeds and grains), charcoal Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, oat meal, wild buckwheat, (with not to exceed y 2 % miscellaneous wild seeds occurring in above seeds and grains), charcoal Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, oat meal, wild buckwheat, (with not to exceed y 2 % miscellaneous wild seeds occurring in above seeds and grains), charcoal, marble grit Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, oat meal, wild buckwheat, (with not to exceed y 2 % miscellaneous wild seeds occurring in above seeds and grains), charcoal Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, oat meal, wild buckwheat, (with not to exceed y 2 % miscellaneous wild seeds occurring in above seeds and grains), charcoal, marble grit Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, oat meal, wild buckwheat, (with not to exceed y 2 % miscellaneous wild seeds occurring in above seeds and grains), charcoal Wheat, corn, kafir, milo maize, millet seed, oat meal, wild buckwheat, (with not to exceed y 2 % miscellane- ous wild seeds occurring in above seeds and grains), charcoal, 6% marble grit Wheat, corn, kafir, milo maize, millet seed, oat meal, wild buckwheat, (with not to exceed y 2 % miscellane- ous wild seeds occurring in above seeds and grains), charcoal Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, buckwheat, sunflower seeds Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, buckwheat, sunflower seeds, lime- stone grit Meat scraps, oat meal, fish scraps, alfalfa meal, wheat bran, (with ground wheat screenings not exceed- ing mill run), corn feed meal, corn gluten feed, cottonseed meal, ground screenings from wheat, corn, barley, oats and flax, bone meal 143 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Quaker Oats Company, The, Chicago, 111. Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, barley, buckwheat, y 2 % sunflower seed Ful-O-Pep Scratch Feed _ __ 8944 2.5 10.0 5.0 Schumacher Poultry Mash 8085 4.0 20.0 10.0 Cottonseed meal, alfalfa meal, oat meal, wheat bran, (with ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run), corn feed meal, corn gluten feed, ground screenings from wheat, oats, barley and flaxseed, meat scraps, bone meal, fish scraps Ful-O-Pep Chick Feed ___ 9066 3.5 14.0 3.0 Wheat, corn, oat meal, fish meal Wheat bran, oat meal, alfalfa meal, ground wheat screenings, bone meal, meat scraps Ful-O-Pep Growing. Mash 9067 5.5 15.5 10.0 Schumacher Scratch Grains With Grit 9299 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, barley, buckwheat, sunflower seeds, linseed oil cake, 6% marble grit Schumacher Scratch Grains No Grit __ 9800 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, barley, buckwheat, sunflower seeds, linseed oil cake Quaker Scratch Grains With Grit 9301 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, barley, buckwheat, sunflower seeds, linseed oil cake, 6% marble grit Quaker Scratch Grains No Grit 9802 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, barley, buckwheat, sunflower seeds, linseed oil cake Blue Ribbon Scratch Grains No Grit 9303 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, barley, buckwheat, sunflower seeds, linseed oil cake American Hen Scratch Grains With Grit 9304 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, barley, buckwheat, sunflower seeds, linseed oil cake, 0% marble grit Sterling Scratch Feed No Grit 9305 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, barley, buckwheat, sunflower seeds, linseed oil cake Pansy Scratch Grains With Grit 9306 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, oats, bar- ley, buckwheat, sunflower seeds, lin- seed oil cake, 6% marble grit Pansy Scratch Grains No Grit ___ 9307 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, oats, bar- ley, buckwheat, sunflower seeds, lin- seed oil cake Big Egg Scratch Grains With Grit ___ 9308 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, barley, oats, sunflower seeds, whole wheat screenings, linseed oil cake, 6% mar- ble grit Big Egg Scratch Grains No Grit 9300 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, oats, bar- ley, sunflower seeds, whole wheat screenings, linseed oil cake Purity Scratch Grains No Grit 9312 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, com kafir, milo, barley, buckwheat, sunflower seed, linseed oil cake Early Bird Scratch Grains With Grit 9313 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, barley, oats, sunflower seeds, whole wheat screenings, linseed oil cake, 6% mar- ble grit Early Bird Scratch Grains No Grit 9314 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, barley, oats, sunflower seeds, whole wheat screenings, linseed oil cake Prize Winning Scratch Grains Without Grit__ Ralston Purina Company, St. Louis, Mo. 9358 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, barley, buckwheat, linseed oil cake, sun- flower seeds Purina Chicken Chowder Feed, With Charcoal . 7221 4.0 19.0 9.0 Wheat bran, wheat middlings, corn meal, alfalfa meal, linseed meal, granulated meat, charcoal, salt Purina Pigeon Feed 8055 2.5 11.0 4.0 Wheat, millet, kafir, milo, Canada peas 144 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) LABEL Rapier Sugar Feed Company, Owensboro, Ky. Rapier’s Blue Hen Baby Chick Feed Rapier’s Economy Scratch Feed Rapier’s Economy Scratch Feed, 5% Grit Rapier’s Blue Hen Baby Chick Feed, Without Grit Rapier’s Blue Hen Scratch Feed Red Mill, The, Fairland, R. R. 3, Ind. Rasp Chick Feed Reed & Company, H. G., Clymers, Ind. Morningstar Chick Feed Morningstar Scratch Feed Morningstar Developing Food Reid-Murdock & Company, Chicago, 111. Farm House Scratch Grains Farm House Chick Feed With Grit Farm House Scratch Grains With Grit__ Farm House Chick Feed Without Grit__. Richards & Son, G. W., New Paris, Ohio Keystone Egg Mash Rittenhouse, E. S., Liberty Mills, Ind. “All-In” Chick Starter Ritter-Hennings Company, Louisville, Ky. Shur-Pleez Baby Chick Feed White Rock Hen Feed White Rock Brand Baby Chick Feed Shur-Pleez Egg and Growing Mash Shur-Pleez Scratch Feed Bantam Baby Chick Feed Good Baby Chick Feed Sultan Baby Chick Feed Tip Top Baby Chick Feed (No Grit) Official No. Guaranteed 1 Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber 5578 2.5 10.0 5.0 6266 2.0 10.0 5.0 6680 2.0 10.0 5.0 7588 2.5 10.0 5.0 9270 2.0 10.0 5.0 4540 2.3 8.5 12.0 3059 3.0 9.5 4.0 3752 2.8 8.0 5.5 3753 3.0 8.0 6.0 7354 2.5 10.0 5.0 7355 2.5 10.0 5.0 7408 2.5 10.0 5.0 7400 2.5 10.0 5.0 5506 6.0 17.0 9.0 '5800 2.0 9.0 5.0 5014 5.1 12.8 2.9 6863 3.2 9.7 2.5 6993 4.0 9.0 9.0 8013 4.5 20.0 9.0 8220 2.2 9.0 5.5 8819 3.1 7.2 5.5 8540 2.9 9.0 4.9 9352 5.0 11.0 7.5 9353 5.5 12.0 7.4 and to be composed of the following ingredients Wheat, corn, kafir, pigeon grass, limestone grit Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, sunflower seed Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, sunflower seed, limestone grit Wheat, corn, kafir, pigeon grass Corn, oats, clipped barley, whole wheat screenings Corn, kafir, millet, whole wheat screenings Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, lin- seed meal, oyster shell Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed, oyster shell Wheat, com, kafir, buckwheat, char- coal, granite grit Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, buck- wheat, sunflower seeds Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, oat meal, wild buckwheat, (with not to exceed %% miscellaneous wild seeds occurring in above seeds and grains), charcoal, 6% marble grit Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, buck- wheat, sunflower seeds, oyster shells, marble grit Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, oat meal, wild buckwheat, (with not to exceed %% miscellaneous wild seeds occurring in above seeds and grains), charcoal Cayenne pepper, wheat bran, wheat middlings, corn meal, alfalfa meal, cottonseed meal, linseed oil meal, tankage, charcoal Wheat, com, kafir, millet, hemp, charcoal, bone Wheat, corn, pin head oats, millet seed, flaxseed, whole wheat screen- ings Wheat, corn, kafir, milo maize, sun- flower seed, charcoal, limestone grit Wheat, com, steel cut oats, flaxseed, millet seed, whole recleaned wheat screenings, charcoal, limestone grit Wheat bran, wheat middlings, com gluten meal, corn feed meal, alfalfa meal, meat scraps, bone meal Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, sunflower seed Wheat, corn, pin head oats, flaxseed, whole wheat screenings Wheat, corn, millet seed, steel cut oats, flaxseed, whole wheat screen- ings, 5% mica and quartz grit Wheat, corn, millet seed, pin head oats, whole screenings from wheat and wild seeds (25%) flaxseed, 5% mica quartz grit Wheat, corn, millet seed, pin head oats, whole screenings from wheat and wild seeds (25%), flaxseed 145 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Riverside Milling Company, Clinton, Iowa Sunflower Scratchfeed 5309 2.5 9.0 3.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, buck- Sunflower Scratch Feed With Grit ___ 5801 2.0 8.5 2.3 wheat, sunflower seed Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, milo Robey Mills, Chicago, 111. Velvet Fine Chick Feed With Grit 9014 2.5 9.5 5.0 maize, buckwheat, sunflower seed, limestone grit Wheat, corn, millet, oat meal, whole Velvet Fine Chick Feed No Grit 9015 2.5 9.5 5.0 weed seeds from wheat and barley screenings, limestone grit Wheat, corn, millet, oat meal, whole weed seeds from wheat and barley screenings Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, steel cut oats, buckwheat, whole wheat screenings, charcoal, oyster shells Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, buck- wheat, shell, grit (mica, feldspar, quartz) Wheat, com, kafir, millet, buck- Rohm Bros., Rockville, Ind. Best Chick Feed ___ 7790 3.0 10.0 6.0 Roper & Brown, Hobart, Ind. Hobart Hen Feed 3476 1.8 9.0 10.0 Ross, S. F., Jonesville, Ind. Eureka Chick Feed 6637 2.5 8.0 4.0 Schaefer, Karl H., Indianapolis, Ind. Schaefer’s Special Scratch Feed 7191 2.0 9.0 6.0 wheat, oyster shells Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, milo Schaefer’s Extra Scratch Feed 7506 2.5 10.0 6.0 maize Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, whole wheat screenings, peanut meats, peanut germs Wheat, corn, kafir, steel cut oats, millet, charcoal Wheat bran, wheat middlings, corn Schaefer’s Special Chick Feed 7507 2.5 10.0 5.0 Schaefer’s Special Poultry Mash __ 7660 6.0 12.0 13.0 Schaefer Competitive Scratch 8373 2.0 8.0 6.0 meal, alfalfa meal, linseed meal, beef scraps, peanut germ meal, kafir meal, milo maize meal, ground wheat screenings, charcoal, salt Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, Schaefer’s Extra Chick Feed __ 9381 2.0 9.0 6.0 whole wheat screenings Corn, millet, whole millet screenings, Shellabarger Elevator Company, Decatur, 111. Big S. Scratch Feed __ 8214 2.5 9.0 5.0 whole wheat screenings containing weed seeds, charcoal, marble grit Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, Big S. Chick Feed 8215 3.0 10.0 4.0 milo, buckwheat, sunflower seed Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, millet, oat Shine & Company, John H., New Albany, Ind. Star Poultry Feed 4084 2.5 10.0 5.0 meal Wheat, corn, oats, kafir, sunflower Simmons & Norris, Cincinnati, Ohio Fattenum Poultry Mash ___ 8067 5.0 19.0 6.0 seed, charcoal, mica grit Wheat middlings, wheat flour, hom- Excello Poultry Mash __ 8683 4.0 19.0 10.0 iny meal, corn meal, oat flour, al- falfa meal, granulated meat, salt Wheat bran, wheat middlings, oat Excello Scratch Feed __ _ 8684 3.0 10.0 5.0 flour, hominy meal, com feed meal, linseed meal, fine ground alfalfa, granulated meat, salt, charcoal Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, sun- S. and N. Scratch Feed . 9336 2.5 10.0 6.0 flower seed Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, sun- flower seed, limestone grit Wheat, corn, kafir, oat groats, lime- S. and N. Chick Feed __ 9379 2.5 10.0 6.0 Excello Chick Feed 9380 2.5 10.0 5.0 stone grit Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, oat groats Slick & Company, L. E., Bloomington, 111. Slick’s Safety First Scratch Feed (No Grit)__. 9007 2.5 10.0 6.0 Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, oats, bar- Slick’s Safety First Scratch Feed (With Grit) 9008 2.5 10.0 6.0 ley, buckwheat, sunflower seed Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, oats, bar- ley, buckwheat, sunflower seed, not over 1% oyster shell, 1% limestone grit 146 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) LABEL Small & Company, Inc., W. H., Evansville, Ind. “Poultry Feed” Southern Seed Company, Louisville, Ky. Atlas Chick Feed Atlas Scratch Feed Indiana Economy Scratch Feed Indiana Economy Chick Feed South Side Cereal Mills, Fort Wayne, Ind. Wayne Scratch Feed Wayne Chick Feed Sowash, E. K, Middletown, Ind. E. K. Chick Starter & Feed Sprague, Warner & Company, Chicago, 111. Cero Brand Poultry Feed Chico Brand Chick Feed Spratt’s Patent, Ltd., Newark, N. J. Chicgrain Chick Meal Poultry Food Starr, J. R., Winamac, Ind. Mixed Poultry Feed Starr Mills, South Bend, Ind. Scratch Feed Scratch Feed With Grit Steckley, Geo., Kendallville, Ind. Poultry Mash — Steinmesch Feed Company, St. Louis, Mo. Steinmesch Mixed Feed for Poultry Stone Quarry Mills, Spiceland, Ind. Blue Ribbon Chick & Hen Feed Sugarine Company, The, Peoria, 111. Sugarine Chick Feed Sugarine Chick Feed With 5% Grit Sugarine Scratch Feed Sugarine Pigeon Feed Sugarine Poultry Mash Universal Scratch Feed Universal Scratch Feed, With 5% Grit. Official No. Guaranteed I Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber 4471 2.5 8.5 5.0 3775 3.0 10.0 6.0 3776 3.0 10.0 6.0 7994 2.5 9.5 6.0 7995 2.5 9.5 6.0 6251 2.0 9.0 6.0 6624 2.0 9.0 6.0 7492 2.0 9.0 7.0 8301 2.5 10.0 5.0 8302 2.5 10.0 5.0 6034 3.0 14.0 5.0 6035 2.5 20.0 2.0 6036 3.5 20.0 2.0 8602 2.5 9.5 7.0 6003 2.0 9.0 5.0 6933 2.0 8.0 4.0 3489 4.5 16.0 9.0 4025 3.5 10.0 6.0 7579 2.0 5.0 7.0 6662 2.5 10.0 5.0 6563 2.5 10.0 5.0 8288 2.5 10.0 5.0 8916 2.5 10.0 5.0 8917 3.5 18.0 12.0 8918 2.5 10.0 5.0 8919 2.5 10.0 5.0 and to be composed of the following ingredients Corn, kafir, sunflower seed, salvage wheat, oyster shell Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, milo maize, buckwheat Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, milo maize, sunflower seed, buck- wheat Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, wholewheat screenings, mussel shells Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, millet, whole wheat screenings, mussel shells Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, rye, buck- wheat, sunflower seed, charcoal Wheat, corn, millet seed, charcoal Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, whole wheat screenings, charcoal, oyster shells Wheat, com, kafir, milo, barley, buckwheat, sunflower seeds Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, millet seed, oat meal, wild buckwheat, (not to exceed V 2 % miscellaneous wild seeds occurring in above seeds and grains) charcoal Wheat, kafir, millet, buckwheat, green peas, hemp, Mexican peas, popcorn, canary, rice, meat, char- coal, bone Wheat flour, meat Wheat flour, meat Wheat, com, oats, buckwheat, millet Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, rye, sunflower seed, charcoal Wheat, corn, kafir, milo maize, whole wheat screenings, charcoal, limestone grit Wheat bran, middlings, com gluten feed, com feed meal, beef scraps, linseed meal Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, sun- flower seed, flaxseed, rape, mustard seed Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, millet, char- coal, oyster shell Wheat, com, kafir, millet Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, marble grit Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, peas, buckwheat, sunflower seed Wheat bran, corn feed meal, com distillers dried grains, alfalfa meal, linseed meal, meat scraps, salt Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, buckwheat, sunflower seed Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, buckwheat, sunflower seed, marble grit 147 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) LABEL Sugarine Company, The, Peoria, 111. Ideal Scratch Peed Ideal Scratch Feed With 5% Grit . Ideal Chick Peed, With 5% Grit Ideal Chick Peed Thomas Milling Company, Marion, Ind. Tip Top Chick Peed Tip Top Scratch Peed Union Feed & Poultry Company, Lafayette, Ind. Union Poultry Mash Union Grain & Peed Company, The, Anderson, Ind. Union Mash : Union Chick Peed With Grit Union Chick Feed Without Grit Diamond Scratch Feed With Grit Diamond Scratch Feed Without Grit Walker & Company, P. M., Loogootee, Ind. Mixed Chicken Peed Weiss Alfalfa Stock Food Company, The Otto, Wichita, Kansas Otto Weiss Hen Peed J Otto Weiss Chick Peed Wells, Guy M., Knox, Ind. Wells Mixed Chicken Peed Western Grain Products Company, West Hammond, 111. Calumet Scratch Feed— No Grit Calumet Scratch Peed— With Grit Hammond Scratch Peed— No Grit Hammond Scratch Feed— With Grit Whelan, Omer G., Richmond, Ind. Scratching Grains With Grit Scratching Grains Not Grit Whelan’s Chick Peed Wilkinson, A. E., New Castle, Ind. Rapid Developer Official No. Guaranteed b Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber 9046 2.5 10.0 5.0 9047 2.5 10.0 5.0 9048 2.5 10.0 5.0 9096 2.5 10.0 5.0 8463 2.5 9.0 4.0 8454 2.5 9.0 5.0 7184 3.5 12.0 10.0 7065 2.5 11.0 11.0 8511 2.0 9.0 10.0 8512 2.0 9.0 10.0 8622 2.0 9.0 6.0 8623 2.0 9.0 6.0 7809 2.5 10.0 5.0 1784 3.0 13.8 2.5 . 1785 3.0 13.6 2.8 6308 2.5 9.0 6.0 . 7422 2.5 10.0 5.0 . 7423 2.5 10.0 5.0 . 7424 2.5 10.0 5.0 . 7426 2.5 10.0 5.0 . 8128 2.9 9.0 5.0 - 8120 3.0 9.5 5.0 . 8551 2.0 8.0 5.0 . 6800 2.5 9.0 6.0 and to be composed of the following ingredients Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, wild buckwheat, sunflower seed Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, wild buckwheat, sunflower seed, marble grit Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, pigeon grass, marble grit Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, pigeon grass Wheat, corn, millet, charcoal, oyster shell Wheat, corn, barley, oats, buck- wheat, charcoal, oyster shell Oats, wheat bran, wheat middlings, corn gluten feed, corn meal, alfalfa meal, linseed meal, beef scraps, blood meal, ground wheat screen- ings, charcoal Wheat bran, wheat shorts, corn meal, alfalfa meal, meat meal, charcoal Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed, lime- stone grit Wheat, corn, kafir, millet seed Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley, milo, sunflower seed, linseed oil cake, limestone grit Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, barley,, milo, sunflower seed, linseed oil cake Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, whole wheat screenings, oyster shells Corn, kafir, oats, cane seed, wheat, millet, beef scraps, bone, limestone grit, oyster shells Kafir, wheat, oats, millet, cane seed, beef scraps, bone, limestone grit Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed, oyster shell Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, wild buckwheat, sunflower seed Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, wild buckwheat, sunflower seed, 5% lime- stone grit Wheat, com, kafir, barley, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed, linseed oil cake Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed, linseed oil cake, 5% limestone grit Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed, char- coal, oyster shells, limestone grit Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, buckwheat, sunflower seed, charcoal Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, steel cut oats, whole clover seed, screenings, charcoal, limestone grit Wheat, corn, kafir, millet, buck- wheat, cane seed 1 48 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed 1 LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber Wilkinson, A. E., New Castle, Ind. Wilkinson’s La-U-Se Poultry Feed With Grit__ 1 7063 2.5 10.0 5.0 Wilkinson’s “Hen-O-Lay Mash” ___ 9134 2.0 12.0 5.0 Wilson & Son, John S., Evansville, Ind. Wilson’s Scratch Feed 8041 3.0 8.0 6.0 Wood, Stubbs & Company, Louisville, Ky. Shawnee Brand Scratch Feed 7331 3.0 10.0 4.0 Shawnee Scratch Feed 5% Grit 7500 3.0 10.5 4.0 Shawnee Chick Feed 7549 3.5 10.0 3.1 Shawnee Brand Pigeon Feed __ 7652 2.0 10.0 4.0 Ziliak & Schafer Milling Company, Evansville Branch, Evansville, Ind. Acme Scratch Feed 8694 2.0 9.0 5.0 Zionsville Milling Company, Zionsville, Ind. Scratch Feed _ 7061 2.0 9.0 10.0 Zook Bros., Logansport, Ind. Faultless Chick Feed 5900 2.5 8.0 5.0 Faultless Hen Food 5910 3.0 9.0 7.0 CONDIMENTAL STOCK AND POULTRY FEEDS American Druggists Syndicate, Long Island City, N. Y. Safb-T-Kros Regulateur _ 1 8416 1.5 8.5 5.0 Amos, Carl, Kokomo, Ind. 50 The Amos Stock Tonic 7808 6.2 10.0 40.3 Amos Worm Powder 8377 2.0 10.0 5.0 Amos Stock Tonic Company, The, Kokomo, Ind. The Amos Horse, Cattle and Sheep Tonic 8884 4.0 5.0 40.0 Amos Hog Tonic 9024 3.0 5.0 40.0 Ashland Stock Food Company, Ashland, Ohio Ashland Poultry Food Digester 4771 2.2 10.2 5.5 Ashland Stock Food Digester 4772 4.4 14.3 4.7 and to be composed of the following ingredients Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, millet, cane seed, sunflower seed, linseed oil cake, limestone grit Wheat bran, wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings, corn glu- ten feed, corn feed meal, linseed oil meal, heneta grit, (sodium, lime, sil- ica, phosphorus compounds) Wheat, corn, clipped oats, sunflower seed, oyster shell, heneta grit, (sodi- um, lime, silica, phosphorus com- pounds) Wheat, corn, kafir, milo maize, bar- ley, buckwheat, sunflower seed Wheat, corn, kafir, milo maize, bar- ley, buckwheat, sunflower seed, 5% marble grit Corn, kafir, milo maize, millet seed, flaxseed, whole wheat screenings Wheat, corn, kafir, milo maize, Can- ada peas, buckwheat, sunflower seed Wheat, corn, kafir, milo, barley, em- mer, sunflower seed, whole wheat screenings, limestone grit Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, cane seed, buckwheat Wheat, corn, kafir, oats, millet Wheat, corn, kafir, barley, oats, milo maize, sunflower seed Gentian, nux vomica, capsicum, white arsenic, iron sulphate, sodium sulphate, wheat middlings Blood root, sulphur, horse medley, fenugreek, asafetida, copperas, to- bacco, salt, ground bituminous coal, flaxseed meal, old process lin- seed oil meal Copperas, santonin, Indian worm seed, calomel, Epsom salt, May ap- ple root, aloes, slippery elm, soda, reddog flour Horse medley, sulphur, Indiana worm seed, red percoon root, asafetida, fenugreek, copperas, bicarbonate of soda, tobacco, salt, linseed oil meal Red percoon root, sulphur, copperas, horse medley, santonin, asafetida, fenugreek, Indiana worm seed, to- bacco, coal, Epsom salt, salt, flax- seed meal, old process linseed oil meal, reddog flour, standard wheat middlings Venetian red, red pepper, sulphate of iron, hyposulphite of soda, salt, oyster shells, wheat middlings Fenugreek, nux vomica, sulphate of iron, hyposulphite of soda, char- coal, salt petre, salt, wheat mid- dlings 60 Succeeded by The Amos Stock Tonic Co. 149 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) LABEL Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain § 3 . 4 - m rt cn c«h .2 8 ® A ft y tn ^ cn G ft ® 0) aj — 1 y<2 jj _ T? £ | u A ft y and to be composed of the following ingredients Barker, Moore & Mein Medicine Company, Philadelphia, Pa. Barker’s Special Poultry Remedy Barker’s Chemical & Vegetable Horse, Cattle & Poultry Medicinal Powder Betz, Gatus N., Wabash (Celina, R. R. 2), Ohio Jones Red Powder Blackman Stock Remedy Company, Chattanooga, Tenn. Owen’s Health and Egg Producer Blatchford Calf Meal Factory, Waukegan, 111. 51 Blatchford’s Genuine Old English Tonic and Regulator 6678 8007 6707 6242 7271 Blatchford’s Lamb Meal 7767 Blatchford’s Topping Off Meal, (Formerly, Sugar & Flaxseed) Blatchford Calf Meal Company, Waukegan, 111. Blatchford’s “Fill the Basket” Egg Mash 8836 Blatchford’s Milk Mash 9127 Blue Moon Corrector Company, The, Crawfordsville, Ind. The Blue Moon Hog Corrector 5.0 5.0 1.0 8.0 4.0 10.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 18.0 20.0 3.5 8.0 21.0 20.0 25.0 19.0 20.0 11.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 9.5 6.0 8.0 10.0 7.5 10.0 Fenugreek, ginger, gentian, resin, pennyroyal, cascara sagrada, pep- per, iron oxide, salt petre, sulphate of iron, charcoal, sulphur, salt, chalk, linseed meal Charcoal, gentian, sodium nitrate, sulphate of iron, fenugreek, flowers of sulphur, rosin, salt, African gin- ger, pennyroyal herb, cascara sa- grada, linseed cake meal Nux vomica, cayenne pepper, Vene- tian red, flowers of sulphur, oxide of iron, wheat middlings Rosin, sulphur, copperas, red pepper, charcoal, oyster shells, bone flour, blood meal Peruvian bark, gentian, fenugreek, anise, ginger, licorice, sulphate of iron, sulphate of soda, chloride of sodium, sarsaparilla, sulphur, char- coal, locust bean meal, flaxseed, wheat flour, rice polish, blood flour, barley meal, bean meal, pea meal, old process linseed oil meal, cocoa shell meal, cocoanut meal, cotton- seed meal, dried milk Anise seed, locust bean meal, barley meal, blood flour, linseed oil meal, rice polish, bean meal, cottonseed meal, corn meal, wheat flour, salt Gentian, anise, sulphate of soda, lo- cust bean meal, bean meal, pea meal, cottonseed meal, old process linseed oil meal, cocoa shell meal, flaxseed, rice polish, cocoanut meal, %% salt Fenugreek, anise, capsicum, locust bean meal, flaxseed, wheat flour, rice polish, blood flour, barley meal, malt sprout meal, bean meal, pea meal, old process linseed oil meal, cocoa shell meal, cocoanut meal, cottonseed meal, dried milk, alfalfa, corn meal, oat meal, wheat bran, wheat middlings, meat scraps, fish, bone, salt, powdered limestone Fenugreek, anise, locust bean meal, flaxseed, wheat flour, barley meal, malt sprout meal, blood flour, bean meal, pea meal, rice polish, old pro- cess linseed oil meal, cocoa shell meal, cocoanut meal, cottonseed meal, dried milk, corn meal, oat meal, wheat middlings, meat scraps, fish, bone, salt, powdered limestone Gentian root, mandrake root, mad- der, African ginger, asafetida, cal- cium carbonate, sodium bicarbon- ate, sodium sulphate, sodium chlo- ride, Epsom salt, sulphur, ferrous sulphas exicated (dried copperas), charcoal, linseed meal 61 Succeeded by Blatchford Calf Meal Company Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Blue Moon Stock Corrector Company, The, 52 Crawfordsville, Ind. Blue Moon Stock Corrector Boulden, Wm., Cyclone, Ind. 3137 2.2 12.0 5.0 Gentian, asafetida, ginger, man- drake, fenugreek, resin, sodium bi- carbonate, sodium sulphate, sodium chloride, Epsom salt, potassium nitrate, sulphate of iron, sulphur, linseed meal Boulden Stock Food Bradick, B. F., Y. S., Grayville, 111. Dr. Bradick’s Medicated Stock Tonic Brinkman, W. E., Fort Wayne, Ind. 1392 3.1 15.2 11.0 Salt, bicarbonate of soda, asafetida, sulphur, horse medley, blood root, senna seed, ginger, charcoal, salt petre, linseed cake 7604 4.0 15.5 6.5 Black antimony, madder, worm seed, ginger, fenugreek, nux vomica, gen- tian, copperas, charcoal, potassium nitrate (salt petre), sulphur, Glaub- er’s salt, Epsom salt, bicarbonate of soda, salt, wood and corn cob ashes, linseed oil cake Superior Poultry Food 1507 2.5 7.0 5.0 Oat meal, corn meal, middlings, bone meal, Venetian red, capsicum, salt Buckeye Company, The, Lorain, Ohio Buckeye Poultry Powder 0081 Gentian root, Venetian red, sulphate of iron, hyposulphite of soda, Glauber’s salt, nux vomica, salt petre, charcoal, sodium chloride, ground wheat screenings Buckeye Stock Conditioner __ Buffington Famous Condition Powder Com- pany, Petroleum, Ind. 6082 Gentian root, ginger, fenugreek seed, anise seed, nux vomica, sulphate of iron, Glauber’s salt, salt petre, Ep- som salt, charcoal, sodium chloride, ground wheat screenings The Buffington Famous Condition Powder___ 3400 4.0 15.0 9.0 Copperas, sulphur, fenugreek, salt petre, linseed meal Burch & Company, Inc., F. S., Chicago, 111. Petaluma Egg Producer 4617 2.0 18.0 5.0 Ferrous sulphate, sodium chloride, sulphur, calcium carbonate, tobacco, ashes, dried blood, ground screen- ings from flaxseed Sandford’s Fgg Producer _ Busch Remedy Company, Inc., The, Evansville, Ind. 4969 2.0 18.0 5.0 Ferrous sulphate, sodium chloride, sulphur, calcium carbonate, tobacco, ashes, dried blood, ground screen- ings from flaxseed Busch’s Poultry Laying Tonic Capitol Food Company, The, Tiffin, Ohio 3999 1.2 15.0 8.5 Gentian, ginger, capsicum, nux vom- ica, cantharides, iron sulphate, po- tassium nitrate, Epsom salt, Vene- tian red, bone meal, oyster shell, malt sprouts Capitol Stock Remedy 4611 10.0 Gentian, fenugreek, anise seed, quas- sia, wormseed, nux vomica, magne- sium sulphate, ferrous sulphate, so- dium chloride, charcoal, screenings from flaxseed Capitol Poultry Remedy 4612 9.0 Capsicum, nux vomica, quassia, wormseed, magnesium sulphate, fer- rous sulphate, iron oxide, potassium permanganate, sulphur, screenings from flaxseed Capitol Animal Regulator 4613 10.0 Gentian, anise seed, quassia, nux vomica, copperas, wormseed, Epsom salt, sodium bicarbonate, charcoal, screenings from flaxseed 52 Succeeded by The Blue Moon Corrector Co. Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL and to be composed of the following ingredients Carpenter Company, W. D., Syracuse, N. Y. 7398 Chambers Stock Powder Company, The, Rossville, 111. Chambers Poultry Powder 3881 3.0 17.0 4.5 Chambers Hog Remedy 3882 2.8 15.0 4.0 Chambers Horse Conditioner 3883 2.5 13.5 3.5 Chambers Cattle Powder _ 3884 2.5 15.0 4.0 Christmas Medicine Company, W. C., Boonville, Ind. “Christmas” Stock Food — 9371 1.5 10.0 8.0 “Christmas” Poultry Food _ Conkey Company, The G. E., Cleveland, Ohio Conkey’s Buttermilk Starting Food 9372 1.5 10.0 9.0 7212 . 3.0 12.0 4.0 Crosier Stock & Poultry Pow’der Company, New Albany, Ind. Crosiers’ Poultry Powder — 4640 2.0 5.0 6.0 Crosiers Horse & Cattle Powder _ 4641 4.0 5.0 11.0 Dairy Association Company, The, Lyndonville, Vt. Kow Kure __ - _ 7591 .... 7.0 Daisy, W. H., Kokomo, Ind. Daisy Horse, Cattle, Sheep and Hog Tonic— 8723 5.0 5.0 15.0 Daniels, Inc., Dr. A. C., Boston, Mass. Dr. A. C. Daniels’ Cow Invigorator 6271 5.0 10.5 12.7 Davis Stock Food Company, Chicago, 111. Davis Poultry Food Tonic . _ . - _ 3403 3.0 6.0 12.0 Caraway, anise, fenugreek, coriander, quassia, nux vomica, wild cherry, xantharrhiza, cascara sagrada, gin- ger, sulphur, charcoal, sodium bi- carbonate, sodium chloride, linseed meal, flaxseed meal, cottonseed feed, bean meal, ground screenings from wheat, flax, seeds Capsicum, Venetian red, sulphur, copperas, resin, bicarbonate of soda, salt, oyster shell, flaxseed meal Copperas, resin, sulphur, bicarbonate of soda, Epsom salt, salt petre, salt, flaxseed meal Copperas, resin, sulphur, bicarbonate of soda, Epsom salt, salt, charcoal, cold pressed flaxseed meal, salt petre Copperas, resin, sulphur, bicarbonate of soda, salt, cold pressed flaxseed Gentian, ginger, capsicum, sassafras, percoon root, poplar bark, charcoal, sodium chloride, wheat middlings Gentian, ginger, copperas, capsicum, sassafras, charcoal, bone, wheat middlings Gentian root, iron sulphate, (cop- peras), mustard seed, wheat, corn, hulled oats, wheat middlings, bone, evaporated buttermilk African ginger, fenugreek seed, blood root, American Venetian red, sul- phur, wood ashes, mustard bran, ground flaxseed African ginger, gentian root, blood root, black antimony, sassafras bark, rosin, iron sulphate, sulphur, charcoal, wood ashes, ground flax- seed, salt petre Fenugreek, ginger root, capsicum, spearmint, asafetida, elecampane, uva ursi, damiana leaves, witch hazel leaves, garget root, boneset, aletria, cinchona, black haw bark, potassium nitrate, Epsom salt, car- bonate of iron, wheat middlings Fenugreek, asafetida, salt petre, cop- peras, horse medley, bicarbonate of soda, ginger, blood root, black pep- per, flowers of sulphur, tobacco dust, wood ashes, salt, ground flax- seed Poplar bark, Epsom salt, salt, spear- mint, carbonate of iron, nitre, (salt petre) elecampane, ginger, pepper, sulphur, poke root, boneset, asafet- ida, gentian, fenugreek, althaea, Peruvian bark, life root, queen of the meadows, water pepper, bone meal Ginger, capsicum, sulphur, iron ox- ide, sodium sulphate, sodium chlo- ride, acid phosphate, charcoal, bone meal, wheat middlings 152 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) LABEL Official No. Guaranteed 1 Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber . 3404 3.0 6.0 12.0 4585 666 15.0 6.0 24.7 4480 13.0 8.0 5.0 4481 13.5 6.0 4.0 4628 5.0 13.5 5.0 5431 11.5 19.5 4.0 6523 9.0 15.0 6.0 4020 9.0 6982 9.6 4.8 12.9 8044 8.2 13.5 12.4 6369 1.5 7.0 2.0 6737 0.6 10.0 5.0 9407 5.0 17.0 14.0 8712 6041 0.5 3.0 3.0 8478 .... 750 3.7 14.0 < 10.0 and to be composed of the following ingredients Davis Stock Food Company, Chicago, 111. Davis Stock Food Tonic Deam & Spivey, Bluffton, Ind. Deam’s Egg Food & Poultry Powder. Ehrmann & Company, Terre Haute, Ind. Ehrmann’s Poultry Food Erb, Jr., Fred, West Lafayette, Ind. Big Chick Feed Little Chick Feed Scratch Feed Fred Erb, Jr., Stock Food Erb’s Egg Maker Quick Fleck, J. J., Tiffin, Ohio Flecks Poultry Powder Furst-McNess Company, Freeport, 111. F. W. McNess Poultry Tonic F. W. McNess Stock Food Geiger-Fishback Company, Indianapolis, Ind Hog Feed German Reliable Medicine Company, Decatur, Ind. German Reliable Stock Food Gibson Live Stock & Feed Company, Princeton, Ind. Pilgrim Hog Feed Gifford, Charlie, Russiaville, Ind. Gifford’s Stock Tonic & Worm Expeller. Golden Drop Medicine Company, Chrisney, Ind. Peerless Poultry Powder Guarantee Food Company of Pennsylvania, Lewisburg, Pa. Keystone Stock Conditioner Hale, G. S., Fort Wayne, Ind. Hale’s Spanish Poultry Powder Gentian, anise, mandrake, fennel, wormseed, sulphur, nux vomica, iron sulphate, acid phosphate, sodium chloride, charcoal, wheat middlings Sodium chloride, sodium sulphate, sodium bicarbonate, sulphur, iron sulphate, fenugreek, black anti- mony, gentian, ginger, potassium nitrate, potassium bitartrate, asa- fetida, capsicum, Venetian red, bone meal, wheat shorts, linseed oil cake Pork and beef cracklings, bone, meat, cayenne pepper, carbolic acid Cracked corn, meat, sulphur, oil of tar, linseed oil Bolted corn meal, meat, sulphur, oil of tar, linseed oil Wheat, corn, oats, meat, sulphur, linseed oil, oil of tar Sulphur, oil of tar, linseed oil, meat, corn meal Linseed oil, sulphur, oil of tar, bolt- ed corn meal, meat Fenugreek, sassafras, sage leaves, bayberry bark, Venetian red, cay- enne pepper, bicarbonate of soda, sulphate of magnesia, mustard bran, bone meal, oyster shells Gentian, quassia, ginger, capsicum, copperas, sulphur, charcoal, Vene- tian red, oyster shell, wheat mid- dlings Capsicum, coriander, ginger, quassia, fenugreek, areca nut, sulphur, sul- phate of iron, potassium nitrate, sodium sulphate, salt, charcoal, wheat middlings Bicarbonate of soda, phosphate of lime, salt, wheat flour, corn flour, rice flour Fenugreek, elecampane, gentian, blood root, sulphur, wood ashes, salt, sugar, ground flaxseed meal, wheat middlings Gentian, sodium bicarbonate, cop- peras, sulphur, wormseed, Epsom salt, wheat shorts, rye shorts, rye bran, ground rye screenings, velvet bean feed, linseed meal, corn feed meal, digester tankage, salt Sulphate of iron, nux vomica, horse medley, sulphur, magnesium sul- phate, Spanish brown, sodium chlo- ride Copperas, copper sulphate, capsicum, Venetian red, nitrate of potassium, wheat shorts Flowers of sulphur, copperas, Epsom salt, fenugreek, gentian, African ginger, Bombay capsicum, ground cocoa shells, buckwheat hulls Frumentem powder (corn meal) sul- phur. Venetian red, black antimony, capsicum i53 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) LABEL Harlan Products Company, Indianapolis, Ind. Pan-Ian Stock Regulator Pan-Ian Poultry Regulator Heitman Bros., Holland, Ind. H. B. Poultry Remedy and Egg Producer. H. B. Horse and Cattle Powder Henderson & Company, W. D., Fort Wayne, Ind. Atlas Medicated Stock Salt Herb Medicine Company, The, Springfield, Ohio Lightning Horse, Cattle & Poultry Powders. Hess & Clark, Dr., Ashland, Ohio Dr. Hess Poultry Pan-a-ce-a Dr. Hess Stock Tonic Hocker, Melvin, Elwood, Ind. Hocker’s Tonic Hog Joy System, Springfield, 111. Gro-Fast Home Medicine Company, The, Dallas City, 111. K. K. Conditioner K. K. Poultry Tonic Illinois Stock Food Company, Paris, 111. Illinois Stock Food Indispensable Chemical Company, Kokomo, Ind. Indispensable Condition Powder International Stock Food Company, Minneapolis, Minn. Special International Medicinal Poultry Food Tonic Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients 9271 4.5 25.0 6.5 Gentian, fenugreek, sulphur, san- guinaria, carbo ligni, asafetida, po- tassium tartrate, ginger, mandrake, populace alba, sodium chloride, lin- seed oil meal 9292 4.5 25.0 6.5 Gentian, fenugreek, sulphur, san- guinaria, carbo ligni, asafetida, po- tassium tartrate, ginger, mandrake, populace alba, sodium chloride, oys- ter shell, linseed oil meal 50h6 5.0 3.0 5.0 Borax, cream of tartar, salt, bicar- bonate of soda, capsicum, nitrate of potash, resin, oxide of calcium, black antimony, ground flaxseed 5007 1.0 7.0 5.0 Sulphur, Glauber’s salt, bicarbonate of soda, Jamaica ginger, fenugreek, black antimony, salt, linseed meal 4839 — - 10.0 Fenugreek, copperas, gentian root, rosin, chalk, salt petre, salt, char- coal, linseed oil meal 5251 — — 6.0 Fenugreek, sulphur, salt petre, Ep- som salt, rosin, flaxseed meal, lin- seed oil cake meal 7758 1.0 2.0 26.0 Quassia, nux vomica, potassium ni- trate, calcium carbonate, sodium hyposulphite, sodium chloride, iron sulphate, iron oxide, fine ground cottonseed hulls 7759 1.0 2.0 24.0 Quassia, nux vomica, charcoal, po- tassium nitrate, sodium sulphate, magnesium sulphate, sodium chlo- ride, iron sulphate, fenugreek, fine ground cottonseed hulls 4282 0.8 5.0 1.5 Glauber’s salt, antimony sulphide, sulphur, fenugreek, salt petre, alum, charcoal, linseed meal Vegetable ash containing silica, iron, alumina, calcium, magnesium, sul- phur, sodium, potassium and phos- phorus compounds 7446 4965 10.0 Fenugreek, gentian, nux vomica, sul- phur, hypo sulphite of soda, potas- sium nitrate, sodium chloride, lin- seed oil meal, wheat middlings 4966 5.0 Ginger, black pepper, nux vomica, sulphur, bicarbonate of soda, iron sulphate, carbonate of iron, oyster shells, wheat middlings 3986 5.0 15.0 7.0 Sulphur, ginger, sulphate of iron, (copperas) sodium hypo phosphite, charcoal, sugar, wheat middlings, linseed meal 7936 10.0 Gentian, sulphur, sodium chloride, copperas, lime, anise, charcoal, ash, Epsom salt 7421 — "T- Sassafras, gentian, copperas, calcium carbonate, mustard, ginger, char- coal, magnesium carbonate, poplar bark, capsicum, quassia, mustard bran, quartz grit 154 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients International Stock Food Company, Minneapolis, Minn. International Medicinal Stock Food Tonic 7940 20.0 Salt petre, gentian, mustard, ginger, International Hog Worm Powder International Hog Tonic _ 9080 9081 30.0 25.0 capsicum, charcoal, quassia, cin- chona bark, rosin weed, Colombo, poplar bark, iron sulphate, (cop- peras), nux vomica, sulphur, salt, prepared meal from wheat, oats, rye and barley Areca nut, wormseed, blue vitriol, naphthalin, sulphur, bicarbonate of soda, hypo sulphite of soda, Glaub- er’s salt, black antimony, salt, charcoal, prepared meal from wheat, oats, rye and barley Capsicum, ginger, gentian, quassia. Iowa City Food & Remedy Company, Iowa City, Iowa Iowa City Stock Tonic 5550 6.9 28.3 7.5 cinchona bark, rosin weed, Colombo, mustard, poplar bark, iron sul- phate (copperas) nux vomica, sul- phur, salt petre, salt, charcoal, Glauber’s salt, prepared meal from wheat, oats, rye and barley Gentian, ginger, fenugreek, anise Jordan, Geo. M., Vincennes, Ind. G. M. J. — “Pig Meal” 9267 4.0 17.5 10.0 seed, licorice, charcoal, salt, linseed meal Gentian, quassia, powdered senna G. M. J. Chick Chowder 9268 3.5 20.0 10.0 leaves, Epsom salt, charcoal, sul- phate of iron, (copperas), sulphur, tobacco, salt, wheat shorts, ground wheat screenings, corn feed meal, digester tankage, rye bran, rye mid- dlings (with ground mill run rye screenings) Gentian, quassia, powdered senna K. & B. Medicine Company, Kirklin, Ind. K. & B. Hog Tonic _ ___ __ 8349 4.0 14.0 13.0 leaves, Epsom salt, charcoal, sul- phate of iron (copperas) sulphur, tobacco, salt, wheat shorts, wheat bran, ground wheat screenings, rye bran, rye middlings, ground rye screenings, corn feed meal, digester tankage, alfalfa meal, molasses Gentian, ginger, copperas, Colombo, King Company, The, Rockford, 111. King Poultry Tonic 7945 3.6 8.1 11.5 madder, sulphur, wood charcoal, sodium bicarbonate, salt petre, Ep- som salt, Glauber’s salt, salt, lin- seed meal Spanish flies, African capsicum, gen- tian root, African ginger, Venetian red, American sulphur, ground co- coa shells, ground mussel shells, al- falfa meal, American shipstuff (wheat middlings, bran) Sulphate of iron, gentian root, ele- King Stock Tonic ___ I 7946 2.0 7.3 15.7 Klein Lambert Company, The, Chicago, (Blue Island), 111. 0. K. Stock Food 5998 5.0 25.0 12.0 campane root, salts of tartar, gin- ger root, mandrake root, cascara sagrada bark, fenugreek seed, Amer- ican wormseed, anise seed, pumpkin seed, juniper berries, African capsi- cum, coriander seed, sodium bicar- bonate, American sulphur, areca nuts, sodium chloride, cocoa shells, charcoal, linseed meal, American shipstuff (wheat middlings, bran) Gentian, fenugreek, sodium chloride, 0. K. Poultry Food 5999 5.0 25.0 8.0 linseed meal, charcoal Gentian, fenugreek, sodium chloride, subcarbonate of iron, wheat mid- dlings, linseed meal, charcoal i55 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Kokomo Hog Remedy Company, Kokomo, Ind. Digestion Regulator for Hogs 9317 4.5 22.0 9.0 Juniper berries, gentian, wild cherry Komo Manufacturing Company, Knightstown, Ind. Komo Hog Tonic 6178 3.0 3.0 6.0 bark, rosin, burdock root, elecam- pane, ginger, Glauber’s salt, areca nuts, anise, nux vomica, spikenard, wood charcoal, iron oxide, potas- sium carbonate, sodium carbonate, corn germ meal, tankage, kiln dried corn American wormseed, Glauber’s salt, Komo Stock Tonic __ 6192 3.0 5.0 16.0 Jamaica ginger, bicarbonate of soda, sodium chloride, charcoal, sul- phur, wood ashes, flaxseed meal Gentian, Jamaica ginger, fenugreek, Kutz-Bronson Medicine Company, Kirklin, Ind. 53 K. & B. Stock Conditioner 3886 5.0 14.0 9.5 elecampane, caraway seed, anise seed, fennel seed, wormseed, areca, St. John’s bread, (carob beans), sodium sulphate, sulphur, flaxseed meal, corn meal, wheat middlings Gentian, fenugreek, black antimony, K. & B. Poultry Tonic and Egg Producer 4357 5.0 14.0 6.5 asafetida, ginger, copperas, san- guinaria, mandrake, Colombo, pop- lar bark, madder, sulphur, wood charcoal, potassium bitartrate, Glauber’s salt, salt, linseed cake Ginger, gentian, capsicum, fenugreek, Lancaster, Dills Brattain & Company, Greencastle, Ind. 0. D. Shover’s Poultry Powder . 7560 2.0 cantharides, Venetian red, sulphur, Epsom salt, linseed oil cake, beef scraps, blood meal, bone meal Fenugreek, black antimony, Spanish Shover’s Stock Food 8307 2.0 brown, blood root, sulphur, salt, old process linseed oil meal Fenugreek, black antimony, Spanish Lee Company, Geo. H., Omaha, Neb. Lee’s Best Conditioner 4526 2.0 25.0 10.0 brown, blood root, sulphur, salt, linseed oil meal Gentian, ginger, fenugreek, sulphur, Lees Egg Maker ‘ 5258 2.0 30.0 5.0 anise, licorice, rhubarb, cayenne, potassium nitrate, (salt petre) iron sulphate (copperas) charcoal, salt, corn germ meal, linseed meal Potassium nitrate, sodium sulphate, LeGear Medicine Company, Dr. L. D., St. Louis, Mo. Dr. LeGear’s Poultry Powder 8135 3.0 4.0 50.0 ginger, gentian, fenugreek, iron sul- phate, cayenne, salt, sulphur, char- coal, granulated blood, linseed meal Ginger, charcoal, salt, capsicum, iron sulphate, ground oyster shell, (pal- mo meal) composed of ground wheat middlings, ground peanut hulls and palm oil Charcoal, salt, sodium nitrate, fennel Dr. LeGear’s Stock Powders . 8136 3.0 4.0 50.0 Ludwig Remedy Company, St. Louis, Mo. Appe Tona Medicated Stock Conditioner 7606 3.5 10.4 9.0 seed, ginger, sodium bicarbonate, iron sulphate, quassia, nux vomica, (palmo meal), composed of ground wheat middlings, ground peanut hulls and palm oil Nux vomica, gentian, anise, fenu- Appe-Tona Poultry Conditioner 7607 6.0 16.7 14.0 greek, potassium nitrate, copperas, sulphur, charcoal, salt, alfalfa meal, cottonseed meal Nux vomica, capsicum, potassium Maple City Stock Food Company, Laporte, Ind. Maple City Poultry Food & Conditioner 3207 3.3 17.5 9.2 nitrate, copperas, calcium hydrate, sulphur, charcoal, salt, alfalfa, cot- tonseed meal Carbonate of iron, anise seed, Afri- can ginger, mustard, salt, sulphur, licorice root, willow charcoal, ashes, alfalfa meal, meat meal 63 Succeeded by K. & B. Medicine Co. Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL 73 y O lie «2| ft o 2-pI O C«H 7 -\ ft w and to be composed of the following ingredients Maple City Stock Eood Company, Laporte, Ind. Maple City Stock Eood & Conditioner 4705 1.0 6.0 4.0 Moorman Manufacturing Company, Quincy, 111. Moorman’s Concentrated Horse Powder 5058 6.6 12.6 5.8 Moorman’s Special Cattle Powder . 5059 8.2 18.3 7.5 McCrillus Medical Company, Muncie, Ind. 5088 2.0 McCrillus’ Poultry Tonic 5989 2.0 National Manufacturing Company, Elora, Ind. National Stock Tonic 8879 0.2 1.5 3.0 Old Kentucky Manufacturing Company, Paducah, Ky. B. A. Thomas’ Improved Stock Remedy 6160 — 0.5 6.0 B. A. Thomas’ Improved Poultry Remedy 6161 .... Pratt Eood Company, Philadelphia, Pa. Pratts Poultry Regulator 4492 3.0 8.0 23.0 Pratts Baby Chick Food 4494 2.5 12.0 2.0 Pratts Calf Tonic 6025 1.0 1.0 10.0 Pratts Cow Tonic 6345 1.0 1.0 10.0 Pratts Animal Regulator 8171 1.0 1.0 25.0 Pratts Conditioner for Horses and Cattle 8172 1.0 1.0 25.0 Potassium nitrate, sulphur, apocy- num, anise seed, licorice root, yel- low poplar bark, rosin, charcoal, red pepper, hyposulphite of soda, Armenian bole, quaking asp bark, salt, linseed meal, alfalfa meal, wheat middlings Ginger, fenugreek, copperas, areca nut, sulphur, black antimony, sul- phate of soda, salt, linseed meal, siftings from com cereal foods Ginger, gentian, fenugreek, tamarac bark, sulphur, charcoal, salt, linseed meal, siftings from corn cereal foods Gentian, fenugreek, American worm- seed, podophyllin, sanguinaria, bi- carbonate of soda, sulphate of iron, sulphur, charcoal, Glauber’s salt, nux vomica Gentian, African ginger, African cap- sicum, sanguinaria, podophyllin, bi- carbonate of soda, sulphate of iron, sulphur, Glauber’s salt, nux vomica, bone meal, charcoal Epsom salt, sulphate of iron, bicar- bonate of soda, lime, (calcium ox- ide), salt, com germ meal Magnesium sulphate, ferrous sul- phate, calcium hydrate, sodium chloride, sulphur, pulvis ligni, (char- coal), cob meal Magnesium sulphate, ferrous sul- phate, calcium hydrate, sodium chloride, pulvis os, (bone meal), shell meal Red Peruvian bark, gentian, ginger, sassafras bark, fenugreek, cayenne, caraway, sulphur, sub carbonate of iron, oxide of iron, shell meal, ground grain screenings Gentian, ginger, pepper, caraway, Epsom salt, rape, hulled oats, corn meal, wheat middlings, cooked wheat, millet, bone meal, shell meal Gentian, ginger, fenugreek, asafetida, nux vomica, oxide of iron, salt, corn meal Gentian root, ginger root, fenugreek, nux vomica, cascarilla, cinchona, oxide of iron, charcoal, salt, ground grain screenings Gentian root, quassia, ginger, fenu- greek, fennel seed, nux vomica, Ep- som salt, Glauber’s salt, sulphate of iron, salt, charcoal, palmo meal, (peanut meats, peanut shells, palm oil) Gentian, quassia, ginger, fenugreek, fennel seed, nux vomica, Epsom salt, Glauber’s salt, sulphate of iron, salt, charcoal, palmo meal, (peanut meats, peanut shells, palm oil) i57 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Prussian Remedy Company, St. Paul, Minn. Prussian Stock Tonic 1713 3.0 10.0 12.0 Gentian, anise seed, fenugreek, sul- phur, sodium chloride, elecampane, ginger, asafetida, charcoal, ferrous sulphate, sodium sulphate, sassa- fras, licorice root, capsicum, cheni- podium, curcuma, wheat shorts, rye shorts, ground flaxseed screenings Prussian Poultry Tonic 1977 1.0 5.0 20.0 Gentian, anise seed, fenugreek, sul- phur, elecampane, ginger, asafetida, charcoal, sodium sulphate, sassa- fras, licorice root, capsicum, cheni- podium, curcuma, bone meal, oyster shells, sodium chloride, copperas, rye shorts, wheat shorts, ground flaxseed screenings Prussian Horse Tonic Pure Drug Company, Bloomingdale, Ind. 4706 3.5 11.0 8.0 Gentian, ginger, fenugreek, elecam- pane, anise seed, sassafras, licorice root, chenipodium, curcuma, asafet- ida, capsicum, sulphur, charcoal, sodium sulphate, sodium chloride, iron sulphate, rye shorts, wheat shorts, ground flaxseed screenings Pure Drug Poultry Remedy & Egg Producer. “The” Pure Drug Treatment for Horses, 3252 2.0 12.0 10.0 Venetian red, capsicum, oyster shell, wheat middlings, linseed meal Cattle, Sheep & Hogs 3626 1.5 5.5 5.0 Iron carbonate, fenugreek, salt, wheat middlings Ragon Stock Food Company, D. S., Evansville, Ind. Farmers Stock Food 261 4.8 13.5 6.7 Charcoal, gentian, ginger, capsicum, sassafras, puccoon root, poplar bark, sodium chloride, wheat mid- dlings Farmers Poultry Food Rawleigh Company, The W. T., Freeport, 111. 262 5.6 16.3 8.0 Gentian, ginger, copperas, charcoal, sassafras, capsicum, bone, wheat product Rawleighs Poultry Powder 6005 0.2 16.1 27.6 Ginger, fenugreek, quassia, capsicum, copperas, sulphur, charcoal, oyster shells, ground bone, tankage, wheat middlings Rawleighs Stock. Tonic Redding, J. H., Hobart, Ind. J. H. Redding’s Hog & Chicken Cholera 6006 6.6 10.8 10.6 Fenugreek, gentian, ginger, capsicum, quassia, anise seed, sulphur, char- coal, sodium chloride, sodium phos- phate, ferrous sulphate, wormseed, wheat middlings Medicine _ _ Republic Stock Food & Medical Company, Decatur, Ind. 7843 1.5 0.3 3.0 Spanish brown, sulphur, wood ashes, sodium bicarbonate, black anti- mony, capsicum, copperas, Glaub- er’s salt, salt petre, arsenic, linseed oil meal, raw linseed oil, charcoal, rosin, alum Republic Stock Food Roberts Veterinary Company, Dr. David, 5100 3.5 10.0 7.0 Fenugreek, elecampane, gentian, salt, ashes, sugar, ground flaxseed meal, wheat middlings Waukesha, Wis. Dr. David Roberts Hog Tonic 6216 2.5 10.0 10.0 Anise, fenugreek, gentian, licorice, nitrate of potash, (salt petre), sul- phate of iron, (copperas), charcoal, corn starch, corn meal Dr. David Roberts Poultry Tonic _ Rust & Sons, Wm., New Brunswick, N. J. Rust’s Tri-Plex Stock Food 6217 5.5 31.0 7.6 Gentian, ginger, fenugreek, sassafras, licorice, anise, capsicum, sulphur, sulphate of iron, (copperas) nitrate of potash, (salt petre), salt, blood meal, bone meal, cottonseed meal, linseed meal, corn starch, corn meal 4075 2.0 13.0 2.8 Fenugreek, cinchona, gentian, cara- way, sulphur, sodium bicarbonate, sodium chloride, wheat middlings 158 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed l LABEL Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber Rust & Sons, Wm., New Brunswick, N. J. Rust’s Havens Climax Powder 5013 2.0 5.0 25.0 Rust’s Egg Producer _ _ ___ 5014 1.0 10.0 15.0 Security Remedy Company, Minneapolis, Minn. Security Calf Food Compound 5073 4.5 9.8 6.0 Seneca Company, Inc., The, Tiffin, Ohio Seneca Hog Remedy 5528 10.0 Shores-Mueller Company, Cedar Rapids, Iowa Shores Hog Powder 4886 6.6 14.3 14.1 Shores Stock Regulator 4887 7.2 9.7 13.8 Shores Stock Tonic 4888 7.0 9.5 11.5 Shores Poultry Powder _ 4889 3.6 12.3 12.5 Shrader Drug Company, Iowa City, Iowa Eureka Stock Food 756 6.7 30.2 9.5 Eureka Poultry Food 1262 5.0 17.6 6.1 Snoddy Remedy Company, The Dr. J. H., Alton, 111. The Snoddy Remedy 6296 0.5 11.6 8.3 Soudan Specialty Mfg. Co., Milwaukee, Wis. Soudan Blood Toner 6190 5.0 17.0 6.0 Souder Company. The, Kokomo, Ind. Souders Stock Conditioner and Fat Producer 3204 10.9 14.5 7.9 Stahl, L. N., Geneva, R. R. 5, Ind. Poultry Remedy 5885 1.0 4.0 5.0 and to be composed of the following ingredients Red cinchona, quassia, capsicum, fen- nel, gentian, sodium bicarbonate, sulphur, linseed meal Capsicum, quassia, sulphur, iron sul- phate, sodium bicarbonate, char- coal, bone, shells, flaxseed Locust bean meal, fenugreek, anise, ginger, oxide of iron, sulphate of iron, salt, corn starch, wheat flour, wheat middlings, powdered milk, sugar Fenugreek, Spanish brown, copperas, sulphur, soda bicarbonate, Epsom salt, salt petre, charcoal, cinders, linseed oil meal Gentian root, anise seed, fenugreek seed, sassafras bark, quassia, mag- nesium sulphate, charcoal, potas- sium nitrate, sulphur, sodium chlo- ride, dried blood, ground flax, wheat screenings Gentian root, ginger root, licorice root, fenugreek seed, anise seed, wormseed, coriander seed, sassafras bark, quassia, capsicum, magnesium sulphate, charcoal, potassium ni- trate, sulphur, sulphate of iron, so- dium chloride, ground flax, wheat screenings Gentian root, ginger root, licorice root, fenugreek seed, anise seed, quassia, capsicum, magnesium sul- phate, charcoal, sulphate of iron, sulphur, sodium chloride, ground flax, wheat screenings Gentian root, fenugreek seed, nux vomica, capsicum, sulphate of iron, iron oxide, sulphur, sodium carbon- ate, charcoal, sodium chloride, dried blood, shells, ground flax, wheat screenings Anise, blood root, fenugreek, gen- tian, ginger, licorice, linseed meal, salt, charcoal Bone meal, gentian, fenugreek, blood root, capsicum, wheat middlings, buckwheat middlings, carbonate of iron Sulphur, copper sulphate, arsenic tri- oxide, charcoal, phytolacca, (poke root), sodium sulphate, ammonium chloride, mandrake, wheat middlings Gentian, ginger, fenugreek, anise seed, elecampane, elm bark, sodium bicarbonate, charcoal, salt, w 7 heat middlings, ground flax screenings Sulphur, black antimony, fenugreek, salt petre, asafetida, rosin, cream of tartar, Glauber’s salt, gentian, flaxseed, oil cake Sulphur, bicarbonate of soda, Ja- maica ginger, wheat middlings, lin- seed oil meal i59 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL £ a e s & JS 3 +3 b +* • 4-3 -•-> . o a> and to be composed of the S C^H Sc ft O C«H following ingredients .2 8® O 3 S 8® Is 3 a! ft 0 ft « Standard Chemical Manufacturing Company, Omaha, Neb. Standard Stock Pood 5172 Standard Poultry Tonic 7587 St. Clair Live Stock Remedy Company, East St. Louis, 111. Clarina Sheep Tonic & Worm Expeller 9366 Clarina Horse & Mule Tonic & Worm Ex- peller 9367 Clarina Hog Tonic & Worm Expeller. 9368 Clarina Poultry Tonic Clarina Cattle Tonic & Worm Expeller. 9370 Stevens Stock Food Company, Wabash, Ind. Stevens Stock Food 1000 Stock Food Company of America, Minneapolis, Minn. Clover Brand Poultry Tonic Union Stock Food Company, Simpsonville, Ky. Union Stock Tonic 5232 Union Poultry Tonic 5233 United Breeders Company of America, Syracuse, N. Y. Baum’s Cattle Tonic 2059 Baum’s Sheep Tonic 3148 12.0 15.0 18.0 29.0 26.0 25.0 14.0 18.0 21.0 Caraway seed, anise seed, coriander seed, fenugreek seed, capsicum, gen- tian root, yellow dock root, ginger root, licorice root, sulphur, bicar- bonate of soda, salt, charcoal, ground wheat screenings Ginger root, capsicum, gentian root, charcoal, salt, bone meal, dried blood, alfalfa meal, peanut meats, peanut hulls Sulphate of iron, areca nut, pumpkin seed, lobelia, American wormseed, gentian, ginger, licorice, bicarbonate of soda, charcoal, American flower of sulphur, sassafras, sodium chlo- ride, ground delinted cottonseed hulls Sulphate of iron, areca nut, pumpkin seed, lobelia, American wormseed, gentian, ginger, licorice, bicarbonate of soda, charcoal, American flower of sulphur, sassafras, sodium chlo- ride, ground delinted cottonseed hulls Sulphate of iron, areca nut, pumpkin seed, lobelia, American wormseed, gentian, ginger, licorice, bicarbonate of soda, charcoal, flower of sul- phur, sassafras, sodium chloride, sulphate of copper, ground delinted cottonseed hulls Sulphate of iron, gentian, ginger, capsicum, sodium bicarbonate, char- coal, sassafras, potassium nitrate, hydrate of lime, ground delinted cottonseed hulls Sulphate of iron, areca nut, pumpkin seed, lobelia, American wormseed, gentian, ginger, licorice, bicarbonate of soda, charcoal, sassafras, sodium chloride, ground delinted cottonseed hulls Gentian, sassafras bark, buchu leaves, nitrate of potash, sodium chloride, willow charcoal, fenugreek, wheat middlings Gentian, capsicum, ginger, charcoal, copperas, anise, bone meal, oyster shells, alfalfa meal Epsom salt, fenugreek, anise seed, sulphur, salt, charcoal, tobacco dust, ground cottonseed hulls Capsicum, sulphur, oxide of iron, carbonate of lime, ground oyster shells, ground rice hulls 1.0 10.0 Serpentaria, cascara sagrada, gen- tian, mustard seed, sulphur, magne- sium sulphate, sodium bicarbonate, nitre, charcoal, sodium chloride, lic- orice root, ginger, capsicum, yellow dock, Colombo, linseed meal 1.0 10.0 Gentian, zedoary, galega, sulphate of magnesia, wormseed, sage, bicar- bonate of soda, sulphur, chloride of sodium, ginger, capsicum, mustard seed, charcoal, linseed meal i6o Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL United Breeders Company, of America, Syracuse, N. Y. Baum’s Poultry Tonic Baum’s Dairy Tonic Baum’s Horse Tonic Baum’s Hog Tonic United States Food Company, The, Pleasant City, Ohio U. S. Stock Food Tonic U. S. Poultry Food Tonic U. S. Animal Regulator Universal Products Company, Fairmount, W. Ya. Uproco Poultry Tonic Uproco Horse & Cattle Powders Watkins Medical Company, The J. R., Winona, Minn. Watkins Stock Tonic Watkins Poultry Tonic Waukarusha Stock Food Company, The Lewis, Lee, Ind. Waukarusha Stock Food, : Official No. Not less than per cent. crude fat Not less than per cent. crude protein Not more than per cent. crude fiber 4215 1.0 1.0 10.0 4216 1.0 1.0 10.0 4217 1.0 1.0 10.0 4218 1.0 1.0 10.0 7493 — - .... 12.0 8890 — — 16.0 8891 — 12.0 7698 — - 3.5 3.0 7699 3.5 3.0 5898 3.0 10.0 9.0 5936 2.5 7.0 6.0 1090 5.5 32.0 11.0 and to be composed of the following ingredients Ginger, cayenne pepper, anise, gen- tian, mustard seed, sulphur, sul- phate of iron, bicarbonate of soda, carbonate of iron, Colombo, nux vomica, charcoal, linseed meal Gentian, ginger, capsicum, anise, mustard seed, galega, pipsissewa, stillingla, licorice root, yellow dock, nitre, sulphate of magnesia, bicar- bonate of soda, sulphate of iron, sulphur, charcoal, chloride of sodi- um, sugar, linseed meal Ginger, gentian, capsicum, anise, mustard seed, wormseed, spigelia, elecampane, nux vomica, cascara sagrada, licorice root, sulphate of magnesia, sulphate of iron, carbon- ate of iron, bicarbonate of soda, chloride of sodium, nitre, charcoal, sugar, linseed meal Gentian, ginger, mustard seed, anise, berberis aquifolium, spigelia, worm- seed, areca, hyposulphite of soda, bicarbonate of soda, chloride of sodium, sulphate of magnesia, sul- phur, nitre, charcoal, sugar, linseed meal Gentian root, blood root, Epsom salt, ginger, sulphur, poplar bark, licorice root, charcoal, fenugreek, salt, copperas, quassia, flax screen- ings Ginger, sulphur, Epsom salt, Vene- tian red, quassia, fenugreek, salt, copperas, ground flax screenings Ginger, quassia, copperas, Epsom salt, sulphur, American wormseed, charcoal, fenugreek, salt, ground flax screenings Mustard, (sinapis alba), capsicum, Venetian red, sulphate of iron, cal- cium carbonate, sodium chloride, oyster shells, wheat bran, wheat middlings Sodium chloride, nux vomica, rosin, sulphur, ginger, copperas, fenu- greek, digitalis, senna, charcoal, wheat bran, wheat middlings Anise seed, areca nuts, cascara sa- grada, charcoal, capsicum, cori- ander seed, elecampane root, fenu- greek seed, gentian root, ginger root, juniper berries, mandrake root, wormseed, pumpkin seed, sul- phate of iron, sodium chloride, sodium bicarbonate, American sul- phur, salts of tartar, linseed meal, standard wheat middlings Venetian red, American sulphur, Afri- can ginger, Spanish flies, gentian root, capsicum, ground shells, standard wheat middlings Sulphur, resin, sulphate of iron, salt petre, oil meal i6i Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale, May 1, 1918 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL fi c§ +» .-g 1 1 1 H « .S and to be composed of the m a 03 m £ 03 G ft O following ingredients 583 III U O' a, - 1 0,2 ■4J . T3 £ | £ At ft O s 0 *3 Whelan, Omer G., Richmond, Ind. Whelan’s Chop Feed 7933 Wilbur Stock Food Company, Milwaukee, Wis. Wilbur’s Stock Tbnic Wilbur’s Poultry Tonic Wilbur’s Hog Tonic 5691 5692 6619 4.0 12.0 3.0 17.0 3.0 17.0 2.0 10.0 10.0 Gentian, ginger, fenugreek, cascarilla, elecampane, blood root, golden seal, bitter sweet, caraway, dandelion, mandrake, salt, charcoal, quassia, copperas, Venetian red, ground grain screenings, corn, oats, corn feed meal, corn bran, wheat bran, wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings, linseed meal, cotton seed meal, corn gluten feed, corn germ meal 6.0 Fenugreek, gentian, ginger, anise seed, elecampane, blood root, elm bark, quassia, soda, charcoal, salt, wheat middlings 6.0 Fenugreek, gentian, ginger, anise seed, elecampane, blood root, elm bark, quassia, soda, Venetian red, charcoal, salt, wheat middlings 10.0 Fenugreek, gentian, ginger, anise seed, elecampane, blood root, elm bark, quassia, bicarbonate of soda, charcoal, salt, wheat middlings, ground flax screenings INDEX Page Attention — consumers, agents and dealers 8 Condimental feeds 6 Fractional sales 4 Freight bills and invoices 4 Labels 3 New feeds on sale 6 New rulings on animal feeding stuff 9 Purchasing feeds 4 Refunds 5 Remarks to agents, dealers, distributors and consumers 3 Samples 4 Short weight shipments 4 State Chemist’s label, reproduction 5 Suggestions to purchasers 8 Unlabeled shipments 4 Contents oe Tables Pages Alfalfa meal 94-95 Animal by-products 95-101 Barley cleanings 87 Bran, middlings, shorts, chop feeds, corn feed meal and other mill by-products 11-70 1 62 INDEX (continued) Pages Brewers’ dried grains 88-89 Chop feeds containing corn bran 72-79 Cocoanut by-products 79 Cold pressed cottonseed 84 Condimental stock and poultry feeds 148-161 Corn germ meal 90 Corn germ meal and corn distillers’ dried grains 91 Corn gluten feed 89 Corn gluten meal 90 Cottonseed hulls 85 Cottonseed meal 79-84 Cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls (cottonseed feed) 84-85 Distillers’ dried grains 87 Dried beet pulp . 94 Dried buttermilk 94 Hominy meals, feeds and chops 9 I- 93 Linseed meal 85-86 Linseed meal and screenings oil feed 86 Miscellaneous chop feed, containing cob meal, oat hulls, wheat screenings or other filler 70-72 Miscellaneous chop feed, containing corn and cob meal (crushed ear corn) 70 Peanut feed 87 Poultry and scratch feed 123-148 Proprietary and molasses feed 101-123 Unscreened flaxseed oil feed 86 Velvet bean feed 86-87 Yeast grains 89 ■(>< 7 yvZ i*- / / PURDUE UNIVERSITY Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 217 August, 1918 ’""‘A OKIYEBSITy OF ILLINOIS LlSIUar TNOV 4 1918 COMMERCIAL FEEDING STUFFS r Published by the Station: LAFAYETTE, INDIANA U. S. A. PURDUE UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BOARD OP CONTROL Joseph D. Oliver, President, South Bend Fay S. Chandler, l.lndianapolis Warren T. McCray Kentland Charles Downing Greenfield James W. Noel Indianapolis John A. Hillenbrand Batesville Andrew E. Reynolds Crawfordsville Cyrus M. Hobbs Bridgeport William V. Stuart LaFayette Winthrop E. Stone, A, M., Ph. D President of the University ADVISORY COMMITTEE (Under Legislative Act of 1909) John G. Brown, Monon D. B. Johnson, Mooresville State Live Stock Association State Dairy Association U. R. Fishel, Hope D. F. Maish, Frankort : State Poultry Fanciers-’ Association State Corn Growers' Association F. J. Heacock, Salem Indiana Horticultural Society ADMINISTRATION Charles G. Woodbury, M. S., Director Harry J. Reed Assistant to the Director Nellie Tracy Administrative Assistant Mary K. Bloom Bookkeeper AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION George I. Christie, B. S, A., Superintendent Thomas A. Coleman Ass’t State Leader Field Studies and Demonstrations George M. Frier, B. S. A Associate in Charge of Short Courses and Exhibits Mabel L. Harlan. .A ss’t in Agricultural Extension Richard S. Thomas, B. S Ass’t in Soils and Crops Extension ANIMAL HUSBANDRY John H. Skinner, B. S., Chief Claude M. Vestal, B, S Associate in Animal Husbandry George A. Branaman, B. S Assistant in Animal Husbandry Herbert E. McCartney, B. S. A Ass’t in Animal Husbandry Extension BOTANY Herbert S. Jackson, A. B., Chief George N, Hoffer, M. S Associate in Botany Luna E. Allison, B. S Assistant in Botany Edwin B. Mains, Ph. D Assistant in Botany DAIRY HUSBANDRY Ralph E. Caldwell, B. S., Acting Chief Howard W. Gregory, B. S Associate in Dairy Manufactures George Spitzer, Ph. G., B. S ..... Associate in Dairy Chemistry Harry M. Weeter, M. S Associate in Dairy Bacteriology Turner H. Broughton, B. S Assistant in Creamery Inspection William F. Epple, Ph. G Assistant in Dairy Chemistry Hubert W. Fleisher, B. S. A Assistant in Creamery Inspection ENTOMOLOGY James Troop, M. S., Chief FARM MECHANICS William Aitkenhead, M. E., M. A Specialist in Farm Mechanics HORTICULTURE Laurenz Greene, M. S. A., Chief Harry A. Noyes, M. S Associate in Horticultural Chemistry and Bacteriology Joseph Oskamp, B. S., Associate in Pomology Walter A. Huelson, B. S Assistant in Horticulture NUTRITION Ralph H. Carr, Ph. D Associate in Nutrition Chemistry POULTRY HUSBANDRY Allen G. Philips, B. S. A., Chief Dwight C. Kennard, Ph. C., B. S Assistant in Poultry Husbandry Lewis H. Schwartz, B. S. A Assistant in Poultry Husbandry SOILS AND CROPS Alfred T. Wiancko, B. S. A., Chief Martin L. Fisher, M. S Assistant Chief in Soils and Crops Samuel D. Conner, M. S Associate Chemist in Soils and Crops Clinton O. Cromer, B. S Associate in Crops Sadocie C. Jones, M. S Associate in Soils Ernest N. Fergus, M. Sc Assistant in Soils and Crops STATE CHEMIST Edward G. Proulx, M. S. 1 .. Acting State Chemist Reuben O. Bitler, B. S. 2 ....Deputy State Chemist Margaret Briggs, B. S Deputy State Chemist Paul B. Curtis, B. S . 2 Deputy State Chemist Omar W. Ford, A. B . 2 Deputy State Chemist Herman J. Nimitz. B. S. 2 .. Deputy State Chemist J. Howard Roop, B. S. 2 .... Deputy State Chemist Samuel F. Thornton, B. S . 2 Deputy State Chemist Otis S. Roberts, B. S . 2 Chief Inspector State Chemist’s Department Glen G. Carter, B. S . 2 Inspector State Chemist’s Department Benjamn F. Catherwood 2 Inspector State Chemist’s Department Wlliam B. Tiedt Inspector State Chemist’s Department VETERINARY SCIENCE Robert A. Craig, D. V. M., Chief David B. Clark, D. M. C... Associate Veterinarian Lawrence C. Kigin, D. V. M V Associate Veterinarian George N. Roberts, D. V. M Associate Veterinarian Rex A. Whiting, D. V. M Associate in Animal Pathology Carl H. Clink, B. S Ass’t in Serum Production Leo P. Doyle, B. S Ass’t in Animal Pathology Leslie R. George, B. S Assistant in Animal Pathology Fred L. Walkey, D. V. M Ass’t Veterinarian DETAILED BY U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Cereal and Forage Crop Insect Investigations John J. Davis, B. S.. Entomological Assistant in Charge John M. Aldrich, Ph. D., Entomological Assistant Herman J. Hart, B. S Scientific Assistant Wesley O. Hollister, B. S... Scientific Assistant Dean A. Ricker, B. S Scientific Assistant Chester F. Turner, B. S Scientific Assistant Seed Testing Anna M. Lute, M. A Seed Analyst 1 In charge of Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control 2 Connected with Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control COMMERCIAL FEEDING STUFFS E. G. ProuIvX C. Cutler 1 R. B. De^mer 2 J. H. Roop H. J. Nimitz O. S. Roberts The enactment of the Indiana Feeding Stuffs Control law by the legislature of 1907 and amended in 1909 was due largely to the efforts of the farmers’ organizations and feeders of the State. The demand for the enactment of such a law was the result of the knowledge of many feeders that Indiana was the dumping ground for inferior feeds sold under misleading names, that could not be sold in states having feeding stuffs laws, and that the sale of flaxseed screenings meal for linseed meal, cottonseed feed for cottonseed meal, ground oat hulls for ground oats, feeds containing ground corn cobs for pure mill by-products and similar practices, were common. The law has been in active force for 11 years, and if expressions of opinions received from purchasers of feed, manufacturers, agents and dealers are representative, it is satisfactorily serving the purpose for which it was enacted. The fear expressed by many manufacturers and dealers that the en- forcement of the law would prove a serious handicap to the trade has not been realized, since the sales have shown a substantial growth each year. A large part of this increase can justly be attributed to the fact that Indi- ana purchasers of feeds have reasonable assurance that they will secure the feed they purchase and not an inferior or adulterated article. OBJECTS OF THE LAW The Indiana Feeding Stuffs Control law is entrusted to the State Chemist for enforcement and the objects of the law briefly stated, are registration of all brands of commercial feeds under names which are descriptive and not misleading to the consumer, securing and affixing State Chemist’s labels to each and every package and delivering to agents and consumers feeding stuffs which correspond to the attached State Chemist’s label. The State Chemist will gladly furnish upon request a copy of the Indiana Feeding Stuffs Control law, together with full information re- garding compliance with this law. MANUFACTURERS The provisions of the law, together with the manner of its enforce- ment, seem to be very well understood by the manufacturers and need not be again published in this bulletin. New manufacturers selling feed in Indiana should communicate with the State Chemist and receive a copy of the law, together with all necessary information concerning it. 1 Resigned December 1, 1917 2 Resigned February 1, 1918 4 This information is contained in Purdue University Agricultural Experiment Station Circular No. 75 entitled “The Feeding Stuffs Control Law and How to Comply With It.” Copies of this publication will be furnished without cost upon request. AGENTS, DEALERS, DISTRIBUTERS The: Law. — Before offering or exposing for sale, selling or distribut- ing feed in Indiana, secure a copy of the law and rulings and carefully study its provisions and requirements. Companies. — Before accepting the agency for any company, consult the reports of the State Chemist and contract to represent only companies whose records from year to year show compliance with the law. Persons or firms who continue to represent and purchase from com- panies with poor records of inspection, should bear in mind that the per- son offering or exposing for sale, selling or distributing the feed in In- diana is directly responsible for feed so exposed, sold or distributed. Failure to meet the requirements of the law and repeated sales as above, will leave the State Chemist no option but to file information with the prosecuting attorney. Labels. — A reproduction of the official label, which is the only label that can legally be used in the sale or distribution of feeds in Indiana, and which must be secured from the State Chemist, will be found on page 6. Do not accept, offer or expose for sale, sell, deliver or distribute any package or any quantity of commercial feeding stuffs which does not have attached or which is not accompanied by a legal label for each 100 pounds or fraction. Dealers cannot shift the responsibility for selling unlabeled feed to the manufacturer if unlabeled shipments are accepted. Fractional Sales. — The sale of small amounts from original labeled packages has been held by the Attorney General to be contrary to law and all sales whether of 1, 2, 5, 15, 25, 50, 75 or 100 pounds must be accompanied by a State Chemist’s label. The special attention of agents and dealers selling condimental feeds, tonics, conditioners, etc., and chicken feeds is called to this ruling. Shipments Without Legal Labels Attached. — In most ship- ments there can be no valid reason for shipment without labels. In cases where shipments are made without labels attached, the latter being forwarded separately by mail or express, the same should be attached to sacks before offered for sale. Contracts. — In contracting for feeds, do not make purchases on the basis of private labels or advertising matter. Ascertain that the feed offered is properly registered, by examination of the State Chemist’s re- ports, or by requiring the manufacturer or his agent to show official label, (see reproduction, page 6). Examine the record of inspection of said brand. Contract on the basis of the official guarantee and insert registration number, which always appears at the top of the official label in the contract. Examine labels attached to packages or accompanying bulk shipments on arrival and if not according to contract, refuse shipment until satisfactory explanation is furnished for the variation. Notify the State Chemist promptly of all facts in the case. If in doubt or in need of additional information write to the State Chemist, zvho is always ready to serve you. 5 Weights. — If short weight shipments are suspected, weigh not less than 20 packages selected at random, on a scale previously balanced and tested, and if an average shortage of one pound or more per ioo pounds is found do not remove balance of shipment from car, but notify the State Chemist by telephone or telegraph, so that an inspector may be sent to make an official inspection. Samples. — Since the only samples analyzed are those obtained by the official inspectors from feeds and fertilizers offered or exposed for sale, sold or distributed in the open markets of the State, no samples of any kind should be forwarded to the State Chemist. In case an inspection is desired, cooperate by observing procedure under “Samples, Inspection/’ page 6. Deficiencies and Adulteration. — Examine carefully the mailed report of inspection of every sample secured from feed in your posses- sion, and if the report for any sample shows it deficient or adulterated sufficiently to carry with it the advice that the shipment should be with- drawn from sale, do so promptly and report the amount and date of withdrawal to the State Chemist, (see “Remarks”) Some cases have occurred where dealers have neglected to accept such advice. While there may be good grounds for claiming that the average agent or dealer has not the necessary equipment to determine whether guarantees are maintained until an inspection report is received, after such a report has been made showing that a shipment does not meet the requirements of the law, there can be no valid excuse for his continuing its sale, and in all such cases, prompt complaint will be filed with the prosecutor by the State Chemist. CONSUMERS Bulletins. — The reports of the State Chemist’s Department con- tain not only the results of inspection, but incorporate a table showing feeds which manufacturers certify will be on sale the ensuing year, to- gether with other tables showing the complete analyses of classes of feeding stuffs collected and coefficients of digestion available for feeds inspected. The following statements are offered with a view to assisting consumers, agents and dealers in using these reports to the best advantage : Determine the character of the feed you wish to purchase. Consult Purdue University Agricultural Experiment Station Bulle- tin No. 216, “Commercial Feeds Registered for Sale in Indiana, May i, 1918” to ascertain manufacturers who have feed of the desired composi- tion and materials registered for sale. Consult Table IV and compare the inspection records of the manu- facturers of the particular feed or feeds selected as well as general record for maintaining guarantees. Consult Table I for digestion coefficients. Consult “Refunds,” page 20. Purchase feeds from manufacturers whose records show compliance with the law. Make contracts and purchases on the basis of official guarantees and not from private labels or advertising matter. If in doubt or in need of additional information write to the State Chemist. Labels. — The only guarantee recognized as legal in Indiana is that on the State Chemist’s label (see reproduction, page 6), which must be 6 attached to each package for each ioo pounds or fraction of feed contained therein and which must accompany similar quantities delivered in bulk. Refuse to accept any shipments unless official labels bearing the same guarantee as contracted for, are furnished. If feed is purchased which does not meet the requirements of the law or contract, notify the State Chemist by telegraph or telephone giving location of shipment, name of the feed, the manufacturer and amount. Clubs, Associations, Etc. — Do not accept, deliver or distribute any feeding stuff without State Chemist’s labels. The person or persons to whom shipments of feed are consigned are responsible for such shipments meeting all the requirements of the law. Samples, Inspection. — When an inspection is desired, do not for- ward a sample but observe and follow the request and directions given under “Samples,” page 7, and “Requests for Inspection,” page 8. Freight Bills, Invoices, Etc. — In order that records essential to the inspection may be available for the inspectors, save all invoices, freight bills and letters relating to feed purchased. THE STATE CHEMIST’S LABEL The official label, required by law, a reproduction of which follows, is always printed, contains the information necessary, and the fac-simile signature of the State Chemist. $50 fine for using this tag second time No. 9 Net Weight 100 Pounds JOHN DOE & CO., of LaFayette, Ind., Guarantee this DOE’S MIXED FEED to contain not less than 3.5 per cent, of crude fat, 14.0 per cent, of crude protein, not more than 10.0 per cent, of crude fiber, and to be compounded from the following ingredients: Wheat Bran, Middlings, Ground Wheat Screenings and Corn Bran Acting State Chemist, Purdue University Agricultural Experiment Station LaFayette, Ind. Not good for more than 100 pounds. Agents and consumers should bear in mind that the accepted guarantee does not necessarily imply quality, and that it is simply in- tended as a guide to the purchaser. Inferior goods may be legally sold 7 if correctly guaranteed. Close attention should be given to the ingredi- ents contained in the feed, which must be printed on the labels. Distinction should be made between the private tag or label of the manufacturer, broker or agent and the State Chemist’s label ; the former is optional, the latter necessary. There can be no objection to the manu- facturers’ use of private labels so long as the printed matter on same con- forms to the official State Chemist’s label. False and misleading state- ments on the private labels attached, leaves the State Chemist no option but to advise withdrawal from sale of all such wrongly labeled feed, and the violation will be taken up under the Federal Food and Drugs Act. ADMINISTRATION It is provided by the Feeding Stuffs Control law that it shall be en- forced by the State Chemist, who is directly responsible to the authorities of the Purdue University Agricultural Experiment Station. The State Chemist is assisted in carrying out the provisions of the law by regularly appointed deputies and inspectors who are especially trained for the work. The inspectors are on the road every working day, collecting samples of feeds and fertilizers, which are sent to the labora- tory where they are analyzed by the deputies. Inspections. — It is impossible to inspect every lot of feed distributed in Indiana, but it is the aim of the Department as far as possible to make two inspections of each brand offered for sale. In cases where manufac- turers of brands have poor records of inspection, duplicate samples are secured wherever shipments are found. All reasonable requests for inspection are given prompt attention. Agents, dealers and consumers are advised and requested to cooper- ate with the State Chemist by giving prompt notice of the receipt of inter- state or other shipments, especially the former. Samples. — Manufacturers, agents, dealers and consumers are re- quested not to forward samples of feeds, fertilizers or other materials to this department since to do so is a useless expense as the only samples analyzed are those secured by the official inspectors from feeding stuffs or fertilizers found in the open markets of the State. If an analysis for the purpose of making guarantee is necessary, it must be secured from a commercial chemist. The rule that only samples secured by the inspectors of the Depart- ment will be analyzed must be rigidly adhered to for the following reasons : 1. In order for the analysis of a sample of feed to be of value, the sample must be drawn in such a manner as to be representative of the entire shipment. Such a representative sample cannot be secured by taking a portion from one bag or a handful from the top of a number of bags but must be taken with a sampler, which will take a portion the en- tire length of the bag or container. 2. Unless it can be shown beyond doubt that the sample was drawn by one especially trained for the purpose and in such a way as to be repre- sentative of the shipment, successful prosecution of the person or firm making the sale, should the sample fail to equal guarantee or be adul- terated, is impossible. 3. The only funds available for the work of inspection are the fees derived from the sale of labels and this amount is not sufficient nor is the 8 staff available to permit of the analysis of miscellaneous samples of feed- ing stuffs or more extensive duplication of samples of the same brand. The inspection in this state is more general and covers more territory than in most states having similar laws, and comparison between inspec- tion reports, we think, justifies the belief that on the basis of tonnage sold, we are analyzing as many if not more inspection samples than other states. In 1917 an inspection sample was secured for each 82 tons of feed sold. Requests eor Inspection. — If an inspection is desired write to the State Chemist, to whom all communications regarding the work of the Department should he addressed , stating the amount of feed on hand, name of feed and official number at top of label with any special reason for desiring the inspection. In case the amount present is sufficient to justify it and a large number of samples of the same brand have not already been inspected, an inspector will be sent to secure an official sample without expense to those desiring the inspection. Feeding Stuees in Quantity. — Purchasers should have available for the inspector the following information : the total number of tons in shipment ; number and initials of car in which shipment is received ; num- ber and date of waybill ; name of railroad issuing waybill ; name of town from which shipment was made; name of firm from which feed was pur- chased ; date received and price per ton. This information is especially im- portant when feed is purchased direct from manufacturers in other states. Analyses. — Laboratory numbers for identification of the samples are assigned upon their receipt at the laboratory. The analysts are not in possession of facts as to brand, manufacturer or origin of samples. If samples are found to be deficient in crude fat or crude protein or to con- tain an excess of crude fiber, at least two analysts make independent de- terminations on separate portions of the samples, and in case of disagree- ment, these results are checked from a third portion of the sample by another chemist. All samples received from the inspectors are examined microscopic- ally and the majority chemically and the results published, unless error in connection with the taking of the same by an employee of the State Chemist’s Department can be shown. Reports. — The results of the chemical and microscopical examina- tion of samples are reported to the manufacturer, agent and persons from whom samples are obtained. In the case of appreciably deficient or of adulterated samples the manufacturer is given 10 days’ advance notice in which to file objections and review the work for which purpose a por- tion of the official sample is furnished if requested. Pending adjustment of such cases and as soon as the adulteration or deficiency is detected, the agent or person offering the feeding stuff for sale is notified that it is not labeled in accordance with the requirements of the law and is advised to remove it from sale. Agents or persons so notified should respond promptly to such advice as failure to accept it will necessitate their being reported for wilful violation of the law. No report will be made on samples secured from unlabeled ship- ments but results obtained will be published in the annual commercial feeding stuffs bulletin. Analytical Methods. — The methods of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists are official in the State Chemist’s Department. 9 Manufacturers' Claims will be given every consideration and every effort will be made to secure concordant results but samples will not be referred for final settlement and only results which can be duplicated in the State Chemist’s laboratory zvill be accepted as official. Weighing of Packages. — The inspection will also include the weigh- ing of packages of feed offered for sale, to prevent the practice of giving short weights which has been prevalent in some states. Official Duties. — The official duties of the State Chemist are re- stricted to the inspection of fertilizers and feeding stuffs and the settle- ment of disputes between coal oil dealers and inspectors. The official work required takes the entire time of the staff of the Department and no miscellaneous work either gratis or for pay can be undertaken. An- alyses of fertilizers and feeding stuffs must be restricted to samples se- cured by our regular inspectors. Analyses of water, soils, rocks or simi- lar materials are not made by this department. EXPLANATION OF TERMS Concentrated feeding stuffs as defined by the Indiana Feeding Stuffs Control law is a term used to distinguish between feeding stuffs com- posed of grains, seeds or their by-products, and compounded feeds from such products as hay, straw or corn stover. Concentrates 1 are feed of condensed nature, which are low in fiber and hence furnish a large amount of digestible matter. Roughages x are the coarser feeding stuffs which are high in fiber and supply a lower percentage of digestible matter. Nutrient is a term applied to any food constituent or group of similar food constituents that may aid in the support of animal life. Moisture is the varying quantity of water occurring in feeding stuffs which can be driven off by heat at the temperature of boiling water. Dry matter is the portion of feeding stuff which remains after the moisture is driven off. Crude fat consists of the fats, oils and small amounts of waxes, resins, coloring matter and similar substances, dissolved from feeding stuffs by ether. Crude Protein is the term applied to the nitrogenous constituents of a feeding stuff. It is obtained by multiplying the total nitrogen by 6.25. Crude fiber is the woody portion of a feeding stuff, for the most part cellulose, and is insoluble in dilute acids and alkalis. Crude fiber when present in considerable quantities exerts a retarding influence on the digestion of nutrients present. Crude ash, the mineral matter of plants, is the residue left after burn- ing a feeding stuff at low redness. It consists chiefly of the phosphates, sulfates, chlorides and carbonates of sodium, potassium, calcium and magnesium. Nitrogen free extract consists of sugars, starches, pentoses, non- nitrogenous organic acids, etc., and is determined by subtracting the sum of moisture, crude fat, crude protein, crude fiber and crude ash from 100. Carbohydrates is the collective term applied to crude fiber and nitro- gen free extract. 1 Feeds and Feeding. Henry and Morrison 10 Filler is the term used to designate roughages which are often used as diluents of concentrates in the compounding of feeds. Fillers may be added as a constituent to make bulk but are often added to concentrates to reduce them to such a grade, that they may be sold at popular prices. Some of the more common fillers are cottonseed hulls, peanut hulls, oat hulls, cob meal, oat clippings, etc. The majority of fillers contain relatively small amounts of crude fat and crude protein and large amounts of crude fiber. Consumers should consider carefully before purchasing compound- ed feeds of high filler content as indicated by high fiber guarantees. DIGESTIBLE NUTRIENTS IN FEEDING STUFFS There has been a constant and growing demand by the feeders who wish to place their feeding operations on the scientific basis of balanced rations for the digestible nutrients, for example, digestible protein, carbo- hydrates, efc., that are to be found in the feeding stuffs on the markets of Indiana. Complying with this demand, terms used in the scientific compounding of rations together with Table I which contains a compila- tion of digestion coefficients are here presented. A balanced ration 1 is the feed or combination of feeds furnishing the several nutrients — crude protein, carbohydrates, and fat — in such propor- tion and amount as will properly and without excess of any nutrients nourish a given animal for 24 hours. Digestion coefficient is the term used to designate that portion or percentage of a nutrient that is digestible. These coefficients cannot be taken as absolute because they vary with the individual animal but being secured as the result of carefully conducted experiments, they will closely approximate the percentage of nutrients in feeding stuff available for the animal’s use. Nutritive ratio is a term used to designate the ratio between the digestible crude protein and the combined digestible carbohydrates and crude fat. The nutritive ratio of a feeding stuff is ascertained by divid- ing the amount of digestible carbohydrates + 2.25 x the digestible fat by the amount of digestible protein. The amount of digestible fat is multi- plied by 2.25 to reduce it to the same energy basis as the carbohydrates, it being 2.25 times more valuable for the production of energy. Example . — To determine the nutritive ratio of the average wheat bran containing 2.6 per cent, digestible fat; 12.2 per cent, digestible protein and 38.9 per cent, digestible carbohydrates. 2.6 fat x 2.25 == 5.85 energy value of fat in terms of carbohydrates 5.85 + 38.9 = 44.75 energy value of fat and carbohydrates 44.75 -f- 12.2 = 3.67 1 13.67 = nutritive ratio of the wheat bran 1 Feeds and Feeding. Henry and Morrison TABLE I. — Average Digestion Coefficients of Feeding Stuffs i Feeding stuffs Crude protein Per i Crude fat cent. Crude fiber Nitro- gen free extract Grains, seeds, their parts and factory by-products Barley 2 __ . __ _. 78 78 56 92 Brewers’ dried grains ___ 81 89 49 57 Buckwheat 2 75 100 24 76 Buckwheat bran 2 ___ 4 n 56 39 56 Buckwheat middlings 85 89 17 83 Cocoanut meal 9 __ ___ 78 97 88 68 Corn (Dent) 76 86 58 93 Corn meal 2 74 93 57 94 Corn bran . _ 54 77 '59 77 Corn and cob meal _ . 52 84 45 88 Corn cob meal 17 60 66 60 Corn germ meal 2 78 96 75 78 Cottonseed 68 87 76 50 Cottonseed meal . . - .. 84 94 35 78 Cottonseed meal and hulls (cottonseed feed) 2 __ 51 86 46 56 Cottonseed hulls .. — 6 79 47 34 Cowpea ineal 2 82 74 64 98 64 84 91 Distillers’ dried grains (chiefly corn) 73 95 95 81 Distillers’ dried grains (chiefly rye) '59 84 67 Emmer 2 __ 80 88 64 89 91 86 61 55 Flax plant by-product (pods, shives, seeds) 3 68.4 74.9 48.3 43.3 Flax shives 6 81 92.7 25.8 43.5 Gluten feed _ 85 83 .76 89 Gluten meal 68 98 88 Grain screenings (ground) 3 ._ 65.5 63.6 17.5 80.6 Grain screenings 6 71.8 88.5 73.2 Hominy feed __ 65 92 67 89 Kafir corn 46 46 60 Linseed meal (old process) 89 89 57 78 Linseed meal (new process) 84 89 74 80 Malt sprouts 2 77 85 80 87 Oats - - __ _ 77 89 31 77 Oat middlings _ - 81 94 49 96 Oatmeal by-products 65 90 32 42 Oat hulls 3 50.1 76.7 59.9 52.7 Palm kernel oil meal 9 95 95 94 82 Peanut cake from meats 2 90 90 9 84 Peanut cake, hulls and meats 2 __ 71 90 12 49 Rice 2 . 86 90 100 Rice bran 64 72 21 78 Rice hulls 2 10 67 35 Rice meal 2 62 91 4 92 Rice polish 67 82 26 91 Rye 5 _ _ _ 79.4 74.5 79.2 70.1 Rye meal . _ 84 64 92 Rye mixed feed (bran and middlings) 2 80 90 88 Soybean meal 2 . ... ... 84 82 81 73 Soybean oil meal 2 92 68 99 100 Wheat bran (spring) 76 68 44 74 Wheat bran (winter) 77 64 27 65 Wheat chaff 2 26 43 39 33 Wheat middlings (flour) _ 88 86 36 88 Wheat middlings (standard) 77 88 30 78 Wheat bran and middlings (shipstuff) 76 87 62 77 Roughage Corn fodder (mature) 45 70 68 73 Corn stover _ 86 67 64 59 Corn silage (mature) 50 82 64 71 Barley straw ... _ 20 42 56 54 Oat 6traw 28 39 60 51 Pea vine straw ._ ... 60 46 52 64 Rye straw 2 23 36 55 Soy bean vine straw 2 '50 60 38 66 Wheat straw 2 _ 28 31 50 37 Alfalfa hay _ ... ... 72 43 47 72 Alsike clover hay • 66 38 50 66 Cow pea hay 65 50- 43 71 12 TABLE I. — Average Digestion Coefficients of Feeding Stuffs (continued) Per cent. Feeding stuffs Crude protein Crude fat Crude fiber Nitro- gen free extract ('Trimson nlnvpr hay 69 44 45 62 R.pd rlnypr hay 58 '55 54 64 Soy bean hay 71 29 61 Timothy hay - _ _ 48 50 50 62 Miscellaneous Dried blood __ - , 84 Flav plant hy-prodnet, and mnlassps 3 62.5 59.7 31.8 62.6 Molasses, beet 7 52 91 Molasses can* 1 7 86 Molasses fped (SiiprpiiPj Hnlst.pin, Maenn) 63 88 52 80 Meat scraps 98 Skim milk * 1 2 3 _ _ — 94 98 98 Tankage 8 _ 71 100 100 1 Reports Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station. “Experiments with Rum- inants,” Lindsay’s compilation 2 “Feeds and Feeding.” Henry and Morrison 3 Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 168. Patterson and White 4 German experiments give coefficient as 26 6 Office of Experiment Stations, United States Department of Agriculture, Bulletin No. 77 0 Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin No. 158 7 Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin No. 118 8 “Feeds and Feeding.” Experiments with swine. Henry and Morrison 9 “Scientific Feeding of Farm Animals.” Kellner DEFINITIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS OF FEEDING STUFFS In accepting certificates for registration of feeding stuffs to be sold in Indiana the definitions adopted by the Association of Feed Control Officials are followed closely. It is not thought necessary to reprint all the definitions of feeding stuffs as these have appeared each year in the commercial feeding stuffs bulletin. A few copies of Bulletins Nos. 190 and 209 containing complete definitions, are still available and will be sent free upon request. The State Chemist deems it advisable to again publish the following definitions : 1. Those which appear to be misunderstood by the Indiana trade. 2. Tentative definitions adopted tentatively by the Association of Feed Control Officials at the 1917 annual meeting. These definitions -are marked with an asterisk (*). Final action will be taken at the next an- nual meeting in November, 1918, regarding these definitions. 3. When definitions are not available from the Association of Feed Control Officials the materials are defined in accordance with the best in- formation obtainable by the State Chemist’s Department. Definitions not from the A. F. C. O. are marked with a double asterisk (**). Corn germ meal is a product in the manufacture of starch, glucose and other corn products and is the germ layer from which a part of the corn oil has been extracted. Owing to the scarcity of fats due to the world war, corn germ meals are taking a prominent place among feeding stuffs. The oil obtained is used for edible purposes, manufacture of soaps, etc. According to esti- mations made from data available, about 26,687 tons of corn germ meal were sold in Indiana during 1917 as against 11,375 tons in 1916. i3 It is of interest to note that there are two distinct classes of corn germ meals. One is a by-product in the manufacture of hominy and products de- manding similar processes, and will carry from 6.0 to 8.0 per cent, crude fat and from 17 to 20 per cent, crude protein. The other is a by-product in the manufacture of starch, glucose, etc., and will carry 7.0 to 12 per cent, crude fat and 18 to 24 per cent, crude protein. The manufacturers of corn germ meal may state if desired, the source of this by-product when applying for registration and the same will appear on the labels furnished. *Corn feed meal is the by-product obtained in the manufacture of cracked corn, with or without aspiration products added to the siftings, and is the by-product obtained in the manufacture of table meal from the whole grain by the non-degerminating process. *Hominy feed, hominy meal or hominy chop is a kiln-dried mixture of the mill run bran coating, the mill run germ, with or without a partial \ extraction of the oil and a part of the starchy portion of the white corn kernel obtained in the manufacture of hominy, hominy grits and corn meal by the degerminating process. *Yellow hominy feed, yellow hominy meal or yellow hominy chop is a kiln-dried mixture of the mill run bran coating, the mill run germ, with or without a partial extraction of the oil and a part of the starchy por- tion of the yellow corn kernel obtained in the manufacture of yellow hominy grits and yellow corn meal by the degerminating process. **Corn mill feed is all of the mill run by-product produced in the manufacture of corn meal or corn flour from cleaned shelled corn and consists of corn bran, corn germ and some meal. Corn feed meal and corn bran are confused by the trade in Indiana. From the definitions given above and from general information available regarding the analysis of different parts of the corn kernel, the real corn bran should contain less crude fat and more crude fibre than corn feed meal. A comparison of the 1917 corn bran and corn feed meal samples analyzed shows that 21 samples of material registered as corn bran in 1917 averaged 7.1 per cent, crude fat and 10.3 per cent, crude protein, while 46 samples registered as corn feed meal secured and an- alyzed during the same period, averaged 4.8 per cent, crude fat and 9.5 per cent, crude protein. This shows conclusively that many corn bran registrations are in fact corn mill feed and manufacturers will be asked by the State Chemist to properly re-register these brands under appropriate names. If corn bran is cleanly separated and contains no appreciable amounts of corn germ or corn feed meal it should analyze from 2.0 to 2.5 per cent, crude fat, 7.0 to 9.0 per cent, crude protein and contain not more than 10 per cent, crude fiber. Corn feed meal, siftings from cracked corn, which does not contain excessive amounts of corn bran will analyze between 4.0 and 5.0 per cent, crude fat, 8.0 and 9.5 per cent, crude protein and should contain less than 6.0 per cent, crude fiber. Manufacturers’ attention is also called to the definition of corn mill feed accepted by the State Chemist. In the manufacture of corn meal or corn flour, provided no further separation of the corn by-product is made 14 beyond the taking out of the corn meal or corn flour, the term corn mill feed properly covers this material which should analyze very similar to hominy feed of previous years. The trade in Indiana is confronted at this time with a serious change in hominy feed, meal or chop. At a meeting of the Association of Feed Control Officials held at Richmond, Virginia, in November, 1917, tentative definitions were made, which will allow most of the product formerly sold as corn feed meal to be hereafter branded and sold as hominy feed, meal or chop. These hominy feed definitions refer to both white and yellow corn. At this same meeting, a motion made by the Acting State Chemist of Indiana to adopt a standard percentage of crude fat, protein and fibre for materials which could be classed under this definition, was defeated The Acting State Chemist has hesitated to adopt this definition as many corn feed meals containing less crude fat and crude protein than is contained in hominy feed, could under this ruling be sold as hominy feed. Tn order, however, to cooperate to the best advantage with other state officials and also with manufacturers engaged in interstate shipments of hominy feed, the State Chemist may accept the new definition of hominy feed, meal or chop after January 1, 1919, provided these definitions are made final at the next annual meeting of the Association of Feed Control Officials. Agents and consumers who formerly purchased hominy feed mostly on the brand name, paying little attention to the guarantee, should note that from best information available, the 40,000 tons of hominy feed sold in the State in 1917, averaged 8.2 pei 4 cent, crude fat and 11.2 per cent, crude protein, while during the same period, the 3,281 tons of corn feed meal averaged 4.8 per cent, crude fat and 9.5 per cent, crude protein. It certainly appears advisable that after January 1, 1919, strict attention should be given to the guaranteed percentages of crude fat, crude protein and crude fiber on the hominy meal, feed or chop. “E. SPECIAL REGULATIONS APPLYING TO DEALERS IN HOMINY FEED 1 Rule 1. Specifications for hominy feed. — On and after Aug. 1, 1918, the licensee shall not knowingly quote, sell, or label products of corn under the following designations unless they conform to the following specifications. In cases where the licensee after an inspection of the goods has no reason to suspect a failure to conform to the specifications, he shall not be held to violate this rule if he quotes or sells products under the designation used by the miller selling to him. Hominy feed, hominy meal, or hominy chop. — Shall be a kiln-dried mixture of the mill run bran coating, the mill run germ, with or without a partial extraction of the oil and a part of the starchy portion of the corn kernel obtained in the manufacture of hominy, hominy grits, and corn meal by the degerminating process from clean, sound white corn, shall contain not to exceed 14 per cent, moisture, not to exceed 7 per cent. 1 This ruling settles the hominy controversy 15 fiber, not less than io per cent, protein, not less than 5 per cent, fat, and shall have a texture fine enough to sift through No. 12 wire bolting cloth. Yellow hominy feed, yellow hominy meal, or yellow hominy chop shall conform to the specifications for hominy meal, hominy flour, or hominy chop in all respects except that it shall be made from clean sound yellow corn insead of white corn. Herbert Hoover, July 14, 1918. United States Food Administrator.” **Barley Mixed Feed with Ground Barley Screenings with Ingredients stated as barley hulls, barley bran, barley middlings and ground barley screenings. — In the milling of barley flour for human consumption, in mills inspected by representatives of the State Chemist’s Department, the barley screenings are removed at the start of the process, the cleaned barley being then run through the ordinary wheat flour mill or rye flour mill and the barley flour taken out. The product remaining, namely barley hulls, bran and middlings is mixed with the ground barley screen- ings originally taken out. The resultant by-product is sold in Indiana under above brand name and with ingredients given as barley hulls, bran, middlings and ground barley screenings. **Barley Mill Feed with Ground Barley Screenings. — This term is similar to barley mixed feed with ground barley screenings and is option- al with the manufacturer. ' In general, materials of this nature are sold in Indiana under guar- antees of 2.0 to 3.0 per cent, of crude fat; 8.0 to 10 per cent, of crude protein, and not to contain over 18 to 25 per cent, of crude fiber. VELVET BEAN PRODUCTS ! **Velvet bean feed is the dried ground velvet beans and pods. ** Velvet bean meal is the dried ground velvet bean and cannot con- tain the ground pods. Several brands of velvet bean feed are now registered with the State Chemist’s Department and appear in this bulletin in Table IV. In general, this product is guaranteed to contain 4.0 per cent, crude fat, 16 to 18 per cent, crude protein and 15 to 20 per cent, crude fiber. Velvet bean meal is not offered for sale in Indiana at this time. **Delinted cottonseed hulls is the product resulting from the ehtire removal of all particles of lint from the outer portion of the cottonseed hulls. When added to cottonseed meal or mixed with other feeds, the term ground or unground delinted cottonseed hulls must be listed as an ingredient. Corn cob meal, peanut hull meal and delinted cottonseed hulls have a very high percentage of crude fiber and contain somewhat less digest- ible nutrients than oat straw, and only a very great scarcity of home grown roughage can ever justify their purchase in Indiana. Table II contains the average percentage of crude fat and crude protein of the 1917 inspection samples, collected and arranged in 29 general types. The amounts of crude fat and crude protein obtained for $1.00 in each class of feed is also shown in Table II. In connection with the latter information, it should be noted that the pounds of total not digest- ible feeding ingredients are given and that in using the data in Table II in purchasing feeding stuffs, the digestibility and palatability of the materials used, as well as the home grown feeding stuff available for use in the ration, must receive careful consideration. The consumer should also consider the percentage of crude fiber which when present in consid- erable quantities exerts a retarding influence on the digestion of nutri- ents present. The numerous feeding investigations carried on by the experiment stations show that many feeds containing similar amounts of digestible crude fat and crude protein often have very different feeding values. The cost of many feeds doubled in 1917 while the costs of others have made only a slight advance and when the consumer in compounding a ration has a choice between several feeds which are equally good as regards feeding value and adaptability to the animal, he can use Table II to advantage, more especially if he will compare similar feeds by the method given below, which was the method followed in ascertaining the pounds of crude fat and crude protein obtained for $1.00. Example . — Cottonseed meal containing 7.9 per cent, of crude fat and 38.9 per cent, of crude protein is offered at $47.35 a ton while cot- tonseed feed containing 4.9 per cent, crude fat and 27.6 per cent, crude protein can be bought for $40.03 a ton. Cottonseed meal, $47.35 a ton -f- 20 == $2.37 per 100 pounds. 7.9 pounds crude fat in 100 pounds ~~ 2.37 = 3.3 pounds crude fat for $1.00. 38.9 pounds crude protein in 100 pounds - 4 - 2.37 = 16.4 pounds crude protein for $1.00. Cottonseed feed, $40.03 a ton -4- 20 — = $2.00 per 100 pounds. 4.9 pounds crude fat in 100 pounds - 4 - 2.00 — 2.5 pounds crude fat for $1.00. 27.6 per cent, crude protein in 100 pounds -4- 2.00 = 13.8 pounds crude protein for $1.00. Thus in buying cottonseed meal at $47.35 a ton, one actually pur- chases 3.3 pounds of crude fat and 16.4 pounds of crude protein for $1.00. The same dollar would buy only 2.5 pounds of crude fat and 13.8 pounds of crude protein if cottonseed feed were bought at *the rate of $40.03 a ton. In addition, the cottonseed meal would not contain over 10 per cent, of crude fiber while the cottonseed feed would contain over 20 per cent, of crude fiber due to the excess cottonseed hulls, which is not desirable. Table I giving average digestion coefficients of feeding stuffs found on page 11 can at this time be profitably used. To illustrate, the 13.8 pounds of crude protein in cottonseed feed purchased for $1.00 mul- tiplied by 51, gives seven pounds of digestible crude protein. The 16.4 pounds of crude protein in cottonseed meal purchased for $1.00, multi- plied by 84 gives 13.8 pounds of digestible crude protein or nearly twice the amount of digestible crude protein that could be purchased in 1917 in cottonseed meal than could be obtained in cottonseed feed. TABLE II. — Average Analyses of Twenty-nine Classes of Feeding Stuffs and Pounds of Crude Fat and Crude Protein Obtainable for $1.00 Kind of feed Number samples analyzed Water, per cent. Crude fat, per cent. Crude protein, per cent. Aveage retail price per ton, dollars Range in retail price per ton, dollars Pounds for one dollar Crude fat Crude protein Mill by-products — wheat bran, mid- dlings, rye feeds, red dog. etc., with and without screenings 957 9.8 4.1 14.9 43.73 26—80 1.9 6.8 Poultry feed— without grit ___ 139 10.6 3.6 10.9 73.84 48—100 1.0 3.0 with grit __ 108 9.7 3.3 10.3 75.31 40—100 0.9 2.7 poultry mash __ 43 8.9 4.3 16.9 64.97 44.80 — 100 1.3 5.2 Proprietary feeds— containing mo- lasses 258 12.1 3.4 13.8 47.63 28—70 1.4 5.8 without molasses. 126 8.9 5.0 17.7 52.28 2 l >—100 1.9 6.8 Hominy feed 60 8.4 8.2 11.2 56.66 42 — 77 2.9 4 0 Corn bran _ 21 9.7 7.1 10.3 30.43 20—45 4 T 6.S Corn feed meal 46 10.3 4.8 9.5 59.42 40 — 76 1.6 3.2 Corn germ meal 76 6.6 9.1 21.1 55.00 38—72 3.3 7.7 Corn gluten feed . _ 17 8.7 4.1 26.1 51.81 42 — 65 1.6 10.1 Corn gluten meal 5 8.2 0.8 43.1 56.40 52—60 0.3 15.3 Miscellaneous chops 188 10.0 4.2 10.5 53.85 26 — 90 1.6 3.9 Corn and oats chop . 38 10.1 4.3 10.0 56.89 38—75 1.5 3.5 Wheat middlings and palm oil— .. 28 5.4 8.6 17.0 47.58 30.80*— 60 3.6 7.1 Alfalfa meal 16 8.8 1.8 13.0 40.98 33. — 70 0.9 6.4 Animal by-products 280 12.2 6.5 57.5 70.97 20 — 160 1.6 14.4 Cottonseed meal 312 6.8 7.9 38.9 47.35 36—62 3.3 16.5 Cottonseed feed 20 7.4 4.9 27.6 40.08 29.50 — 58 2.5 13.8 Cold pressed cottonseed 3 6.7 10.1 27.5 38.90 38.60—39.20 5.2 14.2 Linseed meals ... 45 8.3 7.0 35.1 58.51 45.20—70 2.5 12.4 Unscreened flaxseed oil feed __ 2 7.9 9.2 2,6.2 55.00 60* — 60 3.3 9.5 Distillers’ dried grains __ .... 28 6.7 10.3 32.1 43.28 35—55 4.8 14.8 Brewers’ dried grains 13 6.1 6.9 28.7 41.20 27 — 52 3.3 13.9 Dried yeast grains _ 1 7.9 6.7 19.2 31.00 4.3 12.3 Dried beet pulp 2 7.3 0.9 10.2 40.00 34—46 0.5 5.1 Calf meals 10 8.9 5.4 24.4 114.09 55 . 80 — 320 0.9 4.3 Velvet bean feeds 7 9.0 4.5 18.9 43.00 35—47 2.1 8.8 Dried cnenannt meats 2 8.6 7.6 21.6 55.00 2.8 7.9 Condiment al stock feeds 24 14.7 2.1 7.2 284.07 35.25—1000 0.1 5.1 Condimental poultry feeds __ 16 7.4 4.2 13.8 298.61 132— 566.66 0.3 0.9 Miscellaneous— corn germ meal and corn distillers grains _ 1 5.8 j 9.7 24.1 44.00 4.4 10.9 ESTIMATED SALES 1917 COMPARED WITH THOSE OF 1916 AND 1915 An annual report of sales is required of each person or firm register- ing brands of feeding stuff, but owing to frequent changes of ownership and inaccurate records kept by many dealers, it is impossible to secure data showing the exact amount of feed sold annually. Based on sale of labels, reports from manufacturers, data collected by inspectors of the Department and other available information, the estimated sales are 379,152 tons in 1917 as against 317,664 tons in 1916, 270, 339 tons in 1915 and 271,751 tons in 1914. The estimated retail value of feeds sold in 1917 is $21,700,101 being twice the value of feed sold in 1916. Table III shows the estimated sales for different classes of feed for i 9 i 5j i 9 i 6 and 1917 together with estimated expenditures for 1916 and 1917. i8 TABLE III Kind of feed Estimated tons Estimated retail value, dollars 1916 1916 1917 1916 1917 Mill by-products— wheat bran, middlings, rye feeds, red dog, etc., with and without screenings 119,408 146,086 137,750 4,272,972 6,023,807 Poultry feed— without grit 18,281 20,519 19,004 893,594 1,409,900 with grit 15,718 14,688 14,125 616,141 1,063,758 poultry mash 1,344 1,688 2,937 78,047 190,816 Proprietary feeds — containing molasses 34,066 80,220 33,687 968,111 1,604,511 without molasses 7,780 9,086 22,687 302,739 1,186,076 Hominy feed 28i,431 38,626 40,062, 1,069,951 2,269,912 Corn bran 375 266 281 5,241 8,550 Corn feed meal . _ 1,137 1,406 3,281 44,973 194,957 Corn ererm meal 7,219 11,375 27,687 356,402 1,522,785 Corn gluten feed 3,594 3,938 5,687 116,904 294,643 Corn gluten meal . ___ 125 125 4,959 7,050 Corn and oats chop 1,875 1,656 1,937 55,087 110,195 Miscellaneous chop 5,111 4,781 4,437 166,594 239,932 Wheat middlings and palm oil 1,125 2,188 8,094 66,019 385,112 Palmn mixed feed 94 Alfalfa meal 313 488 781 13,337 32,005 Animal by-products 6,406 9,281 16,062 449,053 1,284,478 Cottonseed meal 11,004 13,338 18,500 520,429 875,975 Cottonseed feed 260 219 1,719 7,220 68,811 Cold pressed cottonseed 406 469 187 14,273 7,274 Linseed meals 2,968 1,625 5,094 71,191 287,861 Unscreened flaxseed oil feed __ 631 600 438 24,820 24,090 Distillers’ dried grains 188 2,189 2,500 71,258 108,200 Brewers’ dried grains 1,343 1,750 2,094 50,569 86,272 Dried yeast grains 126 94 2,750 2,914 Malt, sprnnts 32 31 94 039 Dried beet pulp 156 63 94 1,844 3,760 Calf meals 938 1,000 1,062 86,000 121,163 Velvet bean feeds 407 17,501 Pripd enena.nnt. meal 125 6,875 Cnndimental stnelr feeds 2,062 585,752 Cnndimental poultry feeds 5,625 1,669,671 Miseellanenns 260 Oat middlings 62 Ripe bran and riee polish 31 'T’oasted eorn flalres 31 Corn germ meal and corn distillers dried grains 125 5,500 Totals 270,339 317,664 379,102 10,316,516 21,700,101 The annual increase in tonnage and expenditures for feeding stuffs for the past six years is summarized in the following statement : Year 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 Estimated sales, tons __ 196,752 217,689 271,751 270,339 317,664 379,152 Estimated retail value, dollars 6,371,571 6,466,645 8,461,751 8,821,684 10,316,516 21,700,101 SUMMARY OF ENFORCEMENT OF THE FEEDING STUFFS CONTROL LAW Since July i, 1907, inspectors have secured 28,395 official samples in the State, 26,648 of which have been analyzed chemically and microscopi- cally, 1,518 microscopically only, and 229 discarded. The following summary gives in brief form results for each year : i9 o*~ >*= Year 1907 1 1908 2 1911 1912 1913 1914 1015 1016 1917 Number of samples secured Number of samples analyzed 1452 2702 2303 2036 2433 2340 2903 2696 3106 2040 3775 3469 3877 3536 3058 2893 Per cent, up to guarantee 57.2 67.1 75.3 74 79.7 82 79.4 76.7 68.9 Per cent, below guarantee in fat only. 24.7 22.4 16.1 17.5 9.4 9.6 9.9 8.1 6.7 Per cent, below guarantee in crude protein only 13.9 16.2 7.5 4.8 6.0 6.1 8.3 12.7 9.1 Per cent, below guarantee in both crude fat and crude protein 5.9 7.6 2.9 2.4 3.4 2.3 2.4 3.3 2.3 Per cent, misbranded as to presence of inferior ingredients 3 0.9 13.0 3.2 2.7 4.0 3.8 3.8 2.5 12.6 iJuly 1, 1907 — July 1, 1908 2 July 1, 1908— Jan. 1, 1910 3 Includes samples examined microscopically It is practically impossible to place the results secured from the en- forcement of the law on a dollars and cents basis but special attention is requested to the great reduction in percentage of samples found de- ficient which has decreased since the first inspection from 24.7 per cent, for crude fat, 13.9 for crude protein, 5.9 for both crude fat and crude protein in 1907 to 6.7, 9.1 and 2.3 respectively in 1917. In fact, the 1917 inspection samples in this respect compare very favorably with any year since the law has been in effect. SHIPMENTS REMOVED FROM SALE The following tabulation is a summary of the feeding stuffs removed from sale in 1917. This table shows the number of shipments withdrawn, also the amounts and the specific reasons for their withdrawal ; including the number of manufacturers and towns represented. This tabulation shows that of the 389 samples of feeding stuffs re- moved from sale, over 50 per cent, were not tagged, about 25 per cent, were misbranded, 7.0 per cent, deficient in protein, 6.0 per cent, had con- flicting guarantees, 5.0 per cent, were deficient in protein and also adulterated, and the remaining 7.0 per cent, deficiencies in fat or protein, excess fiber, improperly labeled, etc. In most cases labels were furnished by the manufacturers for the untagged shipments and settlement was made for misbranding, deficien- cies or excess fiber by re-registering and relabeling with a State Chem- ist’s label, showing a guarantee that could be maintained. Where this was not done, shipments were returned to the manufacturer and replaced with others that were satisfactory in every particular. A refund was paid by reputable manufacturers to agents and consumers when the deficiency was deemed sufficient to warrant such action. 20 Number of ship- ments withdrawn from sale Number of manu- facturers represented Number of towns represented Reasons for withdrawal from sale Amount withdrawn, pounds 200 92 100 Not tagged 1,708,002 3 3 3 Deficiency in crude fat 14,419 27 15 18 Deficiency in crude protein _ 291,025 1 1 1 Deficiency in both crude fat and crude protein 6,000 3 2 3 Excess fiber 9,900 2 2 2 Deficiency in fat, excess fiber 60,900 2 2 2 Deficiency in protein, excess fiber 32,000 8 6’ 7 Deficiency in fat and protein, excess fiber. _ _ 57,300 3 3 3 Deficiency in fat and adulterated 3,400 19 8 17 Deficiency in protein and adulterated _ 158,700 2 1 2 Deficiency in fat, protein and adulterate^ _ 17,800 91 38 56 Misbranding _ _ _ 1,061,900 1 1 1 Incorrect guarantee . ___ __ _ ___ 800 3 3 3 Wrong label _ - _ 2,700 24 12 16 Conflict 185,300 389 1331 1 155 1 Totals 3,605,146 1 These totals are not the sum of the respective columns, but are actually the number of manufacturers and towns represented REFUNDS Refunds paid for deficiencies due to error for which reasonable ex- planations are available, may justly be considered as indicating the desire of the manufacturer to do everything possible to recompense his custom- ers. The analyses of all official feed samples appear in Table IV, the main inspection table. Consumers and agents are referred to results given in Table IV. The foot note at the bottom of the page on which the an- alyses appear, explains the final adjustment, if any, which was made on deficient shipments. Failure of this foot note to appear means that manufacturers did not see fit to adjust this shipment or did not notify the State Chemist of the adjustment. A little study of these results will enable agents and consumers to familiarize themselves with the manu- facturer who adjusts deficient shipments and the manufacturer who does not adjust deficient shipments. Purchasers of feed may feel certain however that the cases requiring a payment of refund by any one manu- facturer naturally will be very few, if ordinary care is used in the manu- facture and registration of feeding stufifs. Refunds never fully com- pensate the purchaser for failure to obtain material ordered. Manufac- turers are requested to note that the Indiana purchasers desire the feed purchased and not refunds. Retailers receiving refunds are expected to distribute same to the actual consumers on the basis of amount purchased. If permission is given to relabel, the price must be reduced on the basis of inspection results. While the State Chemist appreciates the desire of the manufacturer to do what is fair by his customers, since there is no provision in the law for compensation of deficiencies by refunds, their payment will be con- sidered as evidence of good faith but will not, in any way affect the right of the State Chemist to take such action as may be considered advisable. The sum of $1,209.46 was refunded by 24 manufacturers to agents and consumers in 1917 to adjust 29 deficient brands representing 627 tons. 21 In addition to the above refunds, the State Chemist was informed that a shipment of tankage containing foreign material injured the health of several hogs and caused the death of others. Some of the hogs were subjected to a post-mortem examination by practicing veterinarians who made affidavit to the effect that the foreign substance found in the tankage was the direct cause of the death of the hogs in question. Two Indiana feeders were refunded the sum of $1875 m settlement for their losses. COOPERATION WITH THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE All interstate shipments showing deficiencies or adulterations suffi- cient to justify are sampled not only under the state law but also under the Federal Food and Drugs Act. The state samples are entirely inde- pendent of those secured under the Federal Act which are forwarded to the United States laboratory, for the central district, in Chicago. The State Chemist has absolutely no control over such samples or the sub- sequent proceedings which may be taken under the Federal law, nor do said samples or proceedings in any way affect proceedings against local dealers under the state law. The State Chemist’s Department continuing its cooperation with the Federal Government under the Federal Food and Drugs Act, sent to the Central District, United States Bureau of Chemistry, 47 samples of in- terstate shipments representing 25 manufacturers and 14 types of feed. Since November, 1911, the Department has collected and sent United States laboratories, 248 samples of interstate shipments representing 142 manufacturers and 122 types of feed. SAMPLES EXAMINED MICROSCOPICALLY Twenty-eight hundred ninety-three samples of the 3058 secured in 1917, were analyzed chemically and microscopically; 165 were not analyzed chemically, as many of them were duplicate samples of ship- ments already analyzed, or samples which had been secured from small lots of feed. These 165 samples were subjected to miscroscopic analyses only and eight samples, all of them mill feed, showed adulteration with screenings. ANIMAL BY-PRODUCTS Tankage, meat scraps, blood meal and other animal by-products were very much in demand in 1917; 16,062 tons were retailed at $1,284,478 in comparison with 9,281 tons and $449,053 in expenditure in 1916. Al- though the average retail price of this type of feed is relatively high, $79.97 per ton, the amount of protein carried is also high so that 14.4 pounds of protein and 1.6 pounds of fat was the average amount pur- chased for $1.00 in 1917. One hundred fifty-eight samples of the 280 an- alyzed were up to guarantee in every particular, 41 were deficient- in crude fat, 84 were deficient in crude protein, 10 were deficient in both crude fat and crude protein, 101 were adulterated mostly with intestinal ofifal, sand or glass and 56 were deficient one per cent, or more in crude protein. Of the shipments deficient one or more per cent, in crude protein, adjust- ments were made by the manufacturer in most cases to the agent or con- sumer by relabelling and refunding a portion of the purchase price ; 22 $279*85 representing eight manufacturers and eight brands was refund- ed on animal by-product shipments in 1917. One hundred thirty-six tons representing 11 brands and 10 manufac- turers were returned to factories, and either replaced with feed up to guarantee in every particular or else the original cost price was refunded to the purchasers. Six tons of meat scraps found to be deficient in crude protein and to contain ground glass, were seized by Federal agents, con- demned and sold at public auction with the understanding that the product would not be again offered for sale for feeding purposes. For the most effective cooperation with inspectors of the State Chem- ist’s Department, agents and consumers should retain all way-bills and in- voices regarding the shipment so that when inspected all necessary in- formation regarding the tankage in question can be furnished. CONDIMENTAL STOCK FEEDS AND CONDIMENTAL POULTRY FEEDS Manufacturers of condimental stock and poultry feeds, conditioners, tonics, etc., found a very prolific field in Indiana in 1917. From reports available, it is estimated that 7687 tons at a retail value of $2,255,423, were sold last year. These figures apply only to samples registered with the State Chemist and possibly as great an amount of materials of this nature which do not come under the law were also sold in the State in 1917. In general, these preparations are composed of some ordinary feed- ing stuff or feeding stuff adulterant for a base or carrier together with some common cathartic, generally Glauber’s but sometimes Epsom salts, and appetizers, such as gentian, fenugreek, ginger, common salt, anise, with small amounts of worm seed, poke root, copperas, sulphur, etc. In many cases after the passage of the Feeding Stuffs Control law, names, claims and methods of compounding were changed and the feed- ing stuff base omitted, salt, Glauber’s salts, and similar cheap materials being used in larger amounts and some of the largest sellers on the mar- ket today contain 90 per cent, and over of common salt. One large seller in a near-by county proved on analysis to contain 98 per cent, of lime, colored with Venetian red. This condimental is not registered under the law and would make a fine “white-wash” for barns, provided no objection was raised to the red color and to the original cost. As stated in previous bulletins, the large majority of properly con- ducted experiments fails to show profitable results from the use of these preparations but those who wish to use them are requested, both in co- operation with the State Chemist and for their own protection, to pur- chase those which are registered and thus obtain the protection which the law affords. Consumers of Indiana who pay $2,255,423 a year for feeds of this type, would do well to give the matter careful study and consideration before purchasing feeds. COTTONSEED MEAL The sales of cottonseed meal in 1917 were estimated at 18,500 tons with an estimated retail value of $875,975. Referring to Table II, it is noted that the average protein found was 38.9 per cent, while 16.5 pounds 23 > of protein and 3.3 pounds of fat were the average amounts obtained for $1.00 in 1917, cottonseed meal being the cheapest protein feed. Two hundred fifteen of the 312 samples analyzed were up to guaran- tee ; 10 were deficient 0.3 per cent, or more in crude fat ; six were deficient in both crude fat and crude protein and 28 were deficient 1.0 per cent, or more in crude protein. Fourteen manufacturers representing 19 brands refunded to the agents and consumers $887.99 on shipments of cottonseed meal found more than 1.0 per cent, deficient in protein. Inasmuch as the majority of this meal is handled by brokers, it be- comes necessary that the agents and consumers retain all data regarding their shipments of this product, so that the brokers will be in a position to trace the car and determine the cotton oil mill that originally furnished the feed in question. CORN BRAN AND CORN FEED MEAL It is to be regretted that the most of the so-called corn bran sold in Indiana is incorrectly registered. The 21 samples secured in 1917 aver- age 7.1 per cent, crude fat, showing conclusively that a considerable por- tion of the corn germ remains with the bran and was sold as corn bran. According to the definition of corn bran adopted by the Association of Feed Control Officials namely, “Corn Bran is the outer coating of the corn kernel.” This product should contain, little, if any, corn germ or meal. Corn bran can be safely guaranteed to contain not less than 2.0 per cent, crude fat, 7.0 per cent, crude protein and not more than 10 per cent, crude fiber. The following comparison between corn bran and corn feed meal samples secured and analyzed in 1917 shows at a glance that the corn bran contained corn germs, and could more correctly be registered as corn mill feed, which term is accepted by the State Chemist for the by-product produced in the manufacture of corn meal or corn flour from cleaned shelled corn. Material Number of samples Water, per cent. Crude fat, per cent. Crude protein, per cent. Cfude fiber, per cent. Corn bran 21 9.7 7.1 10.3 6.3 Corn feed meal . 46 10.3 4.8 9.5 4.0 It is hoped that manufacturers will remedy this condition and secure registrations more representative of their product. Due to the increased demand for corn flour, the tonnage of corn bran and corn feed meal increased from 1662 tons in 1916 to 3562 tons in 1917. HOMINY FEED, MEAL OR CHOP The sales of hominy feed in 1917 were unusually good, 40,062 tons of an estimated retail value of $2,269,912 being sold in the State. The average content of crude fat and crude protein increased materially over 1916 as did also the percentage of samples up to guarantee in every particular. 24 The influence of the frosted corn crop upon hominy feed was not materially felt in 1917, the better grades of corn being first used. Since January, 1918, however, many manufacturers have re-registered their hominy feed brands with a lower guarantee of crude fat and crude protein, giving as their reason for so doing, the poor quality of corn now available. Agents and consumers are advised to examine carefully the manufac- turers’ guarantees as given on State Chemist’s labels. The following com- parison illustrates the inspection of hominy feed in 1916 and 1917. Number of Water, Crude Crude Average retail Number of samples Hominy feed Year samples analyzed per cent. fat, per cent. protein, per cent. price per ton up to guarantee Hominy feed 1916 67 8.3 6.8 10.6 30.29 52 Hominy feed 1917 60 8.4 8.2 11.2 56.06 52 POULTRY FEEDS The United States Food Administration has advocated increasing the supply of poultry and poultry products. Poultry feeds therefore will probably be sold in ever increasing amounts and poultry raisers, feeders and dealers are requested to give attention to the purchase of chicken feeds. Poultry feeds are divided into two general classes; those contain- ing cereals and seeds without grit, and those containing cereals and seeds with limestone grit, charcoal or oyster shells. The total tonnage of the poultry feeds sold in 1917 when compared with 1916 sales shows a decrease of 739 tons in 1917. The estimated expenditure in 1917 was $2,664,469, an increase of $1,076,687 over 1916. This increase can be explained by the advanced prices of poultry, feeds in 1917. Assuming 3.0 per cent, as the average amount of grit found in 14,125 tons sold in 1917, which had grit guaranteed, there would have been 423.75 tons of grit which was bought by the feeders of Indiana at approximately the prevailing price of cereals, seeds and other by-products. Comparing poultry feeds with grit with poultry feeds without grit, as given in Table II page 17, it is readily seen that more pounds of fat and protein are obtained for $1.00 on poultry feeds without grit. Comparing the pounds of fat and protein purchased for $1.00 on both poultry feed with grit and poultry feed without grit by the method given on page 16 the price asked for grit can be readily ascertained. Whether it would not be more profitable to purchase the grit sep- arately rather than pay feed prices for grit, deserves the careful attention of purchasers and feeders of poultry feeds. PROPRIETARY FEEDS WITH AND WITHOUT MOLASSES Brands of proprietary feeds with molasses and without molasses were not staple in 1917. Manufacturers experienced considerable diffi- culty in obtaining the different ingredients from which they formerly 25 compounded their proprietary feeds and were often compelled to change the formula and re-register to properly make use of ingredients that could be maintained. Numerous brands were re-registered three or more times during the winter of 1917 and 1918 and while the guarantees of crude fat and crude protein were substantially met, the guaranteed in- gredients in many brands were not correct. The tonnage of proprietary feeds containing molasses in 1917 was 33,687 tons, an increase of 3367 tons over 1916 and from best evidence obtainable the actual amount of molasses used in this class of feeds was much less in 1917 than in 1916. The tonnage of proprietary feeds without molasses in 1917 was 22,680, being nearly two and one-half times greater than the tonnage sold in 1916. EXPLANATION OF TABLES In considering the results and summaries of inspection, it should be noted that in the case of deficient, adulterated or misbranded samples, manufacturers were given 10 days’ advance notice and, opportunity to re- quest a portion of sample and time for review of the results by their chemist. The results as reported in Table IV are official and final. Table I, page 11 contains the digestion coefficients of a number of common feeding stuffs as determined by digestion experiments and compiled by various authorities. Table II, page 17 is the average analyses of 29 classes of feeding stuffs together with the pounds of crude fat and crude protein obtain- able for $1.00. Table III, page 18 contains the estimated sales of 1917 compared with those of 1915 and 1916 and also the estimated retail value of all feeds sold in 1916 and 1917. Table IV, page 27 contains the detailed results of samples analyzed chemically and examined microscopically or macroscopically for the year ending December 31, 1917 including manufacturers’ guarantees, found composition, names and addresses of persons from whom samples were obtained. In Table IV the results in the found column of samples showing a deficiency of 0.3 per cent, in crude fat or 1.0 per cent, in crude protein or deficient in both crude fat and crude protein are printed in bold face type. Ingredients present and not guaranteed under the heading “Princi- pal ingredients identified” are printed in bold face type. In poultry feeds the percentage of grit was determined ; and where found present in quan- tities probably in excess of the fowl’s needs, the percentage is printed in bold face type, unless the manufacturer has a higher percentage guar- anteed. Under the heading “Principal ingredients identified” in Table IV, it is not intended to assert that the materials noted are all that the samples contain but that they are the ones constituting the bulk of the feed and are present in such quantities as to be capable of identification. In conjunction with Table IV, agents and consumers should also consult “Shipments removed from sale,” page 19, and “Refunds,” page 20, in deciding from whom to purchase. 26 SPECIAL NOTICE Bulletin No. 216 contains a list of the brands of feeding stuffs which will be on sale in Indiana in 1918. Agents and consumers will secure the best results by using Bulletin No. 216 in conjunction with this bulletin. » ATTENTION, CONSUMERS, AGENTS AND DEALERS In deciding on companies from which to purchase and represent, study closely the details of inspection in Table IV, page 27, and purchase from and represent companies which ship feed properly labeled and up to guarantee; when for any reason refund is received, notify this depart- ment promptly. Dealers who have sold any deficient feed and received refund must file receipts showing payment of proper amount to such customers. When car lots or appreciable amounts of feed are received, keep all bills, way bills and correspondence ; also notify the State Chemist of arrival and probable time of distribution. No excuse will be accepted from agents or dealers who persist in representing companies which ship deficient, adulterated or unlabeled feed. Fractional carloads will not be shipped. Cooperate by ordering either full carloads or place your order in advance, thus enabling the manufacturer to bunch two or more orders from the same section and make up a full car. The facts are presented in this bulletin, and the best interests of pur- chasers of feed, as well as other citizens of the State, will be secured by co- operating with this department and patronizing firms which meet the re- quirements of the law in every particular. 27 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 Label Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein percent. Official Inspection D Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed T3 C 3 o WHEAT BRAN 1 Aetna Mills Company, The, Wellington, Kansas 5095 7007 10.4 3.5 4.1 14.0 15.8 Akin-Erskine Milling Company, Evansville, Ind. 0031 5795 Jeff Ray & Son, Rockport 10.7 3.9 3.9 14.0 15.5 Winter Wheat Bran 2 . 6031 0720 R. P. Moore Milling Co., Princeton 8.7 3.9 4.0 14.0 15.2 Akron Milling Company, The, Akron, Ind. 3597 7186 Manufacturer 10.4 3.5 3.9 14.0 14.9 3597 8055 Manufacturer __ 8.1 3.5 3.6 14.0 15.5 Amboy Milling Company, Amboy, Ind. 6087 6871 9.8 3.5 '4.0 13.0 16.1 Angola Flouring Mills, Angola, Ind. Angola Flouring Mills Wheat Bran 1098 7388 Manufacturer 10.6 3.8 3.8 14.0 15.6 Angola Flouring Mills Wheat Bran 1098 8262 Manufacturer 8.1 3.8 3.6 | 14.0 15.1 Ashley-Hudson Milling & Grain Company, Ashley, Ind. Ashley-Hndsnn Wheat Bran 3144 7386 Ashley-Hudson Milling fin 10.1 3.8 4.0 14.0 15.9 ttAshley-Hudson Wheat Bran 3144 8250 Frank Strock, Hudson _ 8.0 3 8 4.6 14.0 17.7 Ashley-Hudson Wheat Bran 3144 8253 Kerlin & Hammond, Ashley. 8.6 3.8 4.0 14.0 16.2 Bay State Milling Company, Winona, Minn. “Winona” Coarse Wheat Bran 8193 7366 Luebcke Bros., Crown Point 10.2 4.5 5.0 15.0 15.4 Berlein Mills, Angola, R. R., Ind. Wheat Bran 7738 8258 Manufacturer 8.9 3.0 4.0 14.0 15.4 Burrell & Morgan, Elkhart, Ind. Bran 253 6496 Manufacturer _ 9.9 3.8 3.8 14.0 14.0 Bran ... __ 253 7548 Manufacturer 9.0 3.8 3.6 14.0 14.8 Butler Milling Company, Butler, Ind. Butler Milling Co’s Wheat Bran 1029 7402 Manufacturer __ 9.8 3.8 4.1 14.0 15.3 Butler Milling Co’s Wheat Bran.__ .. 1029 8236 Manufacturer 8.9 3.8 3.9 14.0 15.6 Cauble, 0. L., Pekin, Ind. Wheat Bran 1018 5898 Manufacturer 9.5 3.8 3.8 14.0 15.9 Wheat Bran _ 1018 8030 Manufacturer 8.9 3.8 4.4 14.0 15.3 Cauble & Dunlevy, Henryville, Ind. Bran 4295 5869 Manufacturer 9.5 3.5 3.6 14.0 14.5 Champion Roller Milling Company, Richmond, Ind. Wheat Bran 2496 6250 Manufacturer 10.0 3.5 4.1 14.8 14.4 Wheat Bran 2496 7954 Manufacturer 8.9 3.5 3.9 14.8 14.9 City Milling Company, Kendallville, Ind. Wheat Bran 6273 6511 Manufacturer _ 11.0 3.8 4.9 14.0 15.4 Wheat Bran 6273 7511 Manufacturer _ 9.5 3.8 3.8 14.0 16.5 City Mills. South Whitley, Ind. Wheat Bran _ 6105 7151 Manufacturer 9.6 3.5 4.0 14.0 14.1 Wheat Bran 6105 8074 Manufacturer 8.1 3.5 3.9 14.0 15.8 Claypole, Geo. M., Sardinia, Ind. Geo. M. Claypole’s Wheat Bran 2144 5457 Manufacturer 10.1 3.2 3.8 14.0 15.0 Cook Milling Company, Richmond, R. R. No. 4, Ind. Wheat Bran _ _ __ _ 4796 7911 Manufacturer 9.0 3.4 3.4 12.0 15.0 tt Not tagged. Labels furnished. 2 Screenings present, 1 7 /to tons removed from 1 Screenings present, 1200 lbs. removed from sale. sale Relabeled No. 7729 28 TABLE IV. Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Coppes Bros. & Zook, Nappanee, Ind. Bran Bran Bran Bran ™[” Daniels & Pickering Company, Middletown, Ind. Daniels Wheat Bran Deutsch & Sickert Company, Milwaukee, Wis. Coarse Wheat Bran * 3 Duglay & Jones, Churubusco, Ind. Wheat Bran Dunlap Grain Company, The J. M., Franklin, Ind. “Dairy” Wheat Bran Farmers Milling & Elevator Company, Veedersburg, Ind. Wheat Bran Fyke Milling Company, Lagrange, Ind. Wheat Bran 4 Geneva Milling & Grain Company, Geneva, Ind. Miller’s Wheat Bran Gerald County Milling Company, Westington Springs, S. Dakota Dakota Cream Bran 5 Globe Mills, The, Fort Wayne, Ind. The Globe Mills Wheat Bran The Globe Mills Wheat Bran Green Bros. & Oldfatber, Warsaw, Ind. Wheat Bran 6 - Wheat Bran ZZZII Greenfield Milling Company, Greenfield, Ind. Bran Hall Milling Company, W. C., Brazil. Ind. Hall’s Wheat Bran Hampton, W. D., Worthington, Ind. Wheat Bran Huntington Mill Company, Huntington, Ind. Bran Bran I_II_ZZZZZIIZ-ZZZ Hunter-Robinson-Wenz Milling Company, St. Louis, Mo. *Dreadnaught Pure Extra Coarse Wheat Bran *Dreadnaught Pure Extra Coarse Wheat Bran * Not tagged 3 Screenings present 4 Screenings present Number Crude Crude a o Sample secured from Li tl fat per cent. protein per cent. Officia »Q CD S3 S a> * « S ^ Is, Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found 5628 5953 Beach & Simmers, Albany... 9.0 3.6 3.8 13.5 13.6 5628 5628 6491 8051 Manufacturer . ... Kraus & Apfelbaum, Pierceton 9.9 8.1 3.6 3.6 4.4 3.7 13.5 13.5 15.1 15.2 5628 8306 Manufacturer _ 9.4 3.6 3.6 13.5 15^0 104 5380 7469 6283 7531 7408 J. M. Walker & Son, Middle- town Yorktown Lumber Co., York- town . Manufacturer 9.5 8.9 9.3 3.2 4.0 3.0 4.3 5.6 4.1 12.0 15.0 13.0 15.8 14.4 15.6 8569 7762 Manufacturer _ __ 8.9 38 4.4 14.0 16.3 5000 6052 Manufacturer 10.1 3.0 4.4 12.0 15.3 1814 7306 Manufacturer 8.7 3.8 3.8 14.0 13.9 3109 7094 Manufacturer 10.1 3.3 3.6 14.0 16.4 425 5487 5518 Richard Hagans, Greenfield. . Manufacturer 9.1 8 6 3 8 4.9 3.8 14.0 14.7 15.1 425 8195 Manufacturer _ __ 9.3 3.8 3.8 14.0 15l8 7919 7169. Manufacturer 9.3 3 5 4.0 14.0 15.1 7919 8064 Manufacturer 8.3 3.5 3.9 14.0 16.3 4469 6555 Manufacturer 9.1 3.0 3.7 15.0 19.2 412 6662 Manufacturer 10.2 3.8 4.4 14.0 15.8 1124 7177 Manufacturer ... 10.7 3.8 4.2 14.0 17.8 491 6586 Manufacturer __ 8.7 3.6 3.7 14.2 14.2 491 7594 Manufacturer _. . 8.1 3.6 3.8 14.2 16.5 6967 Chas. Rigney, Orleans F. H. Turner & Sons, Lost River 10.0 10.0 — 4.4 4.7 — 15.9 16.2 6 Not tagged. Screenings present. Returned 6 Screenings and chaff present 29 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. Official Inspection D Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed j Found Igleheart Bros., Evansville, Ind. Pure Wheat Bran 5771 7896 P. Reising & Sons, Posey ville___ 8.6 4.0 3.8 14.5 16.0 Iroquois Roller Mills, Rensselaer, Ind. 6139 6051 Manufacturer _ 9.1 3.0 4.3 13.0 13.9 Katterjohn, A. F., Lynnville, Ind. 487 6929 9.4 3.7 3.5 14.0 14.9 Kehlor Flour Mills Company, St. Louis, Mo. tfPalace Bran 5S08 6766 Casper Fohl & Son, Cedar Grove ___ 9.7 4.0 4.6 14.5 15.7 Kendall, Dor Cuy, Williamsburg, Ind. Cuy Kendall Wheat Bran __ ___ __ _ 362 7900 Williamsburg Flour Mills, Williamsburg 9.1 3.8 3.8 14.0 14.9 Kennedy Milling Company, G. W., Shelbyville, Ind. Kennedy’s Winter Wheat Rran 8201 7863 8.1 3.5 3.7 16.0 17.0 Lawrenceburg Roller Mills Company, Lawrenceburg, Ind. Snowflake Bran • 3930 5405 Geo. Niemeyer & Son, Dillsboro. 9.6 3.8 3.9 14.2 14.0 3930 6551 9.9 3.8 3.8 14.2 14.5 Snowflake Bran _ 3930 7703 C. W. Curtis, Aurora 9.2 3.8 3.8 14.2 14.7 Golden Bull Bran 7110 5555 King Grain On., Wabash . 10.9 2.0 4.2 15.5 15.8 Golden Bull Bran __ 7110 7060 City Mills, Rising Snn m2 2!o 4.1 15.5 14.9 Leesburg Grain & Milling Company, The, Leesburg, Ind. Wheat Bran ___ _ _ . .. 305 5554 W. H. McCarty, Wabash 9.7 3.8 4.1 14.0 14.6 Wheat Bran . 305 7266 Manufacturer 9.3 3.8 4.2 14.0 14.0 Lingeman, Adams & Company, Brownsburg, Ind. Bran 3320 6445 Manufacturer 10.2 3.8 4.0 14.0 15.1 Listman Mill Company, La Crosse, Wis. Elmco Bran _ _ 3368 6908 Williamsport Grain Co., Williamsport 9.3 4.1 4.7 16.6 15 5 Little Crow Milling Company, Warsaw, Ind. Little Crow Wheat Bran . ___ 360 8058 Manufacturer 8.4 3.8 3.8 14.0 15.8 Lynn Milling Company, The, Lynn, Ind. Wheat Bran __ . . . 6233 7017 Lynn City Mills Lynn 10.7 3.5 4.4 13.5 14.1 Maegerlein, E. S., Patricksburg, Ind. Bran ___ . _ 8103 6208 Manufacturer 9.4 3.0 4.6 13.0 16.3 Bran 8103 7136 Manufacturer 9.1 3 0 3^6 13.0 m9 Maegerlein Roller Mills, Arthur, Clay City, Ind. Bran 7 ... 3807 7467 Manufacturer 8.8 3.0 4.3 13.0 15 6 Martin & Martin, New Castle, Ind. Martin & Martin’s Wheat Bran 3150 6504 Manufacturer _ 10.0 3.2 4.2 12.0 15.9 Maumee Valley Mills, New Haven, Ind. Bran ____________ 6896 6030 Manufacturer 9.3 3 5 3 3 13 5 Bran __ ___ __ 6896 8174 Manufacturer 14.0 ttBran 6896 8196 DeBolt & Niswonger, 8.8 3.5 3.5 14.0 15.8 Milan Milling Company, Milan, Ind. Monroeville 86 3.5 3.4 14.0 16.1 Wheat Bran ... 3315 7702 Manufacturer 9.8 3.7 3.8 14.0 14.0 Milford Grain & Milling Company, Milford, Ind. Wheat Bran 8479 8267 Manufacturer 7.7 3.0 3.9 14.0 16.4 * Not tagged 7 Screenings present tT Not tagged. Labels furnished 30 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Number Crude fat Crude protein G Label .2 Sample secured from 2+j . per cent. per cent. o SB o O a; n CD G 2 § ® y § 1 i T3 u « a « p O rt -a G G £ i y O § TJ G P O fc Monarch Milling Company, The, Hutchinson, Kansas Winter Wheat Rran 8742 7823 Chas. Hartman, Evansville 8.5 3.0 4.1 16.0 16.8 Moscow Roller Mills, Moscow, Ind. tfWheat Bran 1634 7867 Manufacturer _ 9.5 3.7 3.7 14.1 17 2 Wheat Bran 1634 7874 Manufacturer 9.3 3.7 3.6 14.1 16.6 Myers & Son, Joseph H., Chili, Ind. Bran _ 3326 6614 Manufacturer 9.4 3 0 3.9 16.0 14.1 Bran 3326 7407 J. L & .T. M. Myers, Chili 10.0 3.0 3.9 16.0 15.4 Naber & Company, Chas. F., Alexandria, Ind. Nabers Bran 7197 6064 Manufacturer 10.7 3.3 3.5 14.0 14.8 7197 7578 Manufacturer 8.6 3.3 3.2 14.0 16.1 Nodine, W. J., Waterloo, Ind. Wheat Bran 2773 7400 Manufacturer 10.3 3.0 3.9 13.0 14.1 Wheat, Bran 2773 8242 Manufacturer 9.5 3.0 3.8 13.0 14.8 Northwestern Consolidated Milling Company, The, Minneapolis, Minn. 2825 6392 Ed, Rehnke &, Rnn, Cary • 10.0 4.0 4.9 14.5 14.7 Osakis Milling Company, Osakis, Minn. Fancy Bran _ _ 3194 7558 Louis P. Plotnicki, South Bend.. 8.0 4.0 5.4 14.0 15.0 Plainville Milling Company, Plainville, Ind. Wheat Bran 4372 7718 Flem Vanmeter, Jasonville 8.7 3.8 3.6 14.2 16.0 Pyrmont Mills Company, Pyrmont, Ind. Pyrmont Bran __ _ 7157 6216 Manufacturer __ 9.1 3.0 3.2 14.0 15.9 Ray & Rice, Camden, Ind. Wheat Bran 5342 5038 Manufacturer 9.2 3.3 3.6 14.0 13.9 Richmond Roller Mills, Richmond, Ind. The Richmond Roller Mills Wheat Bran 482 6247 Manufacturer 9.9 3.2 4.4 12.0 15.0 The Richmond Roller Mills Wheat Bran 482 7952 Manufacturer 8.5 3.2 4.2 12.0 14.7 Rittenhouse, E. S., Liberty Mills, Ind. Liberty Bird Bran 3043 8110 Manufacturer 9.0 2.5 3.8 12.5 15.9 Roper & Brown, Hobart, Ind. Hobart Wheat Bran 4178 6454 Manufacturer 10.4 3.5 3.8 14.0 14.5 Russell-Miller Milling Company, Fargo, N. Dakota Bran . . 3584 7022 Goodrich Bros. Hay & Grain Co., Winchester 8.8 4.0 4.3 13.0 14.8 Schilt, W. F., Bremen, Ind. 15.2 Wheat Bran 7971 6531 Manufacturer _ 9.3 37 4.0 14.0 Wheat Bran 7971 8310 Manufacturer __ 9.6 3.7 3.8 14.0 15.4 Schultz, Baujan & Company, Beardstown, 111. Sunbeam Bran 6013 6641 Frater-Mottier Co., Terre Haute 10.3 3 5 50 14.0 15.0 Sunbeam Bran 6013 7001 Batesvide Roller Mills, Batesville I 10.2 3.5 5.0 14.0 15.3 Seidel, W. T., Orland, Ind. 13.3 Wheat Bran __ 6372 6074 Orland Milling Co., Orland 11.1 3.0 3.6 13.0 Shine & Company, John H., New Albany, Ind. Wheat Bran 2080 8317 C. H. Ashworth, Crandall 8.2 1 3.8 3.6 14.0 16.2 ft Not tagged. Labels furnished 3i TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude .protein per cent. Official Inspection D Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found 6303 6432 Manufacturer 9.4 3.7 4.1 14.0 14.5 6303 7492 Manufacturer 9.2 3.7 4.2 14.0 15.0 7952 6508 Geo. Steckley, Kendallville 10.4 4.0 4.8 14.5 16.0 1038 5451 Manufacturer 8.5 3.8 3.9 14.2 16.8 502 7450 Manufacturer 9.9 3.8 3.9 14.0 15.0 5553 8227 Manufacturer 9.1 3.4 3.7 14.0 15.7 762 6347 Manufacturer 9.5 3.8 4.1 14.0 13.8 5947 6565 C. B. Cook Co., Greenwood.. . 8.7 3.8 4.6 14.0 15.5 5947 7748 Manufacturer 9.3 3.8 4.4 14.0 16.0 656 7675 Manufacturer 9.1 3.2 3.9 14.0 14.5 7031 6575 H. W. Timbrook, Auburn 8.7 38 4.3 14.0 13.9 7031 7397 Manufacturer ... _ 9.8 38 4.1 14.0 15.8 7031 8235 H. W. Timbrook, Auburn ... 9.1 3.8 3 9 14.0 15.9 409 5532 Manufacturers 8.8 3.8 3.9 14.0 15.1 817 6693 Manufacturer 9.3 3.8 3.5 14 0 15.0 817 7404 Gandy Grain Co., Churubusco.. 9.8 38 3.8 14.0 15.8 817 8057 O. Gandy & Co., Mentone 8.4 3.8 3 8 14.0 15.6 5397 7985 Manufacturer 10.3 3.5 3.9 12.5 18.1 933 7752 Manufacturer 8.8 3 8 4.2 14.0 16.2 1249 6533 Manufacturer 9.6 3.8 3.9 14.0 14.3 1249 8308 Manufacturer _ 10.0 3.8 4.0 14.0 15.7 2940 8229 Manufacturer 8.9 3.5 3.9 14.0 16.5 4600 6145 Manufacturer _ _ 9.1 3.0 3.1 14.0 15.0 7670 5653 Manufacturer 9.3 40 3.6 14.0 16.1 7670 6748 Manufacturer 10.2 4.0 4.0 14.0 14.8 Sims Milling Company, Frankfort, Ind. Wheat Bran Wheat Bran Southwestern Milling Company, Inc., The, Kansas City, Mo. Pure Wheat Bran Star Milling Company, The, Aurora, Ind. Bran Star Milling Company, Shoals, Ind. Star Wheat Bran St. Joe Milling Company, St. Joe, Ind. St. Joe’s Wheat Bran Street Milling Company, J., Laporte, Ind. Wheat Bran Suckow Company, Franklin, Ind. “Perfection” Wheat Bran “Perfection” Wheat Bran Thornburg Milling & Elevator Company, Martinsville, Ind. Bran Timbrook & Hursh, Auburn, Ind. Auburn Roller Mills Wheat Bran Auburn Roller Mills Wheat Bran Auburn Roller Mills Wheat Bran Tresselt & Sons, C., Fort Wayne, Ind. Wheat Bran Tuttle & Company, R., Columbia City, Ind. Perfection Bran Perfection Bran Perfection Bran Ulrich & Son, Levi, Greensboro, Ind. Bran Valentine & Valentine, Franklin, Ind. Wheat Bran Wakarusa Milling Company, Wakarusa. Ind. Wakarusa Wheat Bran Wakarusa Wheat Bran Witmer Grain Company, Grabill, Ind. Wheat Bran Woodburn Elevator & Milling Company The. Woodburn, Ind. Wheat Bran Ziliak & Schafer Milling Company, Haubstadt. Tnd. Pure Wheat Bran Pure Wheat Bran 32 TABLE IV. Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label WHEAT BRAN AND SCREENINGS Acme-Evans Company, Indianapolis, Tnd. Acme Bran and Screenings Acme Bran and Screenings Acme Bran and Screenings Acme Bran and Screenings Akin-Erskine Milling Company, Evansville, Ind. Winter Wheat Bran & Mill Run Wheat Screeninge Winter Wheat Bran & Mill Run Wheat Screeninge Ashbrook Company, The J. S., Mattoon, 111. Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings 8 Atkinson Milling Company, Minneapolis, Minn. t+Wheat Bran with Screenings Badenoch Company, J. J., Chicago, 111. J. J. Badenoch Co’s Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run 9 J. J. Badenoch Co’s Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run 10 7159 7159 8530 8199 6219 6219 Bartlett Company, The J. E., Jackson, Mich. Wheat Bran with Screenings 6813 Bernet, Craft & Kauffman Milling Company, St. Louis, Mo. Mt. Carmel Bran and Screenings 551s Mt. Carmel Bran and Screenings 5518 Big Diamond Mills Company, Minneapolis, Minn. “Big Diamond Bran” and Screenings “Big Diamond Bran” and Screenings.. “Big Diamond Bran” and Screenings.. Billman & Sons, O. H., Shelbyville, Ind. Shelby Wheat Bran and Unground Wheat Screenings Boonville Milling Company, Boonville, Ind. Wheat Bran & Screenings 11 Wheat Bran & Scvreenings Bridgeton Milling Company, Bridgeton, Ind. Bran & Ground Screenings Brook Flour & Feed Mill, The, Brook, Ind. ffRising Sun Bran and Ground Screen- ings — ft Not tagged. Labels furnished 7069 7069 7060 6546 2842 2842 8177 8937 imber Crude Crude a .0 0) fat per cent. protein per cent. C Sample secured from R C 3 fa Everett-Aughenbaugh & Company, Waseca, Minn. E-A-C'O Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings 6024 5377 Vandalia Elevator Co., Colfax.. 10.4 3.0 4.6 14.0 15.5 E-A-CO Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings 6024 5485 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., Crawfordsville 10.9 3.0 4.7 14.0 15.3 Eeed Products Milling Company, Chicago, 111. Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings 8625 7117 W. J. Loy, Columbus 9.5 3.0 4.8 14.0 15.2 Fuhrer-Ford Milling Company, Mt. Vernon, Ind. Wheat Bran and Screenings 2385 7894 Fuhrer-Ford Milling Co., New Harmony 8.7 3.7 4.1 14.0 15.3 Garland Milling Company, Greensburg, Ind. 7279 6978 Manufacturer 8.8 3.7 4.1 15.0 15.4 Garland Bran & Screenings 7279 7315 J. W. Linkhart & Son, North Vernon 9.8 3.7 4.0 15.0 15.9 7279 7856 Manufacturer 8.7 3.7 3.5 15.0 14.7 Goshen Milling Company, Goshen, Ind. Mixed Feed 2335 6015 Manufacturer __ 8.7 4.0 4.3 14.0 14.7 Mixed Feed _ -- 2335 6521 Manufacturer ... 10.8 4.0 4.4 14.0 14.7 Mixed Feed 2335 8127 Manufacturer 9.3 4.0 4.4 14.0 15.8 Hales & Edwards Company, Chicago, 111. Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings (not exceding Mill Run) 7509 6859 Hartman & Dotterer, Bluffton. 10.3 3.0 4.7 14.0 15.2 Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings (not exceding Mill Run) 7509 7240 W. C. Hall Milling Co., Brazil.. 9.3 3.0 4.7 14.0 14.8 Haynes Milling Company, The, Portland, Ind. “Haynes Mixed Feed” 7893 5954 Mn.nnfRr>t.nrp.r 8.1 3.5 3.5 15.0 15.0 Home Mill & Grain Company, Mt. Vernon, Ind. Mixed Feed 3237 6889 Manufacturer 9.0 3.2 3.5 14.4 15.7 Mixed Feed 3237 7975 Manufacturer 8.6 3.2 3.7 14.4 16.2 Mixed Feed 3237 7970 Sunlight Milling Co., Mt. Vernon 8.6 3.2 3.2 14.4 15.8 Hornung, J. M., Greensburg, Ind. Wheat Bran &, Screenings 2577 7872 Manufacturer 8.5 3.7 3.7 14.1 15.6 Hubbard Milling Company, Mankota, Minn. Flakey Bran & Ground Screenings 5446 7011 Berry Bros., Lynn __ 10.6 4.8 5.3 15.0 15.6 Hunter-Robinson-Wenz Milling Company, St. Louis, Mo. ttBran and Screenings 5219 6969 C. F. Johnson & Son, Paoli 9.0 4.0 4.6 14.5 16.1 Bran and Screenings 5219 6971 C. F. Johnson & Son, Paoli 9.0 4.0 4.5 14.5 15.7 Bran and Screenings 5219 7073 Holton Milling Co., Holton 10.5 4.0 4.0 14.5 16.0 Kansas Flour Mills Company, The, Wichita, Kansas Wheat Bran & Screenings 7885 7003 Putmann Hardware Co., New Pnint. 10.3 4.2 4.7 14.7 15.6 Kaw Milling Company, The, Topeka, Kansas. Wheat Bran and Screenings . 0702 6292 Thos Fish pl * Anderson 9.8 4.0 4.2 17.0 16.5 Kaw Kaw Bran & Scourings 8305 6324 A. C. Heitschmidt, Michigan City 9.2 3.5 4.2 15.5 16.5 Kaw Kaw Bran & Scourings 8005 6876 Clover Leaf Milling Co., Kokomo 9.1 3.5 4.1 15.5 16.3 Kaw Kaw Bran & Scourings 8305 7514 Sturgeon Grain & Coal Co., Mnncie 9.4 3.5 4.0 15.5 16.7 ft Not tagged. Labels furnished 35 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Number Sample secured from Moisture percent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. *5 5E O £ .2 *■£ V o n CD £ 1 r a 1-1 ^ rt « O « 73 C 3 0 fa 1 'O si « c< 0 § 73 S3 S3 O fa Keene, A. C., Elkhart, Ind. Wheat Bran & Ground Screenings 7361 7551 Manufacturer 10.6 3.5 3.7 13.5 14.4 Kemper Mill & Elevator Company, Kansas City, Mo. Anchor Bran with Ground Screenings. 6030 5849 M. Schuppert & Son, Depauw... 9.3 4.0 4.5 14.5 16.1 Anchor Bran with Ground Screenings. 6030 7838 Fisher Hay & Grain Co., Evansville 9.3 4.0 4.1 14.5 16.6 Loughry Bros. Milling & Grain Company, Monticello, Ind. 1946 7329 11.3 3.7 4.1 14.0 14.0 Louisville Milling Company, Louisville, Ky. Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run 6175 5756 Charlestown Milling Co., Charlestown .... 9.5 4.0 4.6 14.5 14.7 Lyon & Greenleaf Company, Ligonier, Ind. Mixed Feed 8217 7296 Middlebury Grain Co., Middlebury __ 9.7 3.8 4.1 14.0 17.1 Mixed Feed 8217 7506 Manufacturer 9.9 3.8 3.9 14.0 15.1 Marshall Milling Company, 1 Marshall, Minn. Wheat Bran with Screenings not ex- 8627 7529 Thosle Fisher, Anderson 8.6 4.0 5.2 14.5 15.4 ceeding Mill Run _ Mayflower Mills, Fort Wayne, Ind. Mayflower Bran and Screenings. _ _ __ 6715 6567 Valentine & Valentine, Franklin 9.6 3.8 4.8 14.0 15.4 Mayflower Bran and Screenings 6715 6863 Finkle Milling Co., Warren 9.8 3.8 4.5 14.0 15.0 Mayflower Bran and Screenings 6715 8104 Farmers Elevator Co., Laketon 8.4 3.8 4.2 14.0 14.8 Mosher & Company, A. B., Columbia City, Ind. tfWheat Bran & Screenings _ 8481 6164 J. L. Keisler & Sons, McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis, Ind. Columbia City 10.5 3.0 5.2 13.0 15.4 tfWheat Bran and Screenings 5504 7760 B TT Hea.trm Tndiannpnlis 9.2 4.0 4.0 14.0 17.4 Wheat Bran and Screenings 5504 7869 W T Ruling St. Paul 9lo 4.0 4!2 14^0 17.2 National Feed Company, St. Louis, Mo. Wheat Bran and Screenings __ 4650 6557 Griffin &■, Bundy Spiceland 9.0 3.0 4.3 14.0 15.6 New Prague Flouring Mill Company, New Prague, Minn. Seal of Minnesota Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run 7907 7276 Cash Flour & Feed Store, Seal of Minnesota Wheat Bran with South Bend 8.7 3.0 4.9 13.3 15.8 Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run . ._ 7907 7571 Hoosier Wholesale Grocery Co., Seal of Minnesota Wheat Bran with South Bend 8.7 3.0 5.2 13.3 15.4 Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run 7907 7774 McCray Grain Co., Kentland 9.3 3.0 5.5 13.3 15.6 Noblesville Milling Company, Noblesville, Ind. N. M. Co’s Wheat Bran & Screenings. 5252 5728 A. Smith & Co., Sheridan 7.8 37 4.3 14.5 18.6 N. M. Co’s Wheat Bran & Screenings. 5252 6231 W. G. Sweet, Royal Center 9.9 3.7 4.1 14.5 15.0 N. M. Co’s Wheat Bran & Screenings. 5252 7522 O. H. Ellis, Muncie 1 9.0 3.7 4.5 14.5 15.4 Norton & Company, Willis, Topeka, Kansas. tfWheat Bran & Screenings 6478 7591 C. E. Bash & Co., Huntington. 8.7 3.5 4.0 14.5 18.0 Ossian Roller Mills, Ossian, Ind. Wheat Bran and Ground Wheat Screenings . _. . 6400 6688 Manufacturer 9.9 3.5 3.8 13.5 14.0 Wheat Bran and Ground Wheat Screenings _ 7961 Manufacturer ... 8.7 3.5 3.8 13.5 14.1 ft Not tagged. Labels furnished 36 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein percent. 3 '3 E o g _o o t)Q a 1-1 QQ G i'S o § T3 G 3 O O rt 1 3 £ Pancost Milling Company, Elkhart, Ind. Bran & Screenings 6886 7553 Manufacturer 8.7 3.0 3.6 14.0 15.4 Paoli Milling Company, The, Paoli, Ind. Clear Mill Peed 3019 8094 Manufacturer 8.3 3.0 4.5 12.0 15.2 Peru Milling Company, The, Peru, Ind. Wheat Bran & Screenings 17 6612 Manufacturer 8.6 3.1 3.9 14.5 13.7 Wheat Bran & Screenings 17 8002 Manufacturer 8i4 3.1 4.1 14^5 13 j Phoenix Flour Mill, Evansville, Ind. Bran & Screenings 2252 7831 Manufacturer 8.9 4.0 3.7 15.0 16.5 Pillsbury Flour Mills Company, Minneapolis, Minn. Pillsbury’s Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run—. 7133 6233 J. C. Phillips, Star City 9.6 4.0 5.1 13.0 14.2 Pillsbury’s Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run— 7133 8133 Wolfram Grain Co., Brownsburg 8.6 4.0 5.2 13.0 15.5 Plant Milling Company, Geo. P., St. Louis, Mo. (PI Bran & Screenings 4753 7053 Earlv & Daniel Co., Aurora 10.9 3.0 3.1 15.0 16.5 Princeton Milling Company, The, Princeton, Ind. ttStar Feed 8618 8813 A. L. Rudolph, Palmyra 9.1 3.5 3.9 13.5 15.8 Red Mill, The, R. F. D., Fairland, Ind. Mixed Feed 2601 7804 Manufacturers 9.8 3.8 3.9 14.0 16.4 Schultz Bros., Elberfeld, Ind. Wheat Bran and Screenings 3924 6933 Manufacturers 9.0 3.5 4.1 13.5 14.0 Sheffield-King Milling Company, Minneapolis, Minn. Fancy “Brodflake” 7602 7372 McMahan Bros., Valparaiso 10.2 3.5 4.6 13.5 14.7 Sparks Milling Company, Terre Haute, Ind. Wabash Bran and Screenings 2775 5901 Salem Milling Co., Salem 8.8 3.5 4.3 14.0 14.7 Wabash Bran and Screenings 2775 8297 Ed. Davis, Ramsey 8.3 3.5 3.8 14.0 14.4 Stanard-Tilton Milling Company, St. Louis, Mo. Wheat Bran & Screenings 5257 7481 B. I. Holser & Co., Walkerton. 7.2 3.0 4.2 14.0 16.6 Star & Crescent Milling Company, Chicago, 111. Star Bran with Ground Screenings not Exceeding Mill Run 5377 7997 Simon J. Carroll, Bunker Hill— 9.0 4.0 4.3 15.0 15.2 ttStar Bran with Ground Screenings not Exceeding Mill Run 5377 8382 F. O. Underhill, Greensfork 8.7 4.0 5.1 15.0 16.6 Trow Company, W., Madison, Ind. Trow’s Bran and Screenings 1973 5455 Manufacturer 9.8 3.5 4.5 14.0 14.8 Trow’s Bran and Screenings 1973 8148 C. G. Hunger, Madison _ 9.2 3.5 4.2 14.0 15.1 Valier & Spies Milling Company, St. Louis, Mo. Valier’s Wheat Bran with Ground Wheat Screeninge 6156 6630 Valier & Spies Milling Co., Valier’s Wheat Bran with Ground Terre Haute 8.9 3.5 4.4 14.5 17.2 Wheat Screeninge 6156 6674 Kewanna Butter & Produce ttValier’s Wheat Bran with Ground Co., Kewanna __ 8.6 3.5 4.6 14.5 17.3 Wheat Screeninge 6150 7173 Bloomfield Mill & Elevator Co., Valier’s Wheat Bran with Ground Bloomfield ___ 10.2 3.5 4.6 14.5 17.5 Wheat Screeninge 6156 7528 Ola Chambers, Anderson _ 9.7 3.5 4.6 14 5 17.3 tf Not tagged. Labels furnished 37 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) — Number Crude Crude fat pruteiu o Sample secured from per cent. per cent. Label Official o o n o< QD a a ® « o §J S a Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found Wagner-White Company, Inc., Jackson, Mich. Bran with Screenings not to Exceed IVf'll Run 8854 8247 Fremont Co-operative Assoc., Fremont 8.0 5.0 5.3 14.0 15.4 Washbum-Crosby Company, Minneapolis, Minn. Washburn-Crosby Co’s Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings not ex- 5464 7488 Vandalia Elevator Co., Colfax. 8.6 4.0 5.7 14.5 14.5 Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run 7229 5506 Studebaker Grain & Seed Co., Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings Van Rnren 8.1 4.0 4.1 13.0 15.8 7229 5606 George N. Gard, Schererville _ . 9.0 4.0 4.9 13.0 13.9 ttWheat Bran with Ground Screenings 7229 5613 McCray Grain Co., Kentland 10.3 4.0 4.2 13.0 14.8 Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run — 7229 6228 Simon J. Carroll, Royal Center. 9.8 4.0 4.9 13.0 14.5 Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings 7229 7937 .J. S. Hazelrigg, Straughn 9.7 4.0 5.4 13.0 15.8 Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run 7229 8108 Farmers Elevator Co., South Whitley 8.2 4.0 5.5 13.0 15.4 Western Flour Mill Company, Davenport, Iowa Black Hawk Bran with Ground Screenings not to Exceed Mill Run— 7895 5927 Orleans Mill & Elevator Co., tfBlack Hawk Bran with Ground Orleans . 8.8 3.0 4.4 13.3 15.7 Screenings not to Exceed Mill Run- Black Hawk Bran with Ground 7895 6004 Galbreath & Schriner, Cayuga.. 10.0 3.0 4.7 13.3 15.4 Screenings not to Exceed Mill Run- Black Hawk Bran with Ground 7895 6949 Nixon & VanDeventer, Attica. 9.1 3.0 4.8 13.3 16.0 Screenings not to Exceed Mill Run— 7895 7608 D. R. Murray, Clinton 8.9 3.0 5.8 13.3 17.1 Wright, John H., Clinton, Ind. Venus Bran & Screenings 7250 7238 Manufacturer 9.6 3.5 4.7 14.0 16.0 Yoder, Marion J., Middlebury, Ind. ttWheat Bran & Ground Wheat Screen- ings __ __ 8784 7437 Manufacturer _ 8.8 3.7 4.2 14.0 13.1 Wheat Bran & Ground Wheat Screen- ings 8784 8120 Ma.ri.nn J. Ynder, Goshen 8.9 3.7 4.1 14.0 13.9 Ziliak & Schafer Milling Company, Haubstadt, Ind. Wheat Bran & Screenings 8597 7983 Ziliak & Schafer Milling Co., Evansville 7.0 4.0 4.3 14.0 14.6 STANDARD WHEAT MIDDLINGS OR SHORTS Acme Milling Company, The, Aurora, Ind. Middlings 968 5452 7661 Manufacturer 10.1 3.9 5.0 14.2 16.3 Middlings 968 Manufacturer 10.0 3.9 4.8 14.2 16.1 Akron Milling Company, The, Akron, Ind. Wheat Middlings 2795 8054 Manufacturer 10.1 4.0 2.8 14.0 13.4 Amboy Milling Company, Amboy, Ind. Wheat Middlings _ 6088 6872 Manufacturer 10.2 3.5 3.8 13.5 15.9 Anchor Milling Company, Rochester, Ind. Wheat Middlings 3747 5371 C. L. Dilley Co., Logansport Manufacturer 9.9 4.0 4.6 14.0 15.4 Wheat Middlings 3747 5702 9.0 4.0 4.3 14.0 14.3 Wheat Middlings 3747 8113 Manufacturer 11.7 4.0 4.7 14.0 15.4 Angola Flouring Mills, Angola, Ind. Angola Flouring Mills Middlings 1097 7389 Manufacturer 10.5 4.0 5.4 14.0 18.1 Angola Flouring Mills Middlings 1097 8261 Manufacturer __ 9.6 4.0 4.8 14.0 1 15.9 T Before registration tt Not tagged. Labels furnished TABLE IV.— Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Number Crude fat Crude ss protein j Label o Sample secured from per cent. per cent. 73 o 0)Q ~ a 5 v bn O , T3 u ^ T3 Si i r ° s * ’O c £ o CD £ *3 ^ l£ 1 ss O <8 1 o § § fe Barry, Russell, Crandall, Ind. Wheat Middlings _ . _ _ 8422 8315 Crandall Elouring Mill, Crandall 10.5 3.0 3.8 13.0 14.5 Bergenroth Bros., Troy, Ind. Middlings 2025 8221 Manufacturer . 10.1 4.0 4.2 15.0 15.4 Berlien Mills, Angola, R. F. D., Ind. / Wheat Middlings 7515 8259 Manufacturer 10.0 3.0 3.6 12.0 14.7 Berne Milling Company, Berne, Ind. Wheat Shorts 13 8018 6048 Manufacturer 11.6 2.3 1.2 13.0 9.9 Wheat Shorts 8018 7428 Manufacturer 10.7 2.3 2.8 13.0 12.9 Billman & Sons, C. H., Shelbyville, Ind. Shelby Shorts _ 4043 7799 Cutsinger & Thompson, Shelbyville 9.3 2.0 5.2 12.0 17.2 Bluffton Milling Company, Bluffton, Ind. Wheat Middlings 8017 6194 Manufacturer 9.9 2.5 4.2 13.0 15.7 Bridgeton Milling Company, Bridgeton, Ind. Wheat Shorts . .... 7717 7626 Manufacturer 11.9 2.0 4.0 13.0 15.6 Brizius Company, The Chas. W., Newburgh, Ind. Eagle Wheat Shorts or Middlings 7104 7982 Manufacturer 9.4 3.8 4.6 14.0 17.8 Brose & Arnold, Evansville, Ind. Wheat Middlings 7491 7875 Manufacturer 9.5 4.0 4.4 14.0 16.5 Browning & Company, Alexandria, Ind. Brownings Shorts _ _ ___ 396 6066 Chas. F. Naber & Co., Alexandria 11.4 4.0 4.5 14.0 15.5 Brownings Shorts 396 7579 Chas. F. Naber & Co., Alexandria 10.0 4.0 4.1 14.0 15.8 j Brudi & Company, Jos., New Haven, Ind. Middlings 2246 6026 Maumee Valley Mills, New Haven 10.4 2.8 4.4 13.1 14.3 il Middlings 2246 8173 Manufacturer 10.3 2.8 4.4 13.1 15.9 Burge-Thomas Miling Company, Marion, Ind. Shorts 4728 6363 Thomas Milling Co., Marion G. W. Jones, Upland 9.5 4.0 4.7 14.0 14.7 ttShorts 4728 7650 9.3 4.0 4.6 14.0 14.8 Burrell & Morgan, Elkhart, Ind. Middlings 254 6495 Manufacturer 10.4 4.0 4.6 14.0 14.9 Middlings 254 7549 Manufacturer 9.6 4.0 4.6 14.0 15.5 Butler Milling Company, Butler, Ind. Butler Milling Co’s Wheat Middlings.. Wheat Middlings 1030 8238 Manufacturer 9.4 4.0 4.1 14.0 14.2 7082 7385 Manufacturer _ 10.6 3.6 3.4 14.0 14.3 Carpenter, B. 0., Perrysville, Ind. “Wheat Middlings” 4712 7669 Manufacturer 10.7 2.8 4.7 14.0 16.4 Cauble, 0. L., Pekin, Ind. Wheat Shorts . 1016 5882 Manufacturer 10.3 4.0 4.0 14.0 15.1 Cauble & Dunlevy, Henryville, Ind. 14.8 Star Wheat Shorts i* 5826 5870 Manufacturer 10.5 3.5 3.3 13.5 Champion Roller Milling Company, Richmond, Ind. Wheat Middlings or Shorts 4700 6251 Manufacturer 10.0 4.0 4.8 16.0 15.6 Wheat Middlings or Shorts 4700 7955 Manufacture r 9.6 4.0 4.9 16.0 17.0 1 tt Not tagged. Labels furnished 13 Low grade flour, small amount bran present 14 Low grade flour present 39 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label City Milling Company, Kendallville, Ind. Wheat Middlings Wheat Middlings City Mills, South Whitley, Ind. Wheat Middlings Wheat Middlings Claypole, Geo. M., Sardinia, Ind. Geo. M. Claypole’s Wheat Middlings. _ Coal City Milling Company, Coal City, Ind. Coal City Wheat Shorts 15 Cook Milling Company, Richmond, R. R. No. 4, Ind. Wheat Middlings Corydon Milling Company, Corydon, Ind. Wheat Middlings Croxton, James W., Cloverdale, Ind. Middlings Deutsch & Sickert Company, Milwaukee, Wis. Pure Wheat Middlings Pure Wheat Middlings 16 Pure Wffieat Middlings Pure Wheat Middlings 16 Pure Wheat Middlings Pure Wheat Middlings 18 Dillsboro Milling Company, Dillsboro, Ind. Wheat Shorts Wheat Shorts Donmeyer Gardner & Co., Peoria, 111. •Pure Wheat Middlings Duglay & Jones, Churubusco, Ind. Wheat Middlings Eberts & Bro., North Vernon, Ind. Wheat Shorts Eckhart Milling Company, B. A., Chicago, 111. Flour Middlings Eesley & Company, Wm., College Corner, Ohio Wheat Middlings Egloff Milling Company, Vincennes, Ind. Wheat Shorts Enos & Lee, New Albany, Ind. Fancy Middlings ... Fornax Milling Company, Decatur, Ind. •Middlings 17 Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. Official Inspection D Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found 6370 6512 Manufacturer 11.4 3.0 3.9 13.0 14.4 6370 7510 Manufacturer 10.5 3.0 4.0 13.0 16.0 610© 7150 Manufacturer 10.8 3.5 4.3 14.0 16.2 6106 8073 Manufacturer 9.8 3.5 3.9 14.0 16.6 2500 5456 Manufacturer 11.2 4.0 2.8 14.0 13.7 6913 7465 Manufacturer 10.5 3.5 3.4 14.0 14.2 4797 7913 Manufacturer 10.3 3.7 3.9 14.0 15.7 3305 5846 Manufacturers 11.1 4.0 3.6 14.0 14.1 246 5960 Manufacturer 10.4 3.8 3.8 14.0 14.6 5472 7298 Middlebury Grain Co., Middlebury 9.2 5.0 5.2 15.0 17.0 5472 7395 J. M. Wagner, Roann 10.9 5.0 6.0 15.0 15.5 5472 7396 Q. A. Carver, Roann 10.1 5.0 5.2 15.0 16.5 5472 7505 Geo. Steckley, Kendallville 9.1 5.0 6.2 15.0 16.8 5472 7533 Torktown Lumber Co., Yorktown 9.7 5.0 5.4 15.0 16.1 5472 7826 S. M. Heard, Evansville 9.2 5.0 6.3 15.0 17.4 1008 5413 Manufacturers 10.6 4.0 4.3 14.0 14.6 1008 7710 Manufacturers ... — 10.1 4.0 4.3 14.0 15.6 8293 Montmorenci Elevator Co., Montmorenci * 10.0 — 4.7 — 16.5 7468 7405 Manufacturers 10.3 3.0 3.9 13.0 16.1 5413 8209 Manufacturers _ 10.5 4.0 4.3 15.0 15.9 6195 6226 J. R. Starr, Winamac 9.4 4.0 3.9 15.0 16.3 2921 5497 Manufacturers 10.2 4.0 4.2 14.0 14.1 6054 7225 Manufacturers 10.0 4.0 3.6 14.0 16.4 989 5772 J. M. Lee & Co., New Albany 9.3 4.0 4.3 16.0 17.1 5416 Adolph Marbach, Decatur 9.6 4.0 14.6 * Not tagged 16 Screenings present. Removed from sale. 15 Low grade flour present Relabeled No. 7188 17 Not tagged. Wheat bran present 40 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Fuhrer-Ford Milling Company, Mt. Vernon, Ind. Wheat Middlings Wheat Middlings Wheat Shorts Gaston Roller Mills, Gaston, Ind. Wheat Middlings Geneva Milling & Grain Company, Geneva, Ind. Shorts & Middlings Globe Mills, The, Fort Wayne, Ind. The Globe Mills Wheat Shorts The Globe Mills Wheat Shorts Green Bros. & Oldfather, Warsaw, Ind. Wheat Middlings 18 Wheat Middlings Hales & Edwards Company, Chicago, 111. Wheat Middlings 19 Wheat Middlings 20 Wheat Middlings 21 Hall Milling Company, W. C., Brazil, Ind. Hall’s Wheat Shorts Hampton, W. D., Worthington, Ind. Wheat Shorts Haynes Milling Company, The, Portland, Ind. Wheat Middlings Hazleton Flour Mills; Hazleton, Ind. Wheat Shorts Hering Company, J., Shelbyville, Ind. Shorts Hibbits Mill Company, Muncie, Ind. Finished Middlings Home Mill & Grain Company, Mt. Vernon, Ind. Home Mill & Grain C'o’s Wheat Ship- stuff Hornung, J. M., Greensburg, Ind. Middlings Huntington Mill Company, Huntington, Ind. Shorts Shorts Hurn Milling Company, W. D., New Salisbury, Ind. Wheat Middlings Wheat Middlings Iroquois Roller Mills, Rensselaer, Ind. Wheat Middlings Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein percent. Official Inspection D Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed ^ Found 4682 6803 Manufacturer 9.3 3.5 4.2 14.0 15.3 4682 7979 Manufacturer 9.5 3.5 4.2 14.0 16.1 . 8794 7974 Fuhrer-Ford Milling Co., New Harmony 8.3 4.0 5.4 14.0 18.1 5500 6335 Manufacturer 10.5 2.0 4.4 12.0 16.5 7527 6035 Manufacturer 10.5 2.5 2.5 13.0 13.8, 426 5517 Manufacturer _ 10.0 4.0 5.4 14.0 16.3 426 8190 Manufacturer 10.1 4.0 3.4 14.0 14.6 8369 7168 Manufacturer 10.2 4.0 5.6 14.0 16.3 1 8069 8062 Manufacturer ___ 9.1 4.0 5.4 14.0 17.7 1 8476 6910 Fred Holtz, Williamsport 8.8 3.0 5.0 15.0 16.1 1 8476 0998 Morocco Feed & Grist Mill, Morocco — 10.3 3.0 4.9 15.0 15.8 8476 7237 Smith Grocery Co., Clinton. 9.8 3.0 4.5 15.0 15.8 5023 6668 Manufacturers 11.1 2.0 4.4 13.0 12.0 2220 7178 Manufacturer .. 10.8 2.3 2.9 12.8 15.4 4389 6835 Manufacturers 10.8 3.0 4.7 14.0 16.5 7475 6729 Manufacturers 1 10.0 3.0 3.4 14.0 14.4 829 7797 E. R. Hering, Shelbyville 12.2 4.0 5.5 12.0 16.1 7298 5906 Manufacturers 9.7 4.0 4.7 14.0 16.3 3236 7977 Sunlight Milling Co., Mt Vernon 8.8 4.2 5.1 16.9 17.3 415 7870 Manufacturer 9.7 3.8 4.2 14.2 16.1 495 6589 Manufacturers 9.2 3.9 5.6 14.3 16.9 495 7588 Manufacturers 9.9 3.9 5.0 14.3 16.5 8089 5854 Manufacturers ... 11.5 3.5 3.5 13.0 14.0 8089 8291 Manufacturers 9.7 3.5 4.5 13.0 15.4 6140 6952 Manufacturers 9.5 2.5 4.2 12.0 15.8 18 Foreign material present consisting of chaff, ground corn, weed seed coatings and wheat 19 Conflicting guarantees on bags and official labels, 1800 lbs. removed from sale. Screenings present 20 Removed from sale. Conflicting guarantees. Relabeled No. 8624. Screenings present 21 Removed from sale. Relabeled No. 7643. Screenings present n TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Jones & Son, C. N., Wabash, Ind. Wheat Middlings 22 Katterjohn, A. F., Lynnville, Ind. Katterjohn’s Shorts Kaw Milling Company, The, Topeka, Kansas. Kaw Kaw Pure Middlings 23 Kendall, Dor Cuy, Williamsburg, Ind. Wheat Shorts Kennedy Milling Company, Geo. W. Shelbyville, Ind. Middlings Middlings Keplinger, Chas., Zanesville, Ind. Middlings Klemm, Geo. J., Milton, Ind. Wheat Middlings Klondike Milling Company, Danville, Ind. Wheat Middlings 24 Lafayette Milling Company, Lafayette, Ind. Middlings Lawrenceburg Roller Mills Company, The, Lawrenceburg, Ind. “Snowflake” Middlings “Snowflake” Middlings “Snowflake” Middlings “Snowflake” Middlings Golden Bull Middlings Leesburg Grain & Milling Company, The, Leesburg, Ind. Middlings Lemon Milling Company, The, Bedford, Ind. Flour Middlings Flour Middlings Linton Mill Company, The, Linton, Ind. Wheat Shorts Listman Mill Company. La Crosse, Wis. Elmco Standard Middlings Maegerlein, E. S., Patricksburg, Ind. Shorts 23 Shorts Marshall Milling Company, Marshall, Ind. Shorts 26 .. Marshall Milling Company, Marshall, Minn. Wheat Flour Middlings — Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. Official Inspection D Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found 5190 ' 5559 Manufacturers 11.7 3.5 2.3 14.0 12.9 6987 6081 Manufacturer 10.3 3.4 2.0 14.0 13.6 8306 7602 Clover Leaf Mills, Kokomo 9.7 3.0 3.8 15.0 16.8 363 7899 Williamsburg Flour Mills, Williamsburg 9.4 4.0 3.7 14.0 15.4 2110 6996 Manufacturers 9.8 3.5 4.2 13.5 15.9 2110 7861 Manufacturers _ 8.3 3.5 5.4 13.5 18.5 842 6689 Zanesville Roller Mills, Zanesville 10.1 4.0 3.8 14.0 15.4 4736 7945 Manufacturer 10.2 2.0 3.9 10.0 15.6 2653 5576 Manufacturers 11.4 3.5 2.6 13.5 15.0 3831 8116 Manufacturers __ 10.6 2.8 4.8 14.0 16.7 11 5445 Star Milling Co., Aurora 8.5 5.1 5.4 16.0 17.3 11 6552 Richard Hagans, Greenfield 9.7 5.1 5.1 16.0 17.0 11 7709 Geo. Niemeyer & Sons, Dillsboro 8.6 5.1 5.1 16.0 18.0 11 7800 Cutsinger & Thompson, Shelbyville 8.4 5.1 5.4 16.0 18.2 7111 5408 Milan Mill & Elevator, Milan___ 9.7 3.0 4.6 17.5 19.2 306 7267 Manufacturers _ - ___ 9.3 4.0 3.5 14.0 13.6 7431 5921 Manufacturers __ ___ ___ __ 10.0 2.0 2.7 12.0 14.1 7431 8086 Manufacturers 9.0 2.0 4.3 12.0 15.8 507 7133 Manufacturers' 10.5 4.0 3.7 14.0 16.3 3367 6909 Williamsport Grain Co., Williamsport 9.9 5.6 5.6 18.1 18.1 8100 6205 Manufacturer 10.1 3.0 3.0 13.0 13.9 8100 7137 Manufacturer _ 10.6 3.0 3.1 13.0 15.8 5157 7632 Manufacturers 10.7 4.0 1.7 14.0 13.4 8023 6154 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., Lafayette 9.8 5.0 5.7 17.0 18.6 22 Sample consisted of low grade flour and trace middlings 28 Low grade flour present 24 Sample consisted of low grade flour and trace middlings 25 Low grade flour present 26 Large amount of flourstuff present 42 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1 , 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein percent. 'S3 56 o § 43 o 00 o § g O Cj T3 C 1 Martin & Martin, New C'astle, Ind. Martin & Martin’s Wheat Middlings. _ 3794 6546 Manufacturers __ 10.0 3.7 4.0 14.0 15.8 ♦Shorts _ .. 8350’ Manufacturers 9.5 4.4 16.8 Mayflower Mills, Fort Wayne, Ind. Mayflower Mills Wheat Middlings 451 5516 Reed Bros., Fort Wayne 8.3 4.0 4.9 14.0 14.9 Modoc Roller Mills & Elevator, Modoc, Ind. Wheat Middlings 4963 7903 Manufacturer 9.2 1.5 2.5 10.0 13.3 Moscow Roller Mills, Moscow, Ind. Wheat Middlings 16331 7866 Manufacturers 10.7 3.8 3 3 14.2 14.7 ttWheat Middlings 1633 7868 B. L. Coy, Waldron 10.8 3^8 3A 14^2 14^5 Myers & Son, Joseph H., Chili, Ind. Germ Middlings 3325 6617 Manufacturers 9.9 3.0 5.2 15.0 15.8 New Era Milling Company, The, Arkansas City, Kansas Standard Wheat Shorts 6860 7478 Hamlet Grain Co., Hamlet 5.9 4.0 4.7 17.5 17.9 New Milling Company, The, Greenfield, Ind. Wheat Middlings 7721 6554 Manufacturers 10.1 2.4 3.6 14.0 17.2 New Prague Flouring Mill Co., New Prague, Minn. Seal of Minnesota Wheat Standard Middlings 7908 7403 Gandy Grain Co., Churubusco__ 10.0 5.2 5.1 15.0 16.6 Seal of Minnesota Wheat Standard Middlings _ _ 7908 7570 Hoosier Wholesale Grocery Co., South Bend __ 9.8 5.2 5.6 15.0 17.0 Nodine, W. J., Waterloo, Ind. Wheat Middlings 3151 7399 Manufacturers 10.2 3.5 4 2 14.0 15.9 Wheat Middlings 3151 8234 Manufacturer 10.3 3.5 4^0 14!o 14*9 Norris & Kidwell, Washington, Ind. Wheat Middlings 27 8235 7192 Manufacturer 10.0 3.5 5.4 15.4 16.6 North Manchester Milling Company, North Manchester, Ind. “North Manchester Milling Companys Middlings” 855 8101 Manufacturers 10.5 4.0 3.1 14.0 14.1 Orleans Mill & Elevator Company, Orleans, Ind. Wheat Middlings 7019 5931 Manufacturers 9.1 4.0 4.2 14.0 14.5 Wheat Middlings 7019 8084 Manufacturers io!o 4J) 4^0 14!o 15^0 Osakis Milling Company, Osakis, Minn. Fancy Middlings 3195 7559 Louis P. Plotnicki, South Bend- 8.5 4.0 6.3 15.0 17.4 Ossian Roller Mills, Ossian, Ind. Wheat Middlings 6399 6687 Manufacturer 10.9 3.1 3.3 13.5 14.5 Wheat Middlings 6399 7960 Manufacturer 10.1 3.1 3^8 13^5 15.0 Pancost Milling Company, Elkhart, Ind. Middlings 800 7552 Manufacturers 9.6 4.0 4.2 14.0 15.0 Paoli Milling Company, Paoli, Ind. Shorts as _ 627 6961 Manufacturer 9.7 3.0 3.1 12.0 12.4 Shorts 627 8093 Manufacturer 8.4 3!o 4.3 12.0 15.6 Peru Milling Company, The, Peru, Ind. Wheat, Middlings _ 18 6613 Manufacturer 9.0 3.1 4.9 14.2 15.8 Wheat Middlings 18 8001 1 Manufacturer 9.1 1 3.1 4.9 14.2 15.9 * Not tagged 27 Screenings present. 400 lbs. withdrawn, ft Not tagged. Labels furnished Relabeled No. 8531 28 Low grade flour present 43 TABLE IV.— Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. [3 *3 56 o s o o CU Q c i T3 as o § T3 1 o § T3 a 1 Plainfield Milling Company, Plainfield, Ind. 4408 7545 Manufacturer 9.8 3.5 4.6 13.0 15.7 Ray & Rice, Camden, Ind. Wheat Shorts 29 3002 5940 Manufacturer 10.2 3.0 3.3 14.0 12.8 Red Mill, The, Fairland, Ind. 3250 7805 Manufacturers 10.3 2.5 5.2 13.0 18.1 Richland Milling Company, Bloomfield, Ind. 1147 7181 Manufacturers . 11.5 4.0 4.3 14.0 15.0 Richmond Roller Mills, Richmond, Ind. The Richmond Roller Mills Wheat 483 6248 Mann Factnrers 9.8 3.7 4.9 14.0 16.1 The Richmond Roller Mills Wheat 483 7951 9.0 3.7 4.7 14.0 17.2 Rittenhouse, E. S., Liberty Mills, Ind. Liberty Bird Middlings 3044 8096 Manufacturer __ .. 9.2 2.5 3.2 12.5 14.6 Rockport Milling Company, Rockport, Ind. Kopp’s Wheat Middlings 2748 5743 French Lick Hotel Co., French Lick 9.0 3.5 4.3 14.0 16.4 Kopp’s Wheat Middlings 2748 5774 New Albany Milling Co., New Albany 9.1 3.5 4.0 14.0 15.1 Kopp’s Wheat Middlings .. _ 2748 7888 Manufacturers 9.3 3.5 5.0 14.0 16.8 Roper & Brown, Hobart, Ind. Hobart Wheat, Middlings 5960 6451 Manufacturers 10.9 3.5 4.9 14.0 16.5 Hobart Wheat Middlings _ 5960 6452 Manufacturers 11.0 3^5 3.9 14!o 15A Salem Farmers Milling Company, Salem, Ind. Wheat Shorts 6022 5899 Manufacturers 11.4 2 0 2.6 12.0 12.6 Wheat Shorts _ 6922 5900 Manufacturers __ 10.4 2.0 3.6 12.0 14.1 Wheat Shorts 6922 8013 Manufacturers __ 10.3 2.0 2.7 12.0 12.8 Schulte, W. C., Freelandville, Ind. Wheat Shorts ___ 6436 5999 Manufacturer 10.5 4.0 3.3 14.0 14.6 Schultz Bros., Elberfeld, Ind. Middlings __ 3925 6934 Manufacturers 9.0 4.0 4.0 14.0 14.9 Seidel, W. T., Orland, Ind. Wheat Middlings 6373 6071 Orland Milling Co., Orland. 12.2 3.0 3.9 13.0 13.3 Sims Milling Company, Frankfort, Ind. Wheat Shorts 6304 6431 Manufacturers 9.8 4.0 4.6 14.0 16.2 Wheat Shorts _ _ . _ 6304 7493 Manufacturers ... . 9.6 4.0 4^0 14J) 16.1 Sloan, J. F., Palestine, Burket P. 0., Ind. Sloan’s Wheat Middlings 227 5879 Green Bros. & Oldfather, Warsaw 9.0 4.0 4.7 14.0 16.0 Smock & Caca, Noblesville, Ind. ttWheat Middlings 0881 7623 Manufacturers 9.8 2.0 5.3 12.0 17.5 Southwestern Milling Company, Inc., The, Kansas City, Mo. Pure Wheat Brown Shorts 7953 6507 Geo. Steckley, Kendallville 8.8 4.2 4.4 15.0 15.8 Pure Gray Shorts 7954 8240 Hammel Milling Co., Fremont— 8.6 3.8 4 A 15.0 17!9 Sparks Milling Company, Terre Haute, Ind. Wabash Middlings 2774 7766 Neals Feed Store, Jason ville 9.2 4.0 4.6 14.0 17.1 Tt Not tagged. Labels furnished 29 Low grade flour present 44 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Number Sample secured from Moicture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. Official Inspection D Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found Starlight Milling Company, Borden, R. R. No. 1, Ind. Wheat Middlings 7795 8027 Manufacturers 10.0 2.0 6.4 11.0 18.1 Star Milling Company, The, Aurora, Ind. 2672 7659 Manufacturers 10.2 4.0 4.1 14.6 16.4 Star Milling Company, Shoals, Ind. 503 7451 Manufacturers 11.0 4.0 4.8 14.0 16.7 St. Joe Milling Company, St. Joe, Ind. St. Joe’s Wheat Middlings 30 5127 8180 Gtrrett Elevator Co., Garrett.. 10.1 4.0 3.6 14.0 15.9 St. .Toe’s Wheat Middlings 31 5127 8226 Manufacturers 10.4 4.0 3.7 14.0 14.7 Suckow Company, Franklin, Ind. “Perfection” Wheat Middlings 32 5946 6972 Morgantown Grain Co., Morgantown . 7.8 4.0 4.0 14.0 15.5 Taylor-Hitz Company, Madison, Ind. 413 8203 Manufacturers 9.4 4.0 4.4 14.0 15.2 Thomas & Son, A. R., Markle, Ind. Wheat Shorts 3189 5541 Manufacturers 10.3 3.2 5.3 14.1 15.9 Thurgood, Chas. R., Vincennes, Ind. Wbpat. Middling'S 8077 7223 Manufacturer 9.6 3.0 3.7 13.0 17.3 Timbrook & Hursh, Auburn, Ind. inborn Pnllpr Mills Middlings 6985 6577 H. W. Timbrook, Auburn 10.1 3.4 4.8 14.0 15.4 Auburn Roller Mills Middlings 6985 7398 H. W. Timbrook, Auburn 11.0 3 4 4.0 14.0 17 5 Auburn Roller Mills Middlings _ 6985 8232 H. W. Timbrook, Auburn 10.4 3.4 4.0 14!o 17^6 Tresselt & Sons, C., Fort Wayne, Ind. Wheat, Shorts 33 410 5531 Manufacturers _ _ _ 9.9 4.0 4.0 14.0 15.0 Wheat Middlings 411 5533 Manufacturers mo 4^0 5!4 14 /> 16.3 Tuttle & Company, R., Columbia City, Ind. Perfection Middlings _ _ 818 6696 Manufacturers _. 9.3 4.0 5.2 14.0 16.4 Perfection Middlings 818 8068 Manufacturers 9.0 4.0 5.1 14.0 16.8 Uhl-Snider Milling Company, Connersville, Ind. Wheat Middlings 5136 6740 Manufacturers 10.1 3.7 4.8 14.0 15.6 Victoria Milling Company, The, Jasper, Ind. Victoria Wheat Shorts 7170 5747 Manufacturers _. 10.2 3.3 4.2 15.0 15.6 Wabash Milling Company, The, Wabash, Ind. Middlings 2 5557 Manufacturers 12.0 4.0 4.2 14.0 15.6 Wakarusa Milling Company, The, Wakarusa, Ind. Wheat Middlings 7642 8299 Manufacturers 9.1 3.7 4.2 13.0 14.5 Walker & Son, J. M., Middletown, Ind. Gilt Edge Middlings __ 8162 6291 Manufacturers 10.7 3.7 5.1 14.0 17.0 Gilt Edge Middlings _ 8162 7516 A. Holliday, Muncie m 2 3.7 4^8 14!o 14^8 Gilt Edge Middlings 8162 7928 New Castle Elevator Co., New Castle . .. 10.2 3.7 4.6 14.0 16.1 Wallace Milling Company, The, Dale, Ind. Wallace’s Pure Wheat Middlings 7747 7972 Manufacturers . 9.3 4.0 1 5.8 15.0 17.6 80 Removed from sale. Misbranded 32 Screenings consisting of ground cheat and si Removed from sale. Misbranded. Relabeled chaff present No. 8925. Wheat bran present 38 Wheat bran present 45 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. Official Inspection D Guar- anteed I Found Guar- anteed Found Wellington Milling Company, Anderson, Ind. 4987 6280 Manufacturers 9.4 4.0 5.0 15.0 16.2 4987 7526 S. R. Snell, Muncie 10.3 4.0 4.7 15.0 17.2 Wells-Abbott-Nieman Co., Schuyler, Neb. Wheat Shorts 6942 7575 Union Grain & Feed Co., Anderson 9.5 4.0 4.4 15.0 17.7 Wheat Shorts 34 6942 7647 Union Grain & Feed Co. Anderson 9.2 4.0 4.2 15.0 17.9 Western Flour Mill Company, Davenport, Iowa Black Hawk Standard Middlings 7896 5928 Orleans Mill & Elevator Co., Orleans - - 9.3 5.2 4.9 15.0 17.3 Black Hawk Standard Middlings 7896 6481 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis- 9.7 5.2 5.4 15.0 16.9 Black Hawk Standard Middlings 7896 6883 Batchelor & Barlow, Sharpsville 9.5 5.2 5.0 15.0 15.9 Black Hawlr Standard Middlings 7896 7610 D. R. Murray, Clinton __ _ 11.3 5.2 5.6 15.0 17.7 Witmer Grain Company, Grabill, Ind. 1679 8230 Manufacturers 9.7 4.0 4.8 14.0 15.8 Woodburn Elevator & Milling Company, Woodburn, Ind. 5480 6146 Manufacturers 10.1 3.0 2.8 14.0 13.3 Zabel & Son, Lanesville, Ind. Wheat Middlings 7039 5845 New Middletown Milling Co., New Middletown 11.1 2.5 4.6 14.0 14.9 Zenith Milling Company, Kansas City, Mo. Wheat Shorts 7372 5481 I. B. Clyne, Crawfordsville _ 10.0 3.5 5.4 16.0 17.0 Wheat Shorts 7372 5914 Sturgeon Grain & Coal Co., Muncie 9.1 3.5 5.3 16.0 17.6 Ziliak & Schafer Milling Company, Haubstadt, Ind. Middlings 4059 5655 Manufacturers 10.7 3.5 3.8 14.5 15.9 Middlings 4059 7919 Ma.nnfaetnrp.rs 10.4 3.5 4.1 14.5 15.5 No Manufacturer ♦Wheat, Middlings ... 7923 Fhhrer Ford Milling Co., New Harmony __ 10.0 4.8 ___ 17.6 WHEAT MIDDLINGS AND RED DOG FLOUR Cadick Milling Company, Grandview, Ind. Shipstuff 7859 5790 Bernard Hartz, C'hrisney 10.1 4.0 4.4 16.0 15.4 Shipstuff 7859 5794 Manufacturers 9.8 4.0 4.3 16.0 15.7 Shipstuff 7859 8224 Manufacturers 8.5 4.0 5.2 16.0 16.8 WHITE MIDDLINGS Bachman Flour Mill, Indianapolis, Ind. White Middlings 5902 6540 Valentine Bachman, Indianapolis - 10.1 3.7 3.7 15.0 15.2 White Middlings _ _ 5902 7742 Manufacturers 9.8 3.7 4.5 15.0 16.1 Bicknell Mill Company, Bicknell, Ind. White Middlings 7825 8387 Manufacturers 9.5 3.0 3.8 12.0 14.4 Clayton Milling Company, Clayton, Ind. White Middlings 7722 6574 M anuf acturers 9.6 1.8 2.9 13.0 13.8 Collamer Milling Company, Collamer, Ind. White Middlings 7052 7147 Manufacturers 10.2 2.0 3.9 13.0 15.1 White Middlings 7052 8097 Manufacturers 9.2 2.0 4.2 13.0 16^2 J Street Milling Company, Laporte, Ind. White Middlings 5054 6348 Manufacturers — 9.8 2.0 4.4 12.0 16.5 * Not tagged 34 Removed from sale. Conflicting guarantees. Relabeled with No. 7349 46 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. Official Inspection D Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found Kehlor Flour Mills Company, St. Louis, Mo. Neptune White Middlings 4191 6219 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., Lafayette 9.5 4.0 3.6 17.0 16.8 Neptune White Middlings 4191 7464 Paul Kuhn & Co., Clay City___ 10.1 4.0 3.8 17.0 17.9 Myers & Son, Joseph H., Chili, Ind. 7581 6616 Manufacturers _ „ 10.4 2.9 2.5 13.9 13.0 White Middlings . _ _ 7581 7406 .T T, & J. M. Myers, Chili 11.4 2.9 2.1 13.9 12.7 Rockport Milling Company, Rockport, Ind. Knpp’s Whit, ft Middlings 7477 5797 Manufacturers 9.9 2.3 3.3 13.5 14.0 Southwestern Milling Company, Inc., The, Kansas City, Mo. Pure Fancy White Middlings 7955 6509 Geo. Steckley, Kendallville 11.6 2.5 3.1 14.0 15.9 Sullivan Mill & Elevator Company, Sullivan, Ind. *Whitft Middlings . . 5584 Manufacturers _ 12.1 1.3 12.4 tfWhite Middlings 7982 5599 O A Mpier ; Sullivan 12.0 2.5 1.3 12~0 12.4 8390 7231 M an u f a e t n re r s 10.3 1.2 1.5 12.5 12.2 RED DOG FLOUR Coppes Bros. & Zook, Nappanee, Ind. Red Dog Flour (Branded “P”i 7610 6528 Manufacturers 9.3 2.7 2.9 14.0 14.3 Red Dog Flour CRranded “F 1 ”! 7610 8305 Manufacturers 10.0 2.7 2.9 14.0 14.8 Crocker, William G., Minneapolis, Minn. William G. Crocker’s Red Dog Flour— 2904 5374 Colfax Grain Co., Colfax 10.0 5.0 5.3 17.0 17.8 Loughry Bros. Milling & Grain Company, Monticello, Ind. Loughry’s Red Dog Flour 7731 7330 Manufacturers 11.1 3.5 3.5 16.0 15.4 Washbura-Crosby Company, Minneapolis, Minn. Red Dog Flour (Adrian) 7233 8065 Farmers Mill & Elevator Co., Columbia City 8.8 4.0 6.0 16.0 20.8 LOW GRADE FLOUR *Low Grade Flour 35 7155 Fountain Produce Co., Yeedersburg 11.9 2.6 15.3 WHEAT MIDDLINGS AND SCREENINGS Acme-Evans Company, Indianapolis, Ind. Acme Middlings and Screenings 5590 5349 Nixon & Van Deventer, Attica— 10.1 4.5 4.6 16.5 16.5 Acme Middlings and Screenings 5590 6155 Dayton Grain & Lumber Co., Dayton _ 9.5 4.5 4.0 16.5 16.0 Acme Middlings and Screenings 5590 7341 Thorntown Grain Co., Thorntown 10.7 4.5 4.9 16.5 16.4 Acme Middlings and Screenings 5590 7435 S. W. McCormick, Waveland 8.8 4.5 4.5 16.5 16.8 Acme Middlings and Screenings. 5590 7489 Colfax Grain Co., Colfax 9.6 4.5 4.7 16.5 16.5 Acme Middlings and Screenings 5590 8106 R. E. Hayes, Campbellsburg 8.9 4.5 5.0 16.5 16.5 Ashbrook Company, The J. S., Mattoon, 111. . • , ; . i. ttWheat Middlings with Ground Screen- ings . 8531 7193 F. S. Gregory, Washington 9.6 4.0 5.3 14.0 16.6 Wheat Middlings with Ground Screen- ings 8531 7667 Gfdhreflth ^ 6n., Cayuga. 9.4 4.0 5.0 14.0 17.0 ttWheat Middlings with Ground Screen- ings 8531 7461 I. Bunch, Linton 9.6 4.0 4.4 14.0 18.0 • jNot tagged 85 Manufacturer could not be ascertained ft Labels furnished 47 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. Official Inspection D Guar- anteed T) G 0 O Guar- anteed Found Badenoch Company, J. J., Chicago, 111. J. J. Badenoch Co’s Wheat Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run 6220 6937 Kellner & Callahan, Rensselaer. 9.5 5.0 5.8 15.0 17.0 J. J. Badenoch Co’s Wheat Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run 6220 7557 Hoosier Wholesale Grocery Co., South Bend 8.2 5.0 5.9 15.0 15.6 Bartlett Company, The J. E., Jackson, Mich. Standard Wheat Middlings and 6814 5540 Farmers Grain Co., Markle 9.3 4.5 4.5 13.5 16.5 Bernet, Craft & Kauffman Milling Company, St. Louis, Mo. 5791 7706 John Crum, Milan 8.6 4.9 4.6 17.2 16.9 Big Diamond Mills Company, Minneapolis, Minn. “Big Diamond Standard Middlings” and Screenings 7059 5711 J. H. Menke, Richmond 8.8 4.2 5.1 14.6 16.4 “Big Diamond Standard Middlings” 7059 7909 J. H. Menke, Richmond 8.4 4.2 , 5.4 14.6 17.3 Bloomington Milling Company, The, Bloomington, Ind. tMiddlings & Screenings 8447 6134- Manufacturer _ 9.4 4.0 5.2 14.0 15.2 Brook Elour & Eeed Mill, Brook, Ind. tfRising Sun Middlings & Ground Screenings 8930 7773 G. E. Vest, Brook... 9.9 4.0 5.4 14.0 16.1 Brose, George, Evansville, Ind. Wheat Middlings and Screenings 6854 6810 Manufacturers 9.8 3.8 3.8 15.5 Wheat Middlings and Screenings 6854 7825 S. M. Heard, Evansville 8.2 3.8 4.1 15.5 10. D 17 ft Wheat Middlings and Screenings 6854 7878 Manufacturers 9.0 3i8 4^3 15.5 1 1 .u 17.1 Butler & Company, Edw. J., Chicago, 111. Wheat Elour Middlings and Screenings 8347 7204 D. A. Rumpel, Berne 9.8 4.0 5.8 14.0 16.7 tfStandard Middlings & Screenings 8348 5950 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Go., Reynolds 10.1 4.0 5.2 14.0 17.1 Cannelton Flour Mills, Cannelton, Ind. Ship & Wheat Screenings 2589 5803 Manufacturers _ 10.5 4.0 4.2 n Ifi 4 Ship & Wheat Screenings 2589 8215 Manufacturers _ __ 10.1 4.0 41 H.v 14.0 10.4fc 15.1 Chicago Heights Oil Mfg. Co., Chicago, 111. “Prize” Standard Middlings and Screenings _ 7006 5399 Watkins & Gripe, Lincoln 8.6 4.0 5.5 15.0 16.6 “Prize” Standard Middlings and Screenings 7006 5934 T L. Garter & Son, TTpland •9.1 4.0 4.9 15.0 15.8 “Prize” Standard Middlings and Screenings __ __ __ 7006 7377 W. H. Meloy, Argos 9.9 4.0 5.1 15.0 15.4 “Prize” Standard Middlings and Screenings 36 . 7000 8241 Butler Milling Co., Butler 9.0 4.0 6.3 15.0 33.0 Columbia City Mill & Elevator Company, Columbia City, Ind. \ Wheat Middlings & Ground Screenings 6990 8067 Farmers Mill & Elevator Co., Columbia City, ! ... 9.1 2.8 3.0 13.0 15.0 Coppes Bros. & Zook, Nappanee, "Ind. Middlings & Ground Wheat Screenings 7561 5952 Beach & Simmers, Albany... 9.4 4.0 4^3 r 15& 15.8 Middlings & Ground Wheat Screenings 7561 8111 Benj. Noftsger, Rochester 9.1 4.0 4.6 15.8 ■ •16.8 Middlings & Ground Wheat Screenings 7561 8304 Manufacturers 9.5 4,0 4.1. m 16.7 Crocker, William G., Minneapolis, Minn. ' ” •• : ' - r'-'i'M Wheat Elour Middlings with Ground » *‘§0 , T Screenings not exceeding Mill Run— 7238 5375 Colfax Grain Co., Colfax 9.4 4.0 5.1 15.0 17.8 t Before registration 36 Wrong label attached. Label 6351 ftirnished. ft Not tagged. Labels furnished Sample is linseed meal 48 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Number Crude fat Crude protein Label .2 Sample secured from g4| per cent. per cent. Official O oo G 5 a> a y *8 a E 0) S a Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found Deutsch & Sickert Company, Milwaukee, Wis. Eagle Wheat Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings 7188 6805 W. A. Browning Milling Co., Rvansville 10.9 5.0 4.8 14.0 16.3 Dickinson Company, The Albert, Chicago, 111. Wheat Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings not to exceed Mill Run __ _ 5840 5607 Farmers Elevator Co., Morocco. 9.7 5.0 4.9 15.0 16.1 Wheat Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings not to exceed • Mill Run _ 5840 7295 Griper Sen, Middjebury 9.2 5.0 4.9 15.0 16.6 Wheat Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings not to exceed Mill Run 5840 8309 C. L. Fisher & Co., Bremen 8.7 5.0 5.5 15.0 16.5 Flour Middlings with Ground Wheat Screenings not to exceed Mill Run... 6944 6350 McMahan Bros., Valparaiso 9.1 4.5 5.2 15.5 16.8 Eagle Roller Mill Company, New Ulm, Minn. Wheat Middlings with Ground Screen- 6687 6628 Erie Elevator, Rochester . 9.6 4.5 5.1 15.4 15.4 Early & Daniel Company, The, Cincinnati, Ohio Middlings # Screenings 7274 7062 .Tnhn Grirm, Milan 10.2 4.0 4.2 15.0 17.0 Eckart Milling Company, B. A., Chicago, 111. Middlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run 5400 6227 J, R.. Starr, Winamnc 9.3 4.0 4.5 14.0 17.0 Middlings with Ground Screenings not P-x-eeeding Mill Run 5400 6375 A . Smith & Cn , Sheridan 9.6 4.0 4.9 14.0 16.5 Middlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding M,,l Run 5400 7291 Wolfe & Bevington, Sh'PShewan a 9.9 4.0 4.7 14.0 15.6 Edinger & Company, Louisville, Ky. Wheat Middlings and Wheat Screen- ings _ _ _ 7200 5851 W. D. Hum Milling Co., New Salisbury Wheat Middlings and Wheat Screen- ings 10.2 4.5 4.2 15.5 17.1 7206 6733 O. L. Cauble, Pekin 9.8 4.5 4.6 15.5. 16.1 Everett, Aughenbaugh & Company, Waseca, Minn. E-A-CO Wheat Middlings and Ground Screenings . _ 5440 5370 Vandalia Elevator Co., Colfax. 10.3 3.0 4.9 15.0 17.0 Farmers Mill & Elevator Company, The, Columbia City, Ind. tfWhcat Middlings &. Screenings 8952 8270 Manufacturers 9.4 2.5 4.0 12.0 14.8 Fisher Bros., Evansville, Ind. Wheat Middlings and Screenings 8715 7841 Manufacturers 10.1 4.0 5.3 14.0 16.0 Fyke Milling Company, La Grange, Ind. Wheat Middlings fr. Screenings 6422 7305 Manufacturers _ _ 9.5 3.5 4.0 13.5 13.6 Garland Milling Company, Greensburg, Ind. Garland Middlings fr, Screenings 7281 7854 Manufacturers 9.5 4.3 4.5 16.5 17.1 Goshen Milling Company, The, Goshen, Ind. Wheat Middlings and Ground Wheat Screenings 7471 6523 Manufacturers 9.9 3.2 4.9 13.5 15.4 Wheat Middlings and Ground Wheat Screenings 7471 8128 Manufacturers 1 9.5 3.2 4.4 13.5 16.1 f f Not tagged. Labels furnished 49 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Hales & Edwards Company, Chicago, 111. Wheat Middlings “With Screenings not exceeding Mill Run” Haynes Milling Company, The, Portland, Ind. Haynes Special Mixed Feed __ Home Mill & Grain Company, Mt. Vernon, Ind. Wheat Middlings & Screenings Wheat Middlings & Screenings Hubbard Milling Company, Mankato, Minn. Standard Middlings & Ground Screen- ings — Standard Fine Middlings & Ground Screenings Hunter-Robinson-Wenz Milling Company, St. Louis, Mo. Middlings and Screenings ___ Middlings and Screenings — Igleheart Bros., Evansville, Ind. Pure Wheat Middlings & Screenings not exceeding Mill Run Pure Wheat Middlings & Screenings not exceeding Mill Run Pure Wheat Middlings & Screenings not exceeding Mill Run 37 Pure Wheat Middlings & Screenings not exceeding Mill Run Pure Wheat Middlings & Screenings not exceeding Mill Run Imperial Mills, The, Cambridge City, Ind. Wheat Middlings and Ground Screen- Interstate Feed Association, Detroit, Mich. Interstate Standard Middlings and Screenings Judson Creamery & Produce Company. North Judson, Ind. Judson Wheat Middlings and Screen- ings — Kansas Flour Mills Company, Wichita, Kansas Standard Shorts & Wheat Screenings. Kaw Milling Company, The, Topeka, Kansas Kaw Kaw Shorts & Ground Screen- ings not to exceed 5% Kehlor Flour Mills Company, St. Louis, Mo. Rex Middlings and Ground Screenings. Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. Official Inspection D Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed j Found 7643 5347 Fred Holtz, Williamsport 1-0.3 3.5 5.2 14.0 16.5 7894 5955 Manufacturers 1 9.4 3.5 3.3 14.5 15.4 7686 6890 Manufacturers _ 9.4 4.0 4.1 16.0 15.9 7686 7978 Clint Stroud, Mt. Vernon 9.4 4.0 5.7 16.0 17.6 5447 7717 F. A. Finch & Co., Hillsboro-— 9.1 5.1 6.0 14.5 16.7 8538 0958 Iroquois Roller Mills, Rensselaer 9.7 5.0 6.3 16.0 16.9 5220 6157 Stiefel & Levy, Kimmel 11.1 4.0 2.9 15.0 15.8 5220 8358 Marengo Milling Co., Marengo- 9.4 4.0 3.8 15.0 15.4 5772 5679 W. N. Erwin, Inglefield 9.3 5.0 4.2 16.0 16.1 5772 6754 Ballard & Magenheimer, Haubstadt 8.8 5.0 4.2 16.0 15.4 5772 6867 P. Reising & Sons, Poseyville— 8.9 5.0 4.5 16.0 16.1 5772 6938 W. N. Erwin, Inglefield 8.4 5.0 4.5 16.0 17.8 5772 7895 P. Reising & Sons, Poseyville— 8.8 5.0 5.1 16.0 17.3 7592 7943 Manufacturers . 10.4 3.7 4.5 14.0 16.1 8183 7097 Geneva Milling & Grain Co., Geneva 10.4 5.0 5.1 14.0 16.4 8496 6225 Miller & Dilts, Winamac 9.9 4.0 4.3 14.5 16.5 7886 7004 Putmann Hdw. Co., New Point- 10.6 4.2 5.1 16.0 17.5 8304 7515 Sturgeon Grain & Coal Co., Muncie 10.0 4.0 4.4 17.0 17.9 6682 5464 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., Linden 11.2 4.0 4.2 16.0 16.2 37 Conflicting guarantees. Withdrawn 50 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Kemper Mill & Elevator Company, Kansas City. Mo. Crescent Middlings with Ground Screenings ings not exceeding Mill Run La Grange Mills, Red Wing, Minn. Eine Middlings with Ground Screen- ings not exceeding Mill Run Fine Middlings with Ground Screen- ings not exceeding Mill Run Little Crow Milling Company, Warsaw, Ind. Wheat Middlings & Screenings.. Loughry Bros. Milling & Grain Company, Monticello, Ind. Loughry’s Wheat Middlings and Screenings Louisville Milling Company, Louisville, Ky. Wheat Shorts with Ground Screen- ings not exceeding Mill Run Wheat Shorts with Ground Screen- ings not exceeding Mill Run Lyon & Greenleaf Company, Ligonier, Ind. Wheat Middlings and Screenings.. Mallinson, Charles L., Evansville, Ind. Wheat Shorts & Ground Screenings Marshall Milling Company, Marshall, Minn. tfShorts and Screenings not exceeding Mill Run Shorts and Screenings not exceeding Mill Run Shorts and Screenings not exceeding Mill Run Mayflower Mills, Fort Wayne, Ind. Wheat Middlings with Ground Screen- ings not exceeding Mill Run Milford Grain & Milling Company, Milford, Ind. Wheat Middlings & Ground Screenings Miller Flour & Feed Company, The Wesley, South Bend, Ind. Wheat Middlings & Screenings Mosher & Company, A. B., Columbia City, Ind. ttWheat Middlings & Screenings Muller Bros. Milling Company, Ferdinand, Ind. Wheat Shorts and Screenings . National Feed Company, St. Louis, Mo. Wheat Middlings & Ground Screenings Wheat Middlings & Ground Screenings Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. Official Inspection D Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found 6028 7719 Flem Van Meter, Jasonville 8.7 4.2 5.3 1 16.0 18.7 7323. 5380 Probst & Kassebaum, Indianapolis 9.2 4.3 4.4 16.0 16.0 8604 7188 0. Gandy & Co., Mentone 11.1 5.0 5.4 15.5 16.5 8004 8056 0. Gandy & Co., Mentone 9.6 5.0 5.7 15.5 18.6 7284 8061 Manufacturers 9.1 3.0 4.6 13.0 17.6 6170 7328 Manufacturers 11.0 4.0 4.2 14.0 15.4 6176 5754 Charlestown Milling Co., Charlestown __ 9.0 4.0 4.4 15.0 16.3 6176 8320 T. A. Pass, Sellarsburg 10.6 4.0 4.0 15.0 15.8 8003 7507 Manufacturers _ 10.1 4.0 4.3 14.0 16.0 7364 6850 Manufacturer 9.7 4.0 4.2 14.0 14.6 6390 5359 Hurst & Co., Indianapolis... 8.9 5.0 4.6 17.0 17.3 6396 6379 Ed. B. Murphy, Carmel 10.2 5.0 5.3 17.0 16.2 6390 7082 Chas. W. Jessup, Madison 9.8 5.0 5.2 17.0 16.9 8170 8103 Farmers Elevator Co., Laketon 9.3 4.0 5.1 14.0 15.7 8480 8268 Manufacturers 9.1 3.5 4.8 14.0 16.8 6483 7539 Manufacturers 9.6 4.0 5.6 14.0 16.0 8483 6162 J. L. Keisler & Sons, Columbia City 10.4 3.0 5.1 13.0 16.1 8448 8219 A. Graves Sons, Tell City. 9.4 4.0 4.1 14.0 15.8 7349 6960 Pickens & Brengle, Orleans 10.6 4.0 3.1 16.0 15.7 7349 7283 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., Lafayette 9.4 4.0 3.2 16.0 16.5 tf Not tagged. Labels furnished 5i TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1913 (continued) Number ’3 £ .2 o op n 56 GO o 7507 . 7306 6230 5498 6393 6394 7521 6856 5814 6856 5818 6856 7832 . 7134 5614 Tim . 7134 7294 . 7134 7844 • 7676 7893 ■ 8110 6109 ■ 8110 7635 6588 6530 6588 8311 - 5967 7027 ■ 7598 6535 - 7598 7470 - 7600 7469 . 7013 5844 . 7013 7480 Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed 'O a § fa 8.5 — 4.9 — 16.5 10.3 4.0 4.5 15.0 15.8 10.0 4.5 4.8 15.5 16.5 8.9 4.5 6.1 15.0 16.6 10.1 4.0 4.2 15.5 16.2 9.8 4.0 4.3 15.5 15.7 9.5 4.0 4.4 15.5 16.8 10.0 4.0 5.0 14.0 16.4 9.7 — 5.0 — 16.4 8.9 4.0 5.2 14.0 16.8 9.8 4.0 5.2 14.0 16.4 9.1 4.0 5.3 14.0 17.7 . 11.1 4.0 4.0 15.0 16.2 • 11.2 4.0 4.4 15.0 17.0 ■ 10.2 3.8 4.7 14.0 15.8 ■ 10.7 3.8 4.6 14.0 16.2 - 10.3 4.0 5.4 15.0 15.9 9.3 5.0 5.8 15.0 15.9 - 9.4 5.0 5.1 15.0 17.2 - 9.0 4.5 5.3 16.0 17.7 . 9.7 4.0 4.6 15.0 16.0 . 8.0 4.0 4.5 15.0 17.3 Label Newsome Feed & Grain Company, Pittsburgh, Pa. ♦Wheat Middlings Noblesville Milling Company, Noblesville, Ind. Noblesville Milling Go’s Middlings & Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run Northwestern Consolidated Milling Company, The, Minneapolis, Minn. Wheat Plour Middlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run__ “Wheat Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run” Phoenix Flour Mill, Evansville, Ind. Wheat Middlings and Ground Screen- ings Wheat Middlings and Ground Screen- ings 38 Wheat Middlings and Ground Screen- ings — Pillsbury Flour Mills Company, Minneapolis, Minn. tfPillsbury’s Wheat Standard “B” Mid- dlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run ♦Pillsbury’s Wheat Standard “B“ Mid- dlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run Pillsbury’s Wheat Standard “B” Mid- dlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run Pillsbury’s Wheat Standard “B” Mid- dlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run Poseyville Milling Company, The, Poseyville, Ind. Wheat Shorts & Screenings Rohm Bros., Rockville, Ind. Shorts and Screenings Product Shorts and Screenings Product Schilt, W. F., Bremen, Ind. Wheat Shorts & Screenings Wheat Shorts & Screenings Schultz-Baujan & Company, Beardstown, 111. Sunbeam Middlings and Screenings. Sheffield-King Milling Company, Minneapolis, Minn. “Fairybow” “Fairybow” “Whitehope” Stanard-Tilton Milling Company, St. Louis, Mo. Wheat Middlings with Screenings Not Exceeding Mill Run Wheat Middlings with Screenings Not Exceeding Mill Run Sample secured from Purdue University, Lafayette... W. G. Sweet, Royal Center. Ed. Behnke, Gary Muncie Oil & Coal Co., Muncie. American Cooperative Assoc., Boonville American Cooperative Assoc. Boonville Manufacturers Ogle Land Co., Linton Griner & Son. Middlebury. Fisher Bros., Evansville... Manufacturers Manufacturers Manufacturers Manufacturers Manufacturers C. Nieman, Sunman Wakarusa Milling Co., Wakarusa J. R. Starr, Winamac. J. R. Starr, Winamac.. Thomas & Hickman, Corydon. * Not tagged tt Not tagged. Labels furnished 33 Misbranded. Relabeled No. 2253 52 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Star & Crescent Mining Company, Chicago, 111. _ 3 „ tfStar Middlings with Ground Screen- ings not exceeding Mill Run Star Middlings with Ground Screen- ings not exceeding Mill Run Star Middlings with Ground Screen- ings not exceeding Mill Run Star Middlings with Ground Screen- ings not exceeding Mill Run Star Middlings with Ground Screen- ings not exceeding Mill Run tfStar Middlings with Ground Screen- ings not exceeding Mill Run Stokes Milling Company, Watertown, So. Dak. Country Wheat Middlings and Screen- ings Not Exceeding Mill Run Suckow Company, Franklin, Ind. Middlings and Screenings Middlings and Screenings Taylor-Hitz Company, Madison, Ind. Taylor-Hitz Co’s Middlings and Screenings — » Tranchant & F’innell Co., Osborn, Ohio **Noxall White Middlings containing Screenings not exceeding Mill Run — Trow Company, W., Madison, Ind. Trow’s Middlings & Screenings Trow’s Middlings & Screenings Valentine & Valentine, Franklin, Ind. Middlings and Screenings Middlings and Screenings Valier & Spies Milling Company, St. Louis, Mo. Valier’s Wheat Middlings with Ground Wheat Screenings Valier’s Wheat Middlings with Ground Wheat Screenings Valier’s Wheat Middlings with Ground Wheat Screenings Wagner-White Company, Inc., Jackson, Mich. Middlings with Screenings Not to Ex- ceed Mill Run Washburn-Crosby Company, Minneapolis, Minn. Washburn-Crosby Co’s Wheat Stand- ard Middlings with Ground Screen- ings Not Exceeding Mill Run Wheat Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run Wheat Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run tfWheat Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run tfWheat Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. Official Inspection D Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found 5376 5716 Indiana School for Feeble Minded Youth, Ft. Wayne 9.4 4.0 5.0 15.0 16.8 5376 6264 Hamlet Grain Co., Hamlet 9.1 4.0 5.6 15.0 16.8 5376 6458 Roper & Brown, Hobart 10.1 4.0 4.9 15.0 16.5 5376 7912 Powell & Co., Fountain City__ 9.6 4.0 4.7 15.0 16.6 5376 7996 Simon J. Carroll, Bunker Hill__ 9.5 4.0 4.8 15.0 16.9 5376 8388 F’. O. Underhill, Greensfork 8.9 4.0 4.6 15.0 16.2 8492 6643 Prater-Mottier Co., Terre Haute 9.5 5.5 4.9 15.9 17.1 7375 6563 Manufacturers _ 9.0 3.5 4.6 14.0 16.7 7375 7750 Manufacturers 9.2 3.5 4.8 14.0 17.3 6313 5435 Manufacturers _ 9.5 3.7 4.4 14.0 16.2 6765 Caser Fohl & Son, Cedar Grove — 9.6 ___ 4.6 16.0 1972 5435 Manufacturers 9.5 4.5 4.5 16.0 16.1 1972 8152 M. A. King, Madison 9.8 4.5 4.3 16.0 | 16.0 7455 6558 Manufacturers 7.7 3.5 4.8 14.0 16.7 7455 7754 Manufacturers __ 9.0 3.5 4.3 14.0 16.9 6157 6685 Valier & Spies Milling Co., Terre Haute 9.4 5.0 5.1 16.0 18.4 6157 6672 Kewanna Butter & Produce Co., Kewanna __ 9.0 5.0 5.1 16.0 16.7 6157 7616 Hargrave Brothers, Russellville. 8.6 5.0 6.1 16.0 16.7 8855 8249 Fremont Co-op. Assoc., Fremont 8.4 4.5 5.6 14.0 | 19.2 5465 7200 Jesse Goshorn, Washington 9.9 5.0 5.4 15.0 16.6 7230 5563 D. R. Smith, Tipton 11.1 4.0 5.2 14.0 15.9 7230 5896 City Mills & Elevator, Winchester 10.0 4.0 5.0 14.0 16.7 7230 6000 Galbreath & Schriner, Cayuga.. 10.6 4.0 4.4 14.0 16.5 7230 7013 Ideal Milling & Grain Co., Ridgeville 10.6 4.0 5.1 14.0 16 5 ** Not registered tl Not tagged. Labels furnished 53 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Washburn-Crosby Company, Minneapolis, Minn. Wheat Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Kun Wheat Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run Wheat Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run Yoder, Marion J., Middlebury, Ind. tWheat Middlings and Ground Wheat Screenings Wheat Middlings and Ground Wheat Screenings Ziliak & Schafer Milling Company, Haubstadt, Ind. Wheat Shorts and Ground Screenings _ Wheat Shorts and Ground Screenings _ Wheat Shorts and Ground Screenings _ MIXED FEED: WHEAT BRAN AND WHEAT MIDDLINGS Acme Milling Company, The, Aurora, Ind. Bran & Middlings Bran & Middlings Bachman, Valentine, Indianapolis, Ind. Bachman’s Cleaned Wheat Product— Bachman’s Cleaned Wheat Product— Brizius Company, The Chas. W., Newburgh, Ind. Eagle Mixed Feed Eagle Mixed Feed Burns, W. T., Rising Sun, Ind. Mixed Feed Cauble & Dunlevy, Henryville, Ind. Star Mixed Feed Cayuga Milling Company, Cayuga, Ind. Cayuga Milling Co’s Mixed Wheat Bran & Wheat Shorts Cayuga Milling Co’s Mixed Wheat Bran & Wheat Shorts Clayton Milling Company, Clayton, Ind. Mixed Feed Collamer Milling Company, Collamer, Ind. Mixed Feed Mixed Feed Dubois Milling Company, Dubois, Ind. Bran & Shorts Gaston Roller Mills, Gaston, Ind. Wheat Bran & Middlings Heaton, E. H., Indianapolis, R. R. No. 12, Ind. Mixed Feed Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. Official Inspection D Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed | Found 7230 7487 Vandalia Elevator Co., Colfax. 9.2 4.0 5.1 14.0 18.9 7230 7730 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., Linden 9.4 4.0 5.1 14.0 18.1 7230 7914 Powell & Co., Fountain City— 8.8 4.0 5.9 14.0 17.0 8783 74361 Manufacturer 9.3 3.7 4.4 14.0 14.8 8783 8125 Manufacturer 9.8 3.7 4.4 14.0 14.7 7215 5654 Manufacturers . 9.7 4.5 4.4 16.5 16.1 7215 6749 Manufacturers _ . 10.2 4.5 4.7 16.5 16.6 7215 7973 Manufacturers 9.3 4.5 5.2 16.5 17.2 970 5453 Manufacturers 9.6 3.9 4.6 14.2 15.2 970 7662 Manufacturers 9.5 3.9 4.5 14.2 16io 6960 6541 Manufacturer 9.6 3.7 4.6 16.0 15.8 6950 7743 Manufacturer 9.2 3.7 4.5 16.0 15.4 5927 6901 Manufacturers 9.8 4.0 4.7 15.1 15.9 5927 7794 Chas. W. Brizius Co., Evansville 9.6 4.0 4.7 15.1 16.9 7768 ! 7059 Manufacturer 10.7 3.0 4.9 14.0 15.4 5825 5868 Manufacturers _ 9.9 4.0 3.7 14.0 14.7 419 6005 Manufacturers 10.4 3.9 4.3 14.0 16.2 419 7666 Manufacturers 10.2 3.9 3.9 14.0 15.9 7665 6573 Manufacturers . 9.2 3.0 4.5 13.0 15.4 7053 7146 Manufacturers 9.6 3.5 4.0 14.0 14.8 7053 8098 Manufacturers 8.1 3.5 3.5 14.0 15.8 1192 5761 Manufacturers 10.0 3.6 3.9 13.0 14.7 5508 6334 Manufacturers 9.3 3.0 4.2 13.0 16.5 5931 1 7745 Manufacturer 9.8 3.0 3.8 13.5 15.5 t Before registration 54 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. j Official Inspection D Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed 'O (3 1 Hosmer, Otis I., Doolittle Mills, Ind. Shipstuff — 41820 5856 Doolittle Mills, Doolittle Mills.— 9.3 3.5 3.8 14.0 14.7 Hornung, J. M., Greensburg, Ind. 4flb6 7871 Manufacturer 9.6 3.7 3.7 14.0 15.7 Jay Grain Company, The, Mulberry Branch, Mulberry Ind. “Jay’s” Wheat Bran & Shorts 7716 6423 Jay Grain Co., Elwood 9.6 3.0 3.9 14.0 14.5 Jones & Son, C. N., Wabash, Ind. 7733 5560 Manufacturers 10.5 3.0 4.0 14.0 16.1 Karnes, Lubert, Martinsburg, Ind. Red Wing Dairy Feed 527 5881 Manufacturer _ _ 10.4 3.8 4.1 14.0 14.5 527 8031 Manufacturer 9.4 3.8 4.2 14.0 16.3 Katterjohn, A. F., Lynnville, Ind. 6938 6930 Manufacturer 9.5 4.0 5.0 14.0 17.1 Lawrenceburg Roller Mills Company, Lawrenceburg, Ind. “Snowflake” Mixed Feed •8518 7704' Milan Mill & Elevator, Milan.. 8.7 4.3 4.3 15.2 16.4 Martin & Martin, New Castle, Ind. Martin fo Martin’s Mi-srpd Feed 4351 6545 Manufacturers 10.0 3.5 4.1 13.0 15.8 Martin & Martin’s Mixed Feed 4351 8341 Manufacturers 9.2 3.5 3.9 13.0 16.2 Pyrmont Milling Company, Pyrmont, Ind. Pyrmont Ship 265 6215 Manufacturers 10.4 4.0 3.5 14.0 15.1 Schnell, Joseph, Schnellville, Ind. Shipstuff 7088 5847 M. Schuppert & Sons, Depauw. 10.6 2.5 4.3 12.0 14.5 Smith, D. R., Tipton, Ind. Mixed Feed 4081 5561 Manufacturer 10.3 3.0 4.2 14.0 15.7 Smock & Caca, Noblesville, Ind. Bran and Shorts 1424 7620 Manufacturers 9.7 3.8 3.8 14.5 15.4 Star Roller Mills, The, Burlington, Ind. Mived Feed 3627 5939 Manufacturers 9.7 3.0 4.4 14.0 15.8 Sullivan Mill & Elevator Company, Sullivan, Ind. Mixed Feed 6977 5590 Manufacturers 10.8 3.4 4.0 12.0 15.1 Swayzee Milling Company, Swayzee, Ind. Wheat Bran & Shorts 4475 6874 Manufacturers 9.2 3.8 4.6 13.5 14.9 Victoria Milling Company, The, Jasper, Ind. Mixed Feed 2608 5740 Manufacturers 9.4 3.5 4.8 14.0 15.5 MIXED FEED: WHEAT BRAN, WHEAT MIDDLINGS AND SCREENINGS Acme-Evans Company, Indianapolis, Ind. Acme Feed 5588 5048 Nixon & Van Deventer, Attica.. 10.6 4.0 4.6 16.0 15.6 A erne Feed 5588 5459 Stafford Grain Co., Hope 9.4 4.0 4.1 16.0 15.7 Acme Feed , 5588 5910 J. H. Williamson Co., Muncie.. 10.2 4.0 4.6 16.0 16.0 Acme Feed 5588 6404 Jonesboro Milling Co., Jonesboro 9.9 4.0 4.5 16.0 15.2 Acme Feed - 5588 6707 Hughes Lumber & Grain Co., Brooklyn 10.0 4.0 5.0 16.0 15.9 Acme Feed 5588 6928 Butcher & Duncan, Oakland City 9.4 4.0 4.5 16.0 147 Acme Feed 5588 7143 Brewer Co., Spencer 9.9 4.0 4.5 16.0 15.8 39 Misbranded. Screenings present 55 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. is *3 £ O a o 5 ID a l T3 (-c 3 a 3 7? O 3 Found Guar- anteed Found MIXED FEED: WHEAT BRAN, WHEAT MIDDLINGS AND CORN BRAN Banner Roller Mills, The, Mooresville, Ind. 437 6087 Manufacturers __ 10.6 3.9 1 4 0 14.0 1 15.4 437 7672 Manufacturers 9.9 3.9 4.0 14.0 15.1 Boldt & Son, Waynetown, Ind. Mix Mill Feed 4170 5458 Manufacturers _ 9.8 3.0 4.2 11.0 15.7 Mix Mill Feed 4170 7715 Manufacturers _ __ 9.4 3.0 4.2 11.0 16.1 M'x Mill Feed 4170 8342 Manufacturers __ _ 9.1 3.0 4.4 11.0 15.9 Columbus Milling Company, Columbus, Ind. A. Mixed Feed _ _ 8040 5478 Manufacturers _ _ 10.2 3.0 4.4 13.5 14.9 8049 6823 Manufacturers . 10.3 3.0 5.6 13.5 13.4 Follett & Company, R. J., Carmel, Ind. 3163 6076 Manufacturers 9.8 3.7 4.7 13.0 15.5 Freed & Lewis, Campbellsburg, Ind. Mixed Feed 6062 8105 Manufacturers 9.0 3.0 4.2 13.0 14.9 Gilman, S. B., Summitville, Ind. Gilman’s Mixed Feed 4 & 3216 6067 Manufacturers _ __ 11.2 3.7 4.2 12.5 13.4 Henline, M. S., Ossian, Ind. Mixed Feed 6806 6690 Manufacturer 9.5 2.5 3.9 12.5 14.9 Mixed Feed 6806 7959 Manufacturer 9.4 2.5 4.0 12.5 15.6 Hollingsworth, S. P., Russiaville, Ind. Hollingsworth Mixed Feed *6 7829 6708 Manufacturer 9.9 3.8 4.2 14.0 16.6 Semon, F. T., Vernon, Ind. Semon’s Mixed Feed 5631 8193 Manufacturer __ 9.1 3.9 3.9 12.0 16.1 St. Anthony Mill Company, St. Anthony, Ind. Wheat Bran, Shorts & Corn Bran 5262 5862 Manufacturers _ _ _ 10.0 3.0 4.3 13.0 15.1 Wheat Bran, Shorts & Corn Bran 5262 7452 Manufacturers 11.1 3.0 4.0 13.0 15.2 Star Milling Company, The, Aurora, Ind. Mixed Feed 2675 5450 Manufacturers _ 9.0 4.0 4.5 13.5 14.9 Starlight Milling Company, Borden, R. R. No. 1, Ind. Mixed Feed _ _ 7794 8026 Manufacturers 9.1 2.0 4.6 12.0 16.1 Walker & Son, J. M., Middletown, Ind. Walker’s Mixed Feed 8163 6281 Manufacturer 10.1 3.5 4.5 13.0 16.5 MIXED FEED: WHEAT BRAN, WHEAT MIDDLINGS, LOW GRADE FLOUR AND CORN BRAN Hardin & Son, Ladoga, Ind. Hardin & Son’s Mill Feed 3482 ! 0922 Manufacturers 9.8 2.5 4.9 14.0 14.2 MIXED FEED: WHEAT BRAN, WHEAT MIDDLINGS, CORN BRAN AND DUST COLLECTOR BRAN Thornburg Milling & Elevator Company, Martinsville, Ind. Mixed Feed 2950 7674 / Manufacturers 10.4 1 3.5 3.5 14.0 14.4 45 G round corn and oat hulls present 46 Corn bran not identified 62 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label MIXED FEED: WHEAT BRAN, WHEAT MIDDLINGS, CORN BRAN AND DUST COLLECTOR DUST Miller, A. J., Montpelier, Ind. Mixed Feed Mixed Feed MIXED FEED: WHEAT BRAN, WHEAT MIDDLINGS, CORN BRAN, SCREENINGS, DUST COL- LECTOR DUST AND CHAFF Harmon & Wallace Milling Company, Owensville, Ind. Royal Mixed Feed Royal Mixed Feed MIXED FEED: WHEAT BRAN, CORN BRAN AND WHEAT DUST Dillsboro Milling Company, Dillsboro, Ind. Mixed Feed Mixed Feed 47 MIXED FEED: WHEAT BRAN, WHEAT MIDDLINGS, CORN BRAN AND SCREENINGS Bailey & Thompson, Prairie Creek, Ind. Mixed Feed No. 1 Besser, W. T., Greencastle, Ind. Besser’s Extra Mixed Feed Bicknell Mill Company, Bicknell, Ind. Mixed Feed Mixed Feed Billman & Sons, C. H., Shelbyville, Ind. Shelby Mixed Feed Bloomfield Mill & Elevator Company, Bloomfield, Ind. Mixed Mill Feed Brewer Milling Company, Gosport, Ind. Mixed Feed Cadick Milling Company, Grandview, Ind. Mixed Feed Mixed Feed Mixed Feed Mixed Feed Cannelton Flour Mills, C'annelton, Ind. “A” Mixed Feed “A” Mixed Feed Corbin Milling Company, New Harmony, Ind. Harmonic Mixed Feed 48 Crescent Milling Company, CTothersville, Ind. Mixed Feed Mixed Feed 47 Sample consists of wheat bran Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. Official Inspection D Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found 6257 6007 Manufacturer 10.6 3.0 ' 3.9 13.0 16.0 6257 7957 Manufacturer 9.5 3.0 4.2 13.0 15.1 7559 6886 Manufacturers _ — ___ 9.0 3.5 3.8 13.0 15.6 7559 7981 Manufacturers 9.3 3.5 4.1 13.0 17.2 4053 5412 Manufacturers 8.8 2.9 3.8 14.0 15.7 4053 7700 Manufacturers — 9.5 2.9 3.6 14.0 14.0 6952 7232 J. P. Allan, Farmersburg 9.6 3.0 3.9 12.5 13.0 5170 5959 ,T. W. Croxton, Cloverdale 9.0 3.5 3.5 15.4 15.2 7824 5490 Manufacturers 9.1 3.0 4.2 13.0 15.6 7824 8386 Manufacturers _ 8.5 3.0 3.8 13.0 14.3 4303 7000 Manufacturers _ 10.5 2.0 3.2 10.0 15.8 4924 7176 Manufacturers ___ 10.0 3.0 5.1 12.8 15.1 3930 7457 Manufacturers 8.7 2.6 4.3 9.5 17.1 7857 5796 Manufacturers 10.2 4.0 4.1 16.0 14.5 7857 5857 C. Eckerty & Sons, Eckerty 9.1 4.0 4.0 16.0 15.5 7857 7887 Louis Schoenfield, Rockport 8.8 4.0 4.2 16.0 16.1 7857 8225 Manufacturers 8.8 4.0 4.2 16.0 15.8 3426 5804 Manufacturers 9.8 3.5 3.9 13.5 15.0 3426 8214 Manufacturers 8.5 3.5 4.1 13.5 14.4 5404 6866 Fuhrer-Ford Milling Co., New Harmony 8.3 3.9 3.9 13.3 12.9 7574. 6304 Manufacturers 9.9 3.8 4.7 14.5 14.3 7574 8288 Manufacturers 9.3 3.8 4.6 14.5 14.5 48 Withdrawn. Wrong label attached. Relabeled with No. 2385 63 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat percent. Crude protein per cent. Official Inspection D Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found Croxton & Company, J. W., Cloverdale, Ind. 2632 5961 J. W. Croxton, Cloverdale 8.3 3.5 3.3 12.0 15.2 Egloff Milling Company, The, Vincennes, Ind. 6873 7226 Manufacturers 9.0 3.5 3.7 14.0 15.0 Emmert, C. B., Clarksburg, Ind. Mixed Feed 6929 7860 Manufacturer __ __ 9.9 3.0 3.8 13.0 15.0 English Milling Company, English, Ind. English Milling Co. Mixed Feed _ 966 5858 Manufacturers _ 9.7 4.0 4.0 14.1 15.0 English Milling Co. Mixed Feed — 966 8363 Manufacturers 9.5 4.0 4.4 14.1 15.1 Forrest Park Mills, North Terre Haute, Ind. Mill Fepd 5817 7248 Manufacturers 10.1 3.8 3 5 9.8 13.6 Mill Feed 5817 7624 Manufacturers 11.0 3.8 4.0 9.8 14.8 Hartz & Carey Milling Company, Chrisney, Ind. Mixed Feed .. .. 8686 8223 Manufacturers 9.9 4.0 4.6 16.0 16.6 Holton Milling Company, Holton, Ind. A. Mixed Feed 7464 5387 Manufacturers 9.7 3.5 3.9 14.0 14.6 Huntington Mill Company, Huntington, Ind. Mixed Feed 492 6587 Manufacturers 9.8 3.8 4.8 13.5 15.1 Mixed Feed 492 7595 Manufacturers 8.3 3.8 4.1 13.5 15.7 Jamestown Milling Company, Jamestown, Ind. Noxemall Mixed Feed 5655 7782 Farmers Elevator Co., Jamestown 9.0 3.2 3.5 14.0 14.2 Katterjohn, Q. F., Boonville, Ind. Elkhom Mixed Feed 3310 7885 Elkhorn Mills, Boonville 8.2 3.5 3.3 13.5 14.3 Klondike Milling Company, Danville, Ind. The Mill Run Mixed Feed 2654 6570 Manufacturers _ _ 9.7 3.5 4.2 13.0 15.7 Linton Mill Company, Linton, Ind. A. Mixed Feed _ _ 4047 7132 Board of Trade Feed Store, Marshall Milling Company, Linton 10.1 3.5 3.7 13.0 15.4 Marshall, Ind. Mill Feed 5153 7631 Manufacturers 10.0 3.0 3.6 14.0 16.1 Martinsville Milling Company, Martinsville, Ind. A Mixed Mill Feed 6743 6088 Manufacturers _ 9.7 4.0 4.2 15.0 15.4 Met amor a Roller Mills, Metamora, Ind. Mixed Feed __ __ ___ 8523 6792 Manufacturers 9.4 4.0 4.5 14.5 15.3 Oakland City Roller Mills, Oakland City, Ind. Dairv Mixed Feed _ 1941 6032 Manufacturers 9.2 3.0 4.4 12.0 15.9 Odon Milling Company, Odon, Ind. Omco Mixed Feed _ 6712 5942 J. Henderson & Sons, Bedford. 10.8 3.8 3.9 14.0 14.2 Omco Mixed Feed 6712 6204 Manufacturers _ 9.7 3.8 4.7 14.0 14.6 Otwell Milling Company, Otwell, Ind. Otwell’s No. 1 Mixed Feed 3828 6035 Manufacturers 9.1 3.2 4.2 13.0 15.8 Paoli Milling Company, The, Paoli, Ind. Paoli Mixed Feed . . 2820 6962 Manufacturers 9 8 3.0 5.4 10.0 13.9 Paoli Mixed Feed 2820 8092 Manufacturers 8.7 3.0 4.9 io!o 14.8 64 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Number Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. Label a _o Sample secured from Official o CD S R v m « s ft Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found Reiners, Wm. F., Birdseye, Ind. Reiner’s Mixed Feed 7743 8359 Manufacturers 9.7 3.2 4.3 13.5 15.2 Rockport Milling- Company, The, Rockport, Ind. A Mixed Feed 2247 7889 Manufacturers 8.6 3.9 4.5 13.3 16.1 Rohm Bros., Rockville, Ind. Mill Feed __ _ 5671 6110 Manufacturers 10.2 3.5 3.8 15.0 16.0 MiU Feed 5671 7634 Manufacturers 10.3 3.5 3.7 15.0 15.1 Rouse & Son, Wm., Indianapolis, Ind. Mixed Feed _ _ 3191 6485 Manufacturers __ 10.1 3.7 4.8 13.5 16.5 Mixed Feed 3191 7694 Manufacturers _ - 9.7 3.7 4.5 13.5 15.4 Scottsburg Milling Company, Scottsburg, Ind. Home Mixed Feed 6236 5865 Manufacturers 10 4 3 5 4.7 13.5 13.6 Home Mixed Feed 6236 8284 Manufacturers 8.5 3.5 4.8 13.5 14.8 Spink Milling Company, The, Washington, Ind. Mixt Feed 6332 7191 Manufacturers - 10.6 3.5 3.6 12.5 14.8 Star Mill Company, Huntingburg, Ind. Star Mixed Feed _ __ _ 3509 8168 Manufacturers 9.8 3.5 4.2 13.5 15.2 Star Roller Mills, Carlisle, Ind. Mixed Feed 5249 5587 6564 7749 6887 Manufacturers _ 11.4 2.8 4.1 12.5 16.2 Suckow Company, Franklin, Ind. “Perfection” Mixed’ Feed _ 6231 6231 6137 Manufacturers _ 8.8 4.0 4.8 12.4 16.5 “Perfection” Mixed Feed Manufacturers _ _ 9.0 4.0 4.0 12.4 16.8 Teel Milling Company, The, Owensville, Ind. Daisy Feed Manufacturers _ __ 8.9 3.0 4.2 14.0 14.7 Daisy Feed _ 6137 7980 Manufacturers 9.4 3.0 4.1 14.0 15.7 Ulrey & Company, A. A., Fairmount, Ind. Mixed Feed 6901 6407 Manufacturers 9.4 3.0 4.3 13.5 15.2 Valentine & Valentine, Franklin, Ind. Mixed Feed 934 6560 Manufacturers _ 9.2 4.0 4.5 12.4 15.7 Mixed Feed 934 7753 Manufacturers _ 9.2 4.0 4.1 12.4 16.6 Weber Milling Company, Brookville, Ind. Mixed Feed _ __ 7890 6762 Manufacturers 10.2 3.0 4.6 14.0 15.2 MIXED FEED: WHEAT BRAN, WHEAT MIDDLINGS, CORN BRAN, SCREENINGS AND DUST COLLECTOR DUST Reiners, Wm. F., Birdseye, Ind. Reiner’s Mixed Feed 7743 5863 Manufacturer _ - 9.9 32 3.9 13.5 14.5 Reiner’s Mixed Feed .. _ _ 7743 8359 Manufacturer 9.7 3.2 4.3 13.5 15.2 MIXED FEED: WHEAT BRAN, WHEAT MIDDLINGS, CORN BRAN, SCREENINGS AND SALT Tell City Flouring Mills, Tell City, Ind. A. Mixed Feed 6051 5802 Manufacturers - - 9.9 4.0 3 8 14.0 14.7 A. Mixed Feed 6051 8218 Manufacturers _ 8.3 4.0 3.8 14.0 14.9 MIXED FEED: WHEAT BRAN, WHEAT MIDDLINGS, CORN BRAN, SCREENINGS AND MILL SWEEPINGS Kingman Grain & Milling Company, Kingman, Ind. Millfeed 3156 6053 Manufacturers _ — 10.2 3.0 2.5 14.0 14.9 65 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. Official Inspection 1 D Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed J Found 3915 5932 Manufacturers __ 9.0 3.5 4.1 14.0 15.8 3915 8091 B. K. Dermiah, Paoli 8.9 3.5 . 4.3 14.0 16.5 6416 5015 Manufacturers 9.6 3.0 3.3 11.0 13.8 7058 6936 Manufacturers _ 9.8 4.0 3.5 14.0 13.0 6529 5763 Manufacturers _ _ __ 9.2 3.0 3.9 13.0 15.1 6520 8169 Manufacturers 10.1 3.0 4.2 13.0 15.4 7174 6735 Manufacturers 10.2 3.0 6.1 12.0 13.4 6130 5883 Manufacturer ___ 9.5 2.0 4.0 10.0 15.6 6130 8029 Manufacturer 9.7 2.0 4.6 10.0 14.9 7742 5848 Manufacturers 9.5 3.5 4 2 13.5 16.3 7742 8296 Manufacturers 9.7 3.5 3.9 13.5 15.1 7765 7190 Manufacturers 10.9 3.0 4.3 13.0 14.6 6975 5744 Manufacturers 9.5 3 0 4.6 11.0 14.3 6976 8090 Manufacturers 8.5 3.0 4.7 11.0 15.0 8465 7189 Manufacturers 11.1 30 3 3 13.0 I 14.7 Lemon Milling Company, Bedford, Ind. Mixed Mill Feed Mixed Mill Feed : MIXED FEED: WHEAT BRAN, WHEAT MIDDLINGS, CORN BRAN, SCREENINGS AND OAT HULLS Lash Flour Mills, The Fred B., Farmersburg, Ind. Lashs Mixed Feed 49 MIXED FEED: WHEAT BRAN. WHEAT MIDDLINGS, CORN BRAN, CORN FEED MEAL, WHEAT SCREENINGS AND SCOURINGS Winslow Milling Company, Winslow, Ind. Pikes “A” Mixed Feed MIXED FEED: WHEAT BRAN, SHORTS, CORN BRAN, WHEAT SCREENINGS AND SCOURINGS AND MILL SWEEPINGS Farmers Mill, The, Huntingburg, Ind. Farmers Mixed Feed Farmers Mixed Feed MIXED FEED: WHEAT BRAN, CORN BRAN, SCREENINGS. DUST COLLECTOR DUST AND WHEAT CHAFF Hazleton Flour Mills, The, Hazleton, Ind. Mixed Feed MIXED FEED: WHEAT BRAN, SHORTS, SCREENINGS, WHEAT DUST AND MILL SWEEPINGS Cauble, 0. L., Pekin, Ind. Mixed Feed Mixed Feed MIXED FEED: WHEAT BRAN, W HEAT MIDDLINGS, CORN BRAN, CORN FEED MEAL AND SCREENINGS Milltown Milling Company, Milltown, Ind. “Mixed Feed” 60 “Mixed Feed” Petersburg Milling & Grain Company, Petersburg, Ind. Petersburg “A” Mixed Feed 50 Springs Valley Milling Company, French Lick, Ind. Valley Mixed Feed Valley Mixed Feed Whitelock Mill Company, The, Petersburg. Ind. Mixed Feed 51 49 Middlings and corn bran not identified 50 Corn feed meal not identified 51 Corn bran, corn feed meal not identified 66 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label MIXED FEED: WHEAT BRAN AND CORN RED DOG FLOUR Krause Milling Company, Chas. A., Milwaukee, Wis. Badger Fancy Mixed Feed MIXED FEED: WHEAT MID- DLINGS, RED DOG FLOUR AND SCREENINGS Washbum-Crosby Company, Minneapolis, Minn. Wheat Flour Middlings with Ground Screenings Not Exceeding Mill Run- Wheat Flour Middlings with Ground Screenings Not Exceeding Mill Run__ MIXED FEED: WHEAT MID- DLINGS AND CORN FEED MEAL Boonville Milling Company, Boonville, Ind. Shorts & Feed Meal 52 Shorts & Feed Meal Shorts & Feed Meal Fornax Milling Company, Decatur, Ind. Fornax Hog Fteed Fornax Hog Feed 52 MIXED FEED: WHEAT MID- DLINGS, CORN FEED MEAL AND SCREENINGS Spink Milling Company, The, Washington, Ind. Fine Mixed Mill Feed MIXED FEED: WHEAT MID- DLINGS, CORN FEED MEAL CORN BRAN AND WHEAT SCREENINGS Ziliak & Schafer Milling Company, Haubstadt, Ind. Wheat Shorts, Screenings, Corn Bran and Feed Meal MIXED FEED: WHEAT MID- DLINGS AND RYE MIDDLINGS Eckhart Milling Company, B. A., Chicago, 111. tfFlour Middlings Starr Mills, South Bend, Ind. Wheat & Rye Middlings MIXED FEED: WHEAT MID- DLINGS, SCREENINGS AND SALT Akin-Erskine Milling Company, Evansville, Ind. Standard Midlings or Shorts, Ground Wheat Screenings and Salt 63 Standard Midlings or Shorts, Ground Wheat Screenings and Salt Standard Midlings or Shorts, Ground Wheat Screening s and Salt Number Sample secured from Moisture percent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. Official Inspection D Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found 4341 6858 Hartman & Dotterer, Bluffton. 9.5 3.0 7.7 11.0 12.9 7232 5988 T. S. Nugen, Lewisville 10.0 4.0 5.1 15.0 17.1 7232 7917 Ballard & Magenheimer, Haubstadt 9.4 4.0 5.6 15.0 19.0 7847 5808 Manufacturers . 10.6 4.0 4.2 14.0 15.2 7847 6905 Manufacturers 9.5 4.0 3.5 14.0 15.2 7847 7884 Manufacturers _ 9.5 4.0 4.4 14.0 16.2 7199 5419 Manufacturers _ 9.7 2.8 3.9 12.0 14.9 7199 6039 Manufacturers _ 10.9 2.8 4.1 12.0 15.0 8137 7197 Manufacturers 10.4 3.5 3.7 14.0 14.0 8291 7922 Manufacturers 9.3 4.5 5.9 16.5 16.8 8675 7583 S. D. Bailey Co., Wanatah 9.9 4.0 3.8 15.0 15.4 6000 7301 Manufacturers 8.5 3.0 3.9 14.0 14.7 6032 6138 Uhl-Snider Milling Co., Connersville 10.0 4.0 4.0 14.0 15.4 6032 6738 Uhl-Snider Milling Co., Connersville 9.1 4.0 38 14.0 14.7 6032 7817 Ohio Valley Seed Co., Evansville 8.7 4.0 4.1 14.0 15.7 tt Not tagged. Labels furnished 53 Conflicting guarantees 62 Corn feed meal not identified 67 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Tell Oity Flouring Mills, Tell City, Ind. Wheat Middlings and Wheat Sreen- ings Seasoned with Salt Wheat Middlings and Wheat Sreen- ings Seasoned with Salt MIXED FEED: WHEAT MID- DLINGS, SCREENINGS AND OAT HULLS Lash Flour Mills, The Fred B., Farraersburg, Ind. Lashs Extra Mixed Feed RYE MIDDLINGS Bay State Milling Company, Winona, Minn. Rye Middlings 54 Rye Middlings 55 Washburn-Crosby Company, Minneapolis, Minn. Washburn-Crosby Co’s Rye Middlings. Washburn-Crosby Co’s Rye Middlings. Washbum-Crosby Co’s Rye Middlings. Washburn-Crosby Co’s Rye Middlings. rye middlings and screen- ings Deutsch & Sickert Company, Milwaukee, Wis. Rye Middlings including Mill Run Screenings Mueller, E. P., Chicago, 111. Rye Middlings and Screenings Pillsbury Flour Mills Company, Minneapolis, Minn. Pillsbury’s Rye Middlings with Ground Screenings Not Exceeding Mill Run.. Pillsbury’s Rye Middlings with Ground Screenings Not Exceeding Mill Run.. MIXED FEED: RYE BRAN AND RYE MIDDLINGS Fisher & Fallgatter, Waupaca, Wis. Rye Feed Friedrich & Son, C. W., Dyer, Ind. Rye Mixed Feed Hunter & Company, O. L., Chicago, 111. Calumet Rye Feed North Judson Milling Company, North Judson, Ind. Rye Mixed Feed Roper & Brown, Hobart, Ind. Hobart “Rye Feed” BUCKWHEAT HULLS Iroquois Roller Mills, Rensselaer, Ind. Buckwh eat Hulls 64 Ground screenings present Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. Official Inspection D Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found 6050 5801 Manufacturers _. 10.0 4.0 3.8 14.0 14.5 6050 8216 T. W. Irwin, Cannelton 7.8 4.0 4.0 14.0 15.1 6417 5616 Manufacturers . __ __ 10.7 4.0 3.2 14.0 14.9 8189 7482 B. I. Holser & Co., Walkerton.. 8.2 3.4 3.6 16.0 16.5 8189 7829 B. I. Holser & Co., Walkerton.. 8.6 3.4 3.5 16.0 17.2 2174 5876 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., Lafayette . 8.6 3.0 3.4 14.0 16.1 7018 5698 Harrison Smith, Terre Haute 8.6 3.0 3.7 14.0 18.4 7018 6229 Simon J. Carroll, Royal Center. 9.5 3.0 3.7 14.0 17.7 7018 6702 A. O. Carter, Martinsville 8.7 3.0 3.7 14.0 16.9 8761 7714 Covington Grain Co., Covington ... 8.7 3.0 3.7 14.0 15.8 8731 8279 Luebcke Bros., Crown Point 9.3 3.5 3.8 16.1 15.4 8519 7134 Board of Trade Feed Store, Linton 10.1 3.5 3.6 15.0 15.9 8519 7668 Paul Kuhn & Co., Perrysville 9.0 3.5 4.2 15.0 17.6 8822 7755 Valentine & Valentine, Franklin 9.2 3.0 3.5 15.0 15.8 2715 7359 Manufacturers 11.5 2.0 2.8 12.0 16.2 5352 7995 Simon J. Carroll, Bunker Hill.. 9.1 3.0 3.8 14.0 14.8 8127 7373 Manufacturers 10.4 2.0 2.4 12.0 13.1 5993 6453 Manufacturers 10.9 2.0 2.6 13.0 14.3 7115 5499 Manufacturers 9.6 1.5 1.7 6.8 6.8 65 Screenings present. 16 tons removed from sale 68 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label GROUND SCREENINGS FROM WHEAT AND BARLEY Butler & Company, Edw. J., Chicago, 111. Butler’s Premium Chop Peed CORN AND OATS CHOP American Hominy Company, Indianapolis, Ind. ttCracked Corn and Rolled Oats Cracked Corn and Rolled Oats Ashbrook Company, The J. S., Mattoon, 111. Peerless Corn & Oats Chop tfPeerless Corn & Oats Chop Bash & Company, C. E., Huntington, Ind. C. E. Bash & Co’s Chop C. E. Bash & Co’s Chop Beck, Delbert F., Burlington, Ind. Beck’s Chop Feed Bock, Leonard, Argos, Ind. Chop Feed Branch Grain & Seed Company, Martinsville, Ind. Horse Feed Chapman-Boake Company, Decatur, 111. ttCorn & Oats Chop Combs & Sons, L., Vincennes, Ind. Corn & Oats Feed Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Company, Lafayette, Ind. Corn & Oats Ground 5(5 Goshen Milling Company, Goshen, Ind. Chop Feed Hargrave Bros., Russellville, Ind. Com & Oat Chop Haynes Milling Company, The, Portland, Ind. Corn & Oats Chop Feed Holliday & Son, John, Greentown, Ind. Chop Feed Huntington Mill Company, Huntington, Ind. Chop Feed Indiana Elevator Company, Indianapolis, Ind. Gold Medal Chop Gold Medal Chop Jones, G. W., Upland, Ind. Corn & Oats Chop Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. Official Inspection D Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found 8806 7419 Jay Grain Co., Mulberry 10.2 4.1 4.0 12.4 12.4 6578 6852 Chas. L. Stocker, Evansville ,7 4.0 4.5 9.0 10.2 6578 6984 Richards & Lawson, Shelbyville 9^3 4.0 3.8 9.0 9.7 7983 6482 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis. 9.9 3.0 4.6 10.0 10 3 7983 7230 Smith Grocery Co., Clinton 9.9 3.0 4.2 10.0 - 9.4 1749 5538 Manufacturers 10.0 3.9 4.0 9.5 9.3 1749 0593 Manufacturers — . 9.6 3.9 4.1 9.5 9.8 1209 5944 Manufacturer 10.4 3.9 3.7 9.5 10.0 949 6670 Manufacturers 10.1 3.9 4.4 9.5 10.4 272 6704 Manufacturers 10.1 3.5 4.3 9.0 9.6 8590 6025 C. F. Carter, Terre Haute. 10.4 4.0 4.0 10.0 9.7 8070 5685 Manufacturers 12.2 3.0 4.4 8.0 8.9 786 6790 Manufacturers 10.6 3.9 4.3 9.5 9.3 3238 6522 Manufacturers 10.7 3.7 5.1 9.8 11.2 3990 5704 Manufacturers 9.8 3.0 4.6 9.0 9.4 93 5956 Manufacturers _. 10.0 3.9 4.0 9.5 9.8 6188 6875 Manufacturers 9.6 3.0 4.0 9.0 9.8 494 6588 Manufacturers 9.3 3.7 5.5 11.0 10.8 5301 6544 Manufacturers 10.4 3.0 3.5 80 10.5 5301 7738 Manufacturers 9.0 3.0 3.8 8.0 11, 3212 6339 Manufacturer — 9.1 3.5 4.9 9.0 10 3 ff Not tagged. Labels furnished 66 Corn Feed Meal present. Removed from sale. Relabeled with No. 8600 69 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918' (continued) Number Crude Crude fat pro Ltfiu ,2 Sample secured from <1> per cent. per cent. Label i T> 1 73 i V *3 56 o c la U 0> C3 O o § C 3 O 1 ^ & 8 O 5 2 3 Kuhn & Son, John H., Michigan City, Ind. 5331 6327 Manufacturers Ifrl 3.5 3.9 8.8 10.8 Ligonier Milling Company, Ligonier, Ind. Ligonier Milling Co’s Corn & Oats 378 7512 Lyon & Greenleaf, Ligonier 9.9 3.9 4.0 9.5 10.5 Noftsger, Benjamin, Rochester, Ind. flnrn and Oats C!hnp 2051 6622 Manufacturer 10.6 3.5 3.9 9.0 9.9 Peru Milling Company, The, Peru, Ind. Chop Feed _ _ _ __ 19 6611 Manufacturers 10.3 3.2 4.0 8.8 8.9 Pitman, II. E., Bedford, Ind. 387 5925 Manufacturer 10.9 3.2 4.1 8.8 9.5 Pyrmont Mills Company, Pyrmont, Ind. 5839 6217 Manufacturers 8.3 3.9 4.9 9.5 9.3 Reed Feed Store, Chas., Rochester, Ind. 3171 6626 Manufacturers _ 10.3 3.5 5.3 8.8 10.3 Roach & Rothenberger, Delphi, Ind. Corn and Oats Chop 284 6945 Manufacturers 9.5 3.9 4.6 9.5 10.0 South Side Cereal Mills, Fort Wayne, Ind. Corn and Oats Chops 5403 5529 Manufacturers _ 11.7 3.5 3.4 9.0 8.6 Steckley, George, Kendallville, Ind. Chop Feed 405 6506 Manufacturer _ 10.9 4.0 5.0 10.0 11.2 Studebaker & Son, John, Bluffton, Ind. Corn & Oats Chop _ _ _ 1948 7968 Studebaker Grain & Seed Co., Van Bnren 9.7 3.9 4.2 9.5 9.8 Sullivan Mill & Elevator Company, Sullivan, Ind. Corn & Oats Chop ___ 2959 5589 Manufacturers 12.2 3.5 4.3 9.0 9.7 Veirs & Wicks, Rochester, Ind. Veirs & Wicks’ Chop Feed 321 6621 Manufacturers . _ 10.5 4.0 5.5 10.0 10.5 Wakarusa Milling Company, Wakarusa, Ind. Wakarusa Corn & Oats Chop.. 1250 6532 Manufacturers 9.6 3.9 4.3 9.5 11.5 Wakarusa Corn & Oats Chop 1250 7272 Ullery & Son, South Bend 9.3 3.9 4.0 9.5 11.2 Watson, Gilf. L., Redkey, Ind. Chop Feed _ __ _ 8187 7088 Manufacturer _ 9.7 3.5 4.0 9.0 9.9 Wilkinson & Company, T. B., Knightstown, Ind. Chop Feed __ _ 3456 6254 Manufacturers 10.3 3.3 4.4 8.5 9.6 Yountsvillo Mill, The, Yountsville, Ind. ttCorn & Oats Chop _ T. B. dyne Orawfnrdsville. 3082 6914 10.5 3.5 4.5 9.0 10.1 CORN, OATS AND RYE Goshen Milling Company, The, Goshen, Ind. Island Park Chop 5923 8129 Manufacturers 9.4 3.0 3.5 8.5 11.7 Portland Equity Exchange, The, Portland, Ind. Chop Feed 8034 5957 Manufacturers _ - 10.7 3.0 3.7 9.0 11.1 Chon Feed 8034 6833 Manufacturers 10.2 3.0 3.3 9.0 9.7 ft Not tagged. Labels furnished 70 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent, i Crude protein per cent. Official Inspection D Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed 1 4077 5543 Manufacturers 11.4 3.2 4.1 9.5 10.8 0200 7142 Farmers Supply Co., Spencer 10.2 4.0 4.4 8.0 10.2 6200 7269 Acme-Evans Co., South Bend 10.4 4.0 3.2 8.0 8.2 8165 5440 Manufacturer 11.9 3.5 3.9 9.5 9.3 8165 6094 Westport Grain Co., Westport.. 10.2 3.5 3.7 9.5 9.4 5549 Manufaetiirers 11.9 2.7 10.4 7400 6492 Manufacturers 10.0 3.0 3 9 8.0 10.2 7400 7554 Manufacturers — 9.6 3.0 4.0 8.0 12.5 6010 5912 Goodrich Bros. Hay & Grain Co., Farmland — 9.6 3.5 3.0 9.5 12.8 6010 7520 L. Brand, Muncie — 11.0 3.5 4.5 9.5 11.1 6600 6615 Manufacturers 9.7 3.0 4.2 9.0 10.0 8130 7041 Manufaetnrer 11.3 19 1 3.5 3.8 8.0 9.5 7703 5992 Manuf 4.6 9.0 10.0 2134 7304 Manufacturer,* 1Z. 1 o ft o.o k 0 9.5 11.0 - 5122 5504 Manilf aetprers y.o 11.0 0.0 2.7 o.v 3.9 8.5 9.0 5122 6098 Manufacturers 12.6 2.7 4.0 8.5 9.1 2444 6069 Marmf aeturer _ 12.5 3.5 3.8 9.0 9.9 3546 6830 Manufacturers 9.8 3.0 4.6 9.0 9.8 6089 5647 F. E. Badgley Milling Co., Amboy : . 10.4 3.3 4.9 8.8 9.9 Thomas & Son, A. R., Markle, Ind. Corn, Oats & Rye Chop CORN, OATS, BARLEY AND OAT HULLS Acme-Evans Company, Indianapolis, Ind. Acme C. O. & B. Chop Acme C. O. & B. Chop CORN, OATS AND WHEAT Claypole, Geo. M., Sardinia, Ind. Chop Feed Chop Feed King Grain Company, Wabash, Ind. *Wheat Corn & Oats CORN, OATS, RYE, WHEAT, CORN FEED MEAL AND CORN BRAN Pancost Milling Company, Elkhart, Ind. “Pancost” Chop Feed “Pancost” Chop Feed CORN, OATS, RYE, WHEAT, CORN FEED MEAL AND SCREENINGS Goodrich Bros. Hay & Grain Co., Winchester, Ind. “Climax Chop” “Climax Chop” CORN, OATS, RYE, WHEAT, CORN FEED MEAL. CORN BRAN AND SCREENINGS Myers & Son, Joseph H., Chili, Ind. Myers’ Chop Feed CORN, OATS AND SCREENINGS Walker, H. L., Montpelier, Ind. Chop Feed CORN, OATS AND CORN BRAN Creitz & Deardoff, Centerville, Ind. Chop Feed Fyke Milling Company, Lagrange, Ind. F'yke’s Chop Feed Garrett & Funk, Liberty Center, Ind. Chop Feed Chop Feed Gilman, S. B., Summitville, Ind. Gilman’s Corn and Oats Chop. Pennville Milling Company, Pennville, Ind. Chop Feed CORN, OATS, CORN FEED MEAL AND CORN BRAN Amboy Milling Company, Amboy, Ind. Chop Feed Not tagged 7 1 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Number Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. Official Inspection D Sample secured from Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found Boldt & Son, Waynetown, Ind. 7926 7716 Manufacturers 9.9 2.8 3.6 8.7 10.4 Burrell & Morgan, Elkhart, Ind. Burrell & Morgan’s Chop Feed _ 6494 Manufacturers 10.7 3.0 4.1 8.0 10.3 7288 Burrell & Morgan, Mishawaka 10.0 3.0 4.0 8.0 10.5 5835 Manufacturers __ 10.0 3.0 5.3 8.0 10.8 Butler Milling Company, Butler, Ind. Chop Feed 6940 7401 Manufacturers 9.4 3.0 3.8 8.7 10.5 Clayton Milling Company, Clayton, Ind. Chnp Feed 7663 6572 Manufacturers 9.0 3.0 4.6 9.0 9.7 Coppes Bros. & Zook, Nappanee, Ind. Chop Feed 6009 6527 Manufacturers __ _ 9.9 3.0 3.7 8.0 10.3 6009 7303 J. W. Appleman, Lagrange 8.7 3.0 4.5 8.0 11.3 DeBaun Mill, Terre Haute, Ind. Old Reliable Chop Feed __ 3338 6660 Yaw Bros., Terre Haute 11.1 3.5 3.5 9.0 9.3 F'inkle, Jacob, Warren. Ind. Chop Fppd 7661 €096 Manufacturer 11.8 3.9 3.9 9.5 9.4 Chop Feed 7661 6862 Manufacturer 10.4 3.9 4.0 9.5 9.6 Gas City Elevator Company, Gas City, Ind. Chop Feed _ 7998 6058 Manufacturers _ __ 11.6 3.0 3.6 9.0 11.0 Chop Feed 7998 6400 Manufacturers 10.9 3.0 4.0 9.0 9.8 Geneva Milling & Grain Company, Geneva, Ind. Egly’s Chop Feed 6740 6030 Manufacturers 11.3 2.8 4.1 8.7 9.2 Graft, C. V., Winchester, Ind. Graft’s Chop Feed 8166 5895 City Mills & Elevator, Winchester 10.5 3.5 4.4 8.5 10 3 Graft’s Chop Feed 8166 7029 Manufacturer 11.3 3.5 4.3 8.5 10.0 Heckman & Company, Decatur, Ind. Heckman’s Chop Feed 3420 5420 Fornax Milling Co., Decatur 9.4 3.0 4.5 9.0 9.7 Hollett-Winders Grain Company, The, Arcadia, Ind. Chop Feed __ 5780 6089 Manufacturers 11.5 3.0 5.4 9.0 10.4 Huntington Milling Company, Huntington, Ind. “Chon Feed” 8586 7593 Manufacturers 8.5 2.7 5.0 8.5 10.9 Jones & Son, C ! . N., Wabash, Ind. “A” Chop Feed 5191 5877 Manufacturers 10.8 3.0 5 2 9.0 10.3 “A” Chop Feed - _ 5191 6598 Manufacturers 10.3 3.0 3.7 9.0 9.0 Jonesboro Milling Company, Jonesboro, Ind. Chop Feed _ .. 7999 6405 Manufacturers __ 9.1 2.8 4.6 8.7 9.7 Kiest Milling Company. Knox, Ind. Chop Feed 7970 6260 Manufacturers 9.5 3.0 4.3 9.0 9.7 Chon Feed 7970 7477 Manufacturers 8.6 3.0 5!s 9.0 11.2 Lefforge, Otto, Rossville. Ind. Chop Feed __ _ 7932 7336 Manufacturer 10.9 3.0 4.3 8.0 10.0 Matthews Roller Mills, Matthews, Ind. Moore’s Chop Feed . _ 6650 6337 Manufacturer 10.7 2.8 4.1 8.7 9.7 Mattix & Company, N. W., Lebanon, Ind. Chop Feed _ 6883 7319 Manufacturer 9.7 3.0 4.5 9.0 10.0 72 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Number Sample secured from Moisture percent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. Official Inspection D Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed T3 a 1 Maumee Valley Mills, New Haven, Ind. ' 4382 5515 Reed Bros., Fort Wayne ... 11.4 3.5 4 3 9.0 9.6 4382 6027 Manufacturers 13.2 3.5 4.1 9.0 8.6 4382 8179 Manufacturers 10.0 3.5 4.4 9.0 10.0 Monroe Grain Hay & Milling Company, Monroe, Ind. 340S 7098 Manufacturers 10.5 3.0 3.0 8.0 9.7 McCoy Elevator, R. A., Greensburg, Ind. 8466 7858 Manufacturers 9.1 3.5 3 8 9.0 9.6 Naber & Company, Chas. F., Alexandria, Ind. '7196 6065 M anufacturers 11.5 2.5 4.7 8.0 10.2 N a . hers Chop 7196 7577 Manufacturers 9.1 2.5 4.1 8.0 9.3 Nading Grain Company, Wm., Greensburg. Ind. Nading’s Ground Feed 7710 7857 Manufacturers 10.1 3.3 4.4 9.5 9.7 Niezer & Company, Fort Wayne, Ind. Niezer’s Chop Feed 6269 8178 Niezer & Co., Monroeville 9.2 2.8 5.0 8.7 10.8 Oxford Feed Mill, Oxford, Ind. Deed’s “Chop Feed” 4990 5993 Manufacturers 11.3 3 0 4.3 9.0 10.1 Pierceton Grain Company, Pierceton, Ind. Chop Feed . ___ ___ 4429 6028 DeBolt & Niswonger, Monroeville __ 13.1 3.0 3.8 8.0 8.9 Chop Feed 4429 8171 DeBolt & Niswonger, Monroeville _ 9.3 3.0 4.3 8.0 98 Rouch, W. E., Mishawaka, Ind. Chop Feed 8225 7547 Manufacturer 9.8 3.5 3.8 9.0 10.3 Schaefer, Carl H., Indianapolis, Ind. Schaefer's Special Chop Feed 7190 6426 Manufacturer 9.2 3.0 5.0 8.0 9.3 Sheridan Milling Company, Sheridan, Ind. Chop Feed 5964 5729 Manufacturers 8.5 2.7 4.9 9.0 10.2 Chop Feed _ _ 5964 6374 Mendenhall-Weaver Co., Sheridan 9.4 2.7 4.4 9.0 9.7 Smith & Company, A., Sheridan, Ind. New Chop Feed 6264 5732 Manufacturers . 8 2 3.0 6.4 8.8 10.7 New Chop Feed 6264 7331 Manufacturers m9 3.0 4.7 8.8 10.0 Smith Company, C. E., Wabash, Ind. Smith’s Chop Feed 5300 5550 Manufacturers _ 13.1 3.0 3.7 9.0 10.0 Smith Grain & Milling Company, Warsaw, Ind. Chop Feed 6521 7170 Green Bros. & Oldfather, Warsaw 10.9 3.0 3.4 9.0 10 1 South Side Feed Store, Peru, Ind. Chop Feed 7530 6610 Manufacturers __ 9.6 2.8 4 3 8.8 9.4 St. John, H. E., Albany, Ind. Chop Feed 6365 7127 Manufacturer 9.6 3.0 3.6 8.7 10.4 Sturgeon Grain & Coal Company, Muncie, Ind. Chop Feed 7223 7035 Manufacturer 11.8 3.5 4.1 8.8 10.4 Swayzee Milling Company. Swayzee. Ind. Chop Feed 5208 6873 Manufacturers 10.0 3.0 5.2 9.0 9.9 Swayzees Market, Marion, Ind. Swayzee’s Chop Feed 1 5522' 6368 Manufacturers 10.2 3.0 4.2 9.0 10.4 73 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) ■ Number Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. Label fl # o Sample secured from Official o p Fppd 8881 6011 Manufacturers 11.2 3.0 3.2 9.0 10.7 CORN, OATS, WHEAT BRAN, CORN BRAN AND SCREENINGS Bridgeton Milling Company, Bridgeton, Ind. Mived Fepd 6621 7625 Manufacturers 10.0 4.0 4.1 9.3 11.5 CORN, OATS, WHEAT BRAN, MID- DLINGS AND SCREENINGS Moutoux, P. & H., Evansville, Ind. “X L” Dry Mixed Feed 7997 6774 Manufacturers 9.0 2.5 4.5 9.0 11.3 CORN, OATS AND CORN FEED MEAL Barlow, C. M., Kokomo, Ind. Harlow’s Clbinp Food 5938 5721 Manufacturer 11.0 3.0 4.1 9.0 9.0 Barlow’s Chop Feed 5938 7599 Manufacturer 8.9 3.0 5.0 9.0 10.3 Crawford Feed Store, Jay S., Crown Point, Ind. Crawford’s Chop Feed 5240 7363 J. J. Baldwin, Crown Point 11.4 3.0 4.1 8.0 10.3 Fornax Milling Company, Decatur, Ind. Fornax Chop _ 7201 6037 Manufacturers 10.6 3.5 4.7 9.0 10.1 Hamilton & Kellner, Rensselaer, Ind. “A” Chop Feed _ __ _ _ 5087 5500 Kellner & Callahan, Rensselaer. 10.8 3.0 4.4 8.0 10.5 75 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Havens, P. W., Hartford City, Ind. Havens’ Chop Peed Havens’ Chop Feed Hibbits Mill Company, Muncie, Ind. Hibbits Chop Feed Hibbits Chop Feed Jay Grain Company, The, Elwood, Ind. Chop Feed Jordan, Geo. M., Vincennes, Ind. G. M. J. Horse & Mule Chop Kennedy Bros., Crawfordsville, Ind. Chop Feed Klondike Milling Company, Danville, Ind. Klondike Chop Feed Klondike Chop Feed Miller Flour & Feed Company, The Wesley, South Bend, Ind. Chop Feed Chop Feed Paxson, C. E., Elkhart, Ind. Chop Feed Chop Feed Rakestraw. H. E., Oakford, Ind. “A” Perfection Chop Feed River Side Barn & Feed Store, Marion, Ind. Chop Feed Russell & Company, Portland, Ind. Chop Feed Sellars, James S., Crawfordsville, Ind. Chop Feed Wells, Guy M., Knox, Ind. Wells’ Chop Feed Wiegman & Zelt, Fort Wayne, Ind. Chop Feed CORN, OATS, CORN FEED MEAL AND SCREENINGS Hammel Milling Company, Fremont, Ind. Chop Feed Timbrook & Haifley, Auburn, Ind. Auburn Roller Mills Chop CORN, OATS, CORN FEED MEAL, SCREENINGS AND MILL SWEEPINGS City Mills, South Whitley, Ind. Scrap Feed CORN, OATS, CORN BRAN AND SCREENINGS Farmers Milling & Elevator Company, Veedersburg, Ind. No. 1 Chop Feed No. 1 Chop Feed Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. Official Inspection D Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed c 1 7688 6006 Manufacturer 11.7 3.5 4.1 8.5 9.0 7688 7046 Manufacturer __ 11.7 3.5 4.1 8.5 8.6 3708 7016 Manufacturers 10.1 3.2 4.0 9.0 10.4 3708 7518 Manufacturers 10.0 3.2 4.5 9.0 10.0 7021 6422 Manufacturers 9.8 3.8 4.3 9.0 9.8 7619 7221 Manufacturers _ 9.4 3.5 4.1 9.0 9.3 5211 6921 Manufacturers 9.6 3.0 4.3 8.5 9.1 4430 5578 Manufacturers __ 11.1 3.0 4.0 9.0 9.8 4430 6571 Manufacturers 9.7 3,0 4.3 9.0 9.3 4111 7275 Manufacturers 9.9 3.5 3.9 9.0 10.1 4111 7538 Manufacturers 10.0 3.5 4.6 9.0 11.1 6407 6497 Manufacturer 11.1 3.0 3.9 9.0 9.8 6407 7555 Manufacturer 9.9 3.0 4.4 9.0 11.1 6496 6881 Chamberlin & Templin, Kokomo 8.8 3.5 4.1 9.0 9.4 7130 6360 Manufacturers 10.2 2.8 4.1 8.5 10.4 6798 6832 Manufacturers — 10.0 3.0 3.6 8.7 9.7 5213 6918 Manufacturer 10.0 4 3.0 3.8 8.5 8.9 6065 6256 Manufacturer 9.9 3.2 4.1 8.3 10.4 5179 5514 Manufacturers _ 11.4 3.2 4.2 8.0 10.1 4048 7390 Manufacturers 10.8 2.5 2.8 9.0 11.1 6310 6570 H. W . Timbrook, Auburn 9.2 3.9 4.3 9.5 10.5 8027 8075 Manufacturers 9 PJ K A q n in Q 6051 Manufacturers 5 5 0.4 10.9 Li, O 3 5 0.4 3.9 o.U 9.0 IU.o 9.3 . 5597 7158 Manufacturers 10 3 1 3.5 4.2 1 9.0 9.7 76 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Number £ .2 ‘■C o Sample secured from o 56 CD o £ Label Crude Crude fat protein S-jJ per cent. per cent. R 0) 1 T3 ■o 11 Guar antee a £ Guar antee c 1 Pn CORN, OATS, CORN BRAN, CORN FEED MEAL AND GRAIN SCREENINGS Haller & Walker, Eaton, Ind. Haller & Walker’s Chop Feed CORN, OATS AND CORN SCREEN- INGS Canal Elevator Company, Peru, Ind. ’ Chop Peed Chop Feed CORN, CORN FEED MEAL, OAT MIDDLINGS, OAT SHORTS, OAT HULLS, CORN BRAN AND WHEAT SCREENINGS Iroquois Roller Mills, Rensselaer, Ind. Mixed Chop Feed CORN, BARLEY, OAT MIDDLINGS, OAT SHORTS, OAT HULLS AND SCREENINGS FROM WHEAT, OATS, BARLEY AND FLAX International Sugar Feed Company, Minneapolis, Minn. International Chop Feed 58 CORN, WHEAT BRAN, WHEAT MIDDLINGS AND HOMINY FEED Acme-Evans Company, Indianapolis, Ind. Acme Farm Feed OATS, CORN FEED MEAL AND CORN SCREENINGS McMillen & Son, J. W., Fort Wayne, Ind. Eagle Brand Cbtop Feed FEED MEAL FROM CORN, KAFIR, MILO AND WHEAT Ashbrook Company, The J. S., Mattoon, 111. Diamond A Feed Meal 59 GROUND SCREENINGS FROM CORN AND OATS Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Company, Crawfordsville, Ind. Ground Corn and Oats Screenings ALFALFA MEAL Badenoch Company, J. J., Chicago, 111. Alfalfa Meal tfAlfalfa Meal tfAlfalfa Meal Denver Alfalfa Milling & Products Company, Hartman, Colo. tfAlfalfa Meal ft Not tagged. Labels furnished 68 Barley not identified 886 6598 7185 8439 8138 8209 7040 6608 8059 6953 6033 8014 8369 7234 8208 6913 6535 5512 6535 7568 Eaton Grain Co., Eaton Manufacturers Manufacturers Manufacturers Niczer & Co., Monroeville Salem Cooperative Assoc., Salem 10.8 10.1 8.7 9.5 9.5 9.4 Manufacturers 9.5 Smith Grocery Co., Clinton 10.4 Manufacturers 9.3 Hoosier Wholesale Grocery Co. South Bend 2.3 2.0 5.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.4 6.0 3.6 3.4 3.6 7.5 10.1 8.8 9.7 8.8 10.5 7.5 10.7 4.0 10.5 I 10.3 4.3 12.0 15.2 7.5 10.0 10.0 8 8 9.0 9.8 7.8 1.0 1.6 13.0 15.2 8.1 1.0 1.7 13.0 14.4 7,1 1.0 1.8 13.0 14.9 9.9 1.5 1.8 12.0 15.3 69 Withdrawn. Conflicting guarantees 77 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. Official Inspection D Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found Edinger & Company, Louisville, Ky. tfArrow Alfalfa Meal _ _ _ 8300' 5888 O. L. Cauble, Pekin 7.9 1.0 2.2 12.0 13.8 Edwards & Loomis Company, Chicago, 111. tfRed Comb Alfalfa Meal 3001 7496 J. C. Barrett, South Bend 8.1 1.0 2.4 13.5 14.5 Golden Grain Milling Company, East St. Louis, 111. Golden Grain Alfalfa Meal 60 _ 6291 6920 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., Crawfordsville 18.1 1.5 0.9 14.0 11.2 Hurst & Company, Indianapolis, Ind. tfAlfalfa Meal 8484 6075 Manufacturers 7.1 1.5 2.1 12.0 12.8 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis, Ind. Alfalfa Meal 8079 8021 Man nf netnrprs 6.8 0.5 1.6 12.0 13.4 Peters Mill Company, M. C., Omaha, Neb. “Lucern” . ___ _ _ 3470 6642 Prater-Mottier Co., Terre Haute 9.6 0.5 2.1 12.0 15.7 Purina Mills, Branch, Ralston Purina Company, St. Louis, Mo. Purina Alfalfa Meal . 7352 5545 Darting Rr, Co. Elwnnd 8.6 1.5 1.7 14.0 14 7 Purina Alfalfa Maal 61 7352 6418 Harting & Co., Elwood 8 2 1.5 1.6 14.0 12 0 ttPurina Alfalfa Meal _ _ 7352 8328 L. Thorn & Sons, New Albany.. 7.1 1.5 1.5 14.0 13 0 Union Grain & Coal Company, The, Anderson, Ind. ttUnion Alfalfa Meal . 6700 6063 Pendleton Feed & Fuel Co., Pendleton _. 10.1 1.0 1.3 12.0 16.4 Union Alfalfa Meal 6700 6285 E. K. Sowash, Middletown 8.9 1.0 1.8 12.0 14.1 Weiss Alfalfa Stock Pood Co., The Otto Wichita, Kansas ttPure Dustless Alfalfa 2098 5488 Richard Hagans, Greenfield 7.8 1.5 2.2 14.0 16.7 BLOOD MEAL • Darling & Company, Chicago, 111. ttDarling’s Blood Meal _ __ 6309 6768 Edw. F. Goeke Co., Evansville.. 10.2 0.5 80.0 81.2 Darling’s Blood Meal 6309 7621 Ross Feed Store, Nobles ville 8.9 — 0.4 80.0 85.9 Major Bros. Packing Company, Mishawaka, Ind. Blood Meal __ 1971 5683 D L Trout Lee 38.3 1.0 0.5 55.0 57.0 Blood Meal 1971 5979 Brook Flour & Feed Mill, Brook 35^2 L0 0.7 5s!o 56.7 Blood Meal 1971 7546 Manufacturers 31.7 1.0 1-0 55.0 54.3 MEAT SCRAPS AND MEAT MEAL American Agricultural Chemical Company, The, New York, N. Y. Pure Ground Meat Scraps 8105 6475 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis. 6.6 10.0 11.1 55.0 67.6 Pure Ground Meat Scraps 8105 8183 W. D. Henderson & Co., Fort Wayne 4.3 10.0 11.7 55.0 67.2 Armour Fertilizer Works, Chicago, 111. Armour’s Meat Meal 6263 5884 O. L. Cauble, Pekin 6.3 6.0 7.7 60.0 60.5 Armour’s Meat Meal 6263 6183 W .T T.awsnn, Chase 6.3 6.0 8.8 6o!o 6L9 Armour’s Meat Meal 6263 7795 Cutsinger & Thompson, Shelbyville 9.0 6.0 5.9 60.0 61.5 Chicago Feed & Fertilizer Company, Magic Brand Meat Scraps 62 6284 6288 1 E. K. Sowash, Middletown 9.0 6.0 11.8 55.0 49 5 ttMagic Brand Meat Scraps 03 6284 6361 Scientific Milling Co., Marion 7.2 6.0 15.5 55.0 47.9 Magic Brand Meat Scraps 04 - 6284 7284 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., Lafayette ... 7.0 6.0 13.7 1 55.0 51.9 ft Not tagged. Labels furnished 00 Molasses identified 01 1 ton removed from sale 02 1125 lbs. removed from sale 63 300 lbs. removed from sale 64 1 ton removed from sale. Relabeled No. 8621 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. 73 '3 SE o Inspection D Guar- anteed TJ n 2 £ Guar- anteed C 1 Darling & Company, Chicago, 111. 4503 5757 M. A. Conroy, Jeffersonville 6.5 5.0 9.5 55.0 60.7 4503 C. .T. Loyd, Greensburg 7.8 5.0 8.8 55.0 58.1 4503 7383 Swayzee’s Market, Marion 7.9 5.0 7.1 55.0 49.1 Darling’s Meat Scraps 85 _ _ _ 4503 7417 Purdue Poultry Farm, W. Lafayette 7.9 5.0 7.3 55.0 47.6 Darling’s Meat Scraps 88 __ 4503 7537 Wesley Miller Flour & Feed Co., South Bend 7.4 5.0 8.3 55.0 53 3 Darling’s Meat Scraps 67 4503 7816 Edw. F. Goeke Co., Evansville.. 6.4 5.0 9.6 55.0 56.2 Darling’s Meat Scraps 68 4503 7850 W. H. Robbins Wholesale Grocery Co., Greensburg 7.5 5.0 8.9 55.0 60.0 Darling’s Meat Scraps 89 4503 8079 H. E. Pitman, Bedford 6.8 5.0 8.0 55.0 55.1 4503 8161 Zelt Bros., Fort. Wayne 7.8 5.0 7.9 55.0 64.7 4503 8240 Shaw & Maxwell, Butler 5.8 5.0 9.7 55.0 54.1 Darling’s Meat, Scraps 172 4503 8256 Frank Strock, Hudson __ 6.8 5.0 9.1 55.0 57.5 4503 8337 G. Wolff & Sons, Hamilton.. __ 7.5 5.0 8.1 55.0 53.1 Darling’s Meat Scraps 74 4508 8263 T. I. Ferris, Pleasant Lake 7.6 5.0 8.2 55.0 54 8 tfDarling’s Meat Scraps _ _ 4503 8303 J. P. Strock, Wolcottville.. ._ 7.4 5.0 9.7 55.0 60.4 Darling’s Standard Meat Scrap 75 5072 7653 Purdue University, West Lafayette 8.7 0.5 6.6 4i5.0 35.5 Morris & Company, Chicago, 111. Big Brand Meat Scraps 6805 7484 B. I. Holser & Co., Walkerton.. 6.3 7.0 7.3 55.0 56.6 Big Brand Meat Scraps 6905 8329 New Albany Milling Co., New Albany __ ... 4.2 7.0 8.3 55.0 60.7 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis, Ind. McCoys Fancy Beef Scraps 5312 6562' A. E. Lemasters, Greenwood 7.5 6.0 10.7 50.0 49.8 McCoys Dancy Beef Scraps 5312 7358 Manufacturer 7.0 6.0 11.9 50.0 52.7 Rauh & Sons Animal Feed Company, E., Indianapolis, Ind. Rauh’s Meat Scraps for Poultry ___ __ 7246 5892 Pierce Elevator Co., Union City 7.1 12.8 50.0 49.1 Rauh’s Meat Scraps for Poultry . 72461 7418 Indiana Seed Co., Indianapolis. 7.2 11.1 50.0 50.9 Rauh’s Meat Scraps for Poultry 78 7246 7685 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis. 6.2 11.7 50.0 53.0 Rauh’s Meat Scraps for Poultry 77 7246 7921 Omer G. Whelan, Richmond 6.3 11.9 50.0 52.2 Rauh’s Meat Scraps for Poultry 78 7246 8023 Indiana Seed Co., Indianapolis.. 5.7 8 0 50.0 47.7 Rauh’s Meat Scraps for Poultry 79 7246 ■8372 Omer G. Whelan, Richmond... . 6.5 ___ 10 3 50.0 56.6 'Swift & Company, Chicago, 111. Swift’s Meat Meal 5687 8374 C. A. Mendenhall, Economy 3.9 6.0 6.4 46.0 57.5 Swift’s Meat Scraps _ 6953 6592 O. E. Bash & Co., Huntington. 5.7 8.0 10.3 50.0 56.7 Swift’s Meat Scraps 6953 8154 C. F 1 . Cattrnn, Westville 5.4 8.0 9.2 50.0 56.5 Swift’s Meat Scraps _ 6953 8157 Reed Bros. Coal & Feed Co., Ft. Wayne __ 5.7 8.0 10.0 50.0' 53.0 Swift’s Meat Scraps 6058 8158 Kraus & Apfelbaum, Ft. Wayne 5.2 8.0 11.0 50.0 54.3 Wuichet Fertilizer Company, The, Dayton, Ohio Ground Beef Scrap 3958 7708 Geo. Niemeyer & Sons, Dillsboro 9.3 10.0 10.1 50.0 71.3 MEAT AND BONE MEAL Clinton Manufacturing Company, Frankfort, Ind. C. M. C. Meat and Bone Meal 80 5547 7769 Manufacturers 7.8 12.0 17.5 45.0 45.1 ft Not tagged. Labels furnished 64a 800 lbs. removed from sale. Returned to mfr. 65 Federal sample taken and found deficient in protein. Contains glass and seizure of goods was made 68 900 lbs. removed from sale. Relabeled with No. 5072. Refund. See page 20 87 Appreciable amount of sand present 88 Contains stomach offal and appreciable 73 100 lbs. removed from sale. Salt, stomach offal and large quantity of sand present. Re- turned to Edon, Ohio 74 2 tons removed from sale. Sand and stomach offal present - 75 Conflicting guarantees 78 Contains appreciable amount of glass and approx. 2% sand 77 309 lbs. removed from sale. Stomaeh offal amount of sand 69 2 °/ 2 o tons removed from sale. Stomach offal and appreciable amount of sand present. Relabeled No. 9057 70 Small amount of glass and appreciable amount of sand present 71 1 8 / 20 tons removed from sale. Stomach offal and large quantity of sand present 72 Stomach offal and appreciable amounts of sand and glass present and large quantity of sand present. Re- turned to mfr. 78 6 l7 / 2 o tons removed from sale. Appreciable amount of sand and excess bone present. Returned to mfrs. 70 3 x /z tons removed from sale. Appreciable amount of sand present. Returned to mfr. 80 Stomach offal prespnt TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein percent. Official Inspection D Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis, Ind. ttFancy Meat & Bone 8463 6080 Manufacturers 5.1 8.0 7.8 42.0 46.8 Rauh & Sons Animal Feed Company, E., Indianapolis, Ind. 6076 5343 Mack Beuoy, Gaston 5.5 12.1 80.0 78 3 ♦Meat Meal 5997 Wm F. Pmesner, Knox 6.9 11.0 79.0 8087 5737 Suckow Co., Franklin 6.8 5.6 50.0 50.9 Meatone 82 __ _ __ _ 8087 6060 Hardin Grain Co., Fortville___ 8.4 9.7 50.0 50.0 8087 6115 Suckow Co., Franklin __ 8.2 8.2 50.0 51.4 8087 6175 Suckow Co., F'ranklin 8.0 6.0 50.0 53.3 Meatone 82 _ __ - 8087 6237 Omer G. Whelan, Richmond 9.3 8.4 50.0 51.6 Meatone 82 8087 6340 Goodrich Bros. Hay & Grain Co., Gaston — 9.1 7.4 50.0 54.7 Meatone 8087 7014 Goodrich Bros. Hay & Grain Co., Winchester 7.2 5.2 50.0 50.6 Meatone 82 _ 8087 7333 Sheridan Milling Co., Sheridan. _ 10.9 4.8 50.0 52.4 Meatone 83 __ 8087 7345 Indiana Seed Co., Indianapolis. 8.3 5.9 50.0 48 5 8087 7410 L. S. Ulrich, Sharpsville 9.4 7.0 50.0 49.9 Meatone 84 ... 8087 7619 Lacy Feed Store, Nobles ville_— 8.7 III 5.0 50.0 50.9 Meatone 84 8087 7642 Indiana Seed Co., Indianapolis. 9.4 5.1 50.0 51.8 Meatone 85 _ _ 8087 7784 Farmers Elevator Co., J amestown 8.9 5.7 50.0 50.9 Meatone 86 _ 8087 8024 Indiana Seed Co., Indianapolis. 9.3 5.2 50.0 50.7 Meatone 37 8087 8345 Suckow Co., Franklin 8.0 6.5 50.0 51.6 Meatone 82 _ 8087 8381 O. G. Whelan, Richmond 9.8 8.8 50.0 53.1 TANKAGE Anderson Fertilizer Company, Anderson, Ind. Phillips Feeding Tankage 8387 5987 Manufacturers 12.9 8.0 18.2 36.0 49.5 Angola Reduction Company, Angola, Ind. Tankage 8 ? 5358 8252 Manufacturers 3.5 8.0 12.2 40.0 53 3 Ballard Packing Company, Marion, Ind. Feeding Tankage 5682 6357 Manufacturers 6.6 8.0 11.1 36.0 38.2 Feeding Tankage 8 ? __ 5682 7447 Manufacturers 10.2 8.0 9.2 36.0 37.7 Bradley, John F., Zionsville, Ind. *Tankage 8344 Zionsville Tankage Plant, Zionsville .. 63.8 8.3 22.5 Brook Flour & Feed Mill. Brook, Ind. Rising Sun Brand Digester Tankage 88 8221 5608 Manufacturers _ 13.6 5.0 5.7 60.0 34.8 Butler & Company, Edw. J., Chicago, 111. Butler’s Premium Digester Tankage 89 7990 7179 Worthington Grain Co., Worthington 8.8 6.0 5.1 60.0 61.7 Butler’s Premium Digester Tankage 90 7990 7210 D. A. Rumple, Berne 8.7 6.0 4.8 60.0 60.5 Butler’s Premium Digester Tankage 89 7990 7468 Cooperative Elevator Co., Winamac _ 8.6 6.0 8.9 60.0 58.4 Chicago Feed & Fertilizer Company, Chicago, 111. Magic Brand Tankage 91 __ 6368 5568 Judson Creamery & Produce Co., N. Judson 8.1 5.0 7.3 60.0 57 5 Magic Brand Tankage __ 6388 5674 Goshen Milling Co., Goshen... . 7.8 5.0 5.0 60.0 61.2 * Not tagged ft Not tagged. Labels furnished 81 Refund. See page 20 82 Stomach offal present 83 Appreciable amount of glass and stomach offal present. 17 tons replaced with new stock 84 Stomach offal and glass present 85 40 tons removed from sale. Stomach offal, approx. 5% sand and glass present. Ship- ment replaced 86 Stomach offal and appreciable amount of sand and glass present 87 Stomach offal and appreciable amount of sand present 88 2 tons withdrawn. Refund. See page 20 89 Stomach offal present 00 Stomach offal and considerable fine ground glass and sand present 91 3y 2 tons withdrawn. Relabeled No. 7974. Refund. See page 20. Stomach offal present 8o TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. Official 1 Inspection D Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found | Chicago Feed & Fertilizer Company, Chicago, 111. Magic Brand Tankage 92 __ _ 6368 5080 Brook Flour & Feed Mill, Brook 8.7 5.0 7.7 60.0 56.6 Magic Brand Tankage 93 6368 6081 D. L. Trout, Lee 9.9 5.0 5.8 00.0 58 8 Magic Brand Tankage 6368 6117 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., Crawfordsville 9.0 5.0 5.4 60.0 60.6 Magic Brand Tankage _ 6368 6118 Myers Bros., Linnsburg 7.9 5.0 5.4 60.0 61.1 Magic Brand Tankage 92 __ 6368 6182 W. J. Lawson, Chase 10.3 5.0 3.9 60.0 63.8 Magic Brand Tankage 92 6368 6421 Harting & Co., Elwood 10.0 5.0 3 6 60.0 58 9 Magic Brand Tankage 94 6368 7201 H. F. Rakestraw, Oakfnrrl 8.6 5.0 2.9 60.0 58 5 Magic Brand Tankage 95 6368 7281 R. E. Findling, Arcadia _ 8.6 5.0 2.4 60.0 61.3 Magic Brand Tankage 9(5 _ _ __ 6368 7308 Hurst & Co., Indianapolis 7.9 5.0 2.4 60.0 61.2 Magic Brand Tankage 97 6368 7320 Loughry Bros. Milling & Grain Co., Monticello . 10.1 5.0 4 8 60.0 60.1 6308 7348 R. P. Alice, Coatsville 9.2 5.0 2.3 60.0 60.8 6368 7340 .T. A. Jenkins, Danville 8.7 5.0 2.4 60.0 61.0 Magic Brand Tankage 9S 6308 7350 Frank R. Robbins, Greensburg.. 8.8 5.0 2.4 60.0 60.2 Magic Brand Tankage 99 6368 7441 Harting & Co., Elwood _ 7.7 5.0 4.1 60.0 59.9 Magic 'Rranri Tankage 6368 7507 C. M. Barlow, Knknmn 8.8 5.0 3 6 60.0 61.4 Magic Brand Tankage 100 6368 8142 Farmers Elevator, Kempton 8.6 5.0 4.2 60.0 58.9 Magic Brand Tankage 101 6368 8143 L. O. Teter, Tipton 8.6 5.0 4.1 60.0 58.9 Magic Brand Tankage 102 . 6368 8333 Morrison & Teegarden, Saratoga 6.5 5.0 4.2 60.0 57.7 *Magic Brand Digester Tankage 92 7252 Chicago Feed & Fertilizer Co., Osborne 8.3 4.2 61.0 Cincinnati Animal Food Company, Cincinnati, Ohio. “Porkopolis” Brand Digester Tankage 0728 5483 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., Crawfordsville 8.8 8.0 8.4 60.0 59.2 “Porkopolis” Brand Digester Tankage 6728 5523 James H. Harper, Sharpsville_. 7.4 8.0 7.5 60.0 61.4 Cleveland Provision Company, The, Cleveland, Ohio Premium Digester Tankage 103 5712 8135 Middlebury Grain Co., Middlebury 9.3 7.0 7.2 60.0 60.8 Clendenin & Company, Richmond, Ind. Feeding Tankage 104 2132 6253 Lewisville Elevator Co., Lewisville _ 7.3 13.0 17.6 45.0 39 0 Columbus Sanitary Reduction Company, Columbus, Ind. Feeding Tankage 8182 5460 Manufacturers 4.9 15.0 18.9 45.0 42.8 Connelly, Clare, Judson, Ind. Tankage __ __ _ - 6364 7630 Manufacturer 12.6 6.0 16.5 38.0 59.4 Darling & Company, Chicago, 111. Darling’s Hog Cents Digester Tankage 4733 6034 Maumee Valley Mills, Darling’s Hog Cents Digester Tank- New Haven _ 14.6 0.5 1.9 40.0 43.2 age 105 4733 7217 Geo. M. Jordan, Vincennes __ _ 8.4 0.5 1.1 40.0 41.8 Darling’s 60% Digester Tankage 106 — 4734 5724 W. E. Hayes, Kokomo __ 8.9 0.5 5.6 60.0 60.0 Darling’s 60% Digester Tankage 106 — 4734 6147 Krause & Apfelbaum, Ft. Wayne — _ 12.0 0.5 1.1 60.0 59.2 Darling’s 60% Digester Tankage 107 4734 6854 H. C. Arnold & Son, Bluffton__ 10.7 0.5 2.0 60.0 58 0 * Not tagged 92 Stomach offal present 03 Refund. See page 20 94 300 lbs. removed from sale. Stomach offal and considerable pulverized glass present 95 2*4 tons returned to distributor and replaced with other goods. Stomach offal and ap- preciable amount of glass present 96 1500 lbs. removed from sale. Stomach offal and appreciable amount of glass present 97 1500 lbs. removed from sale. Stomach offal present 98 Stomach offal and appreciable amount fine glass present 99 6% tons removed from sale. Returned to mfgs. Stomach offal, appreciable amount of glass present 100 Same shipment as D8143 101 Appreciable amount of sand, small amount of glass present. Refund. See page 20 102 2Vs tons removed from sale. Returned to mfrs. Stomach offal and approx. 3 % glass present 103 Stomach offal, small amount glass present 101 300 lbs. returned to mfrs. Refund. See page 20 105 Stomach offal, appreciable amount glass and sand present 100 Stomach offal present 107 1900 lbs. removed from sale. Stomach offal present. Returned to mfrs. 8i TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. Official Inspection D Guar- anteed Found Guar- | an teed Found Bailing & Company, Chicago, 111. 1 Darling’s 60% Digester Tankage 108 ___ 4734 7123 Kraus & Apfelbaum, Ft. Wayne _ __ __ 10.4 0.5 3.1 60.0 59.9 Darling’s 60% Digester Tankage 109 _._ 4734 7393 G. W. Wolff & Sons, Hamilton 9.7 0.5 5.0 60.0 62.4 Darling’s 00% Digester Tankage 110 — 4734 7431 Berne Grain & Hay Co., Berne 9.8 0.5 0.6 60.0 63.5 x Darling’s 00% Digester Tankage 111 __. 4734 7584 S. D. Bailey Co., Wanatah 11.4 0.5 1.5 60.0 60.5 Darling’s 60% Digester Tankage 112 ___ 4734 7711 Kraus & Apfelbaum, Ft. Wayne 9.9 0.5 0.7 60.0 61.1 Darling’s 60% Digester Tankage 113 4734 7766 Harry Pinney, Wanatah 11.2 0.5 0.5 60.0 61.2 Darling’s 60% DigesteT Tankage 114 --- 4734 7925 Studebaker Grain & Seed Co., Van Buren __ _ - - 9.1 0.5 1.1 60.0 58.1 Darling’s 60% Digester Tankage 115 — 4734 7927 Studebaker Grain & Seed Co., Bluffton _ 8.3 0.5 5.2 00.0 60.7 Darling’s 60% Digester Tankage 116 ___ 4734 8070 S. F. Trembley Co., Columbia City _ 10.4 0.5 1.6 60.0 62.4 Darling’s 60% Digester Tankage 117 4734 8080 H. E. Pitman, Bedford 9.8 0.5 4.9 60.0 62.9 Darling’s 60% Digester Tankage 118 _-J 4734 8137 Middlebury Grain Co., Middlebury _ __ _ 8.7 0.5 1.3 60.0 59 3 Darling’s 60% Digester Tankage' 119 4734 8239 Shaw & Maxwell, Butler 12.0 0.5 1.5 60.0 58.9 Darling’s 60% Digester Tankage 118 ! 4734 8255 Frank Strock, Hudson. __ 8.7 0.5 5.2 60.0 63.7 Darling’s 00% Digester Tankage 120 --- 4734 8392 J. P. Strock, Wolcottville 11.2 0.5 0.7 60.0 62.7 Darling’s 60% Digester Tankage 118 4734 8870 T. I. Ferris, Pleasant Lake 9.1 0.5 4.9 60.0 62.5 Daudistel, Henry, Evansville, Ind. Feeding Tankage 121 8599 7808 Geo. W. Brown, Evansville 6.7 8.0 9.6 40.0 33.8 Feeding Tankage 122 8599 7807 Edward F. Goeke Co., Evansville 7.5 8.0 9.7 40.0 34.4 Feeding Tankage 723 8599 8160 John Wilkinson, Boonville _ 7.3 8.0 9.0 40.0 35 4 Feeding Tankage* 122 _ 8599 8167 .T. H. Burkhart, Boonville 7.4 8.0 9.6 40.0 34 2 Decatur Fertilizer Company, . Decatur, Ind. Tankage 7438 7114 Manufacturers _ 8.0 7.0 9.9 35.0 55.6 DeKalb Tanking Company, Auburn Junction, Ind. fFeeding Tankage 8938 8233 Manufacturers 38.9 8.0 9.4 25.0 34.3 Delphi Fertilizer Company, The, Delphi, Ind. Feeding Tankage __ 8052 6950 Manufacturers 4.3 12.0 18.1 35.0 38.4 Eckart Packing Company, Fred, Ft. Wayne, Ind. Eckart’s Feeding Tankage 6055 5530 Manufacturers 14 6 9.0 15.4 28.0 37.3 Eckart’s Feeding Tankage 124 6055 7099 Berne Milling Co., Berne 5.2 9.0 12.0 28.0 38.1 Eckart’s Feeding Tankage - 6055 8188 Manufacturers .. 16.2 9.0 11.1 28.0 31.1 Elkhart Fertilizer Company, Elkhart, Ind. Feeding Tankage 6504 8307 Elkhart County Fertilizer Co., Wakarusa ___ __ 4.6 8.0 20.1 44.0 62.9 t Before registration 108 15 tons removed from sale. Stomach offal present 100 3 tons removed from sale. Appreciable amount of glass and sand present. Returned to mfrs. 110 1 3 / 20 tons removed from sale. Stomach offal, glass and sand present. Returned to mfrs. Refund. See page 20 111 1400 lbs. returned to mfrs. Stomach offal, appreciable amount of glass, approx. 1.4% sand present 112 3 2/ 20 tons removed from sale. Returned to mfrs. Stomach offal, appreciable amount of sand and glass present 113 1% tons removed from sale. Stomach offal, glass present 11 4 11 / o 0 ton removed from sale. Returned to mfr. 115 5 6 / 20 tons removed from sale. Stomach offal, large amount of sand present. Returned to mfr. 116 Stomach offal, appreciable amount of glass present 117 1% tons removed from sale. Appreciable quantity of sand present. Relabeled No. 9068 118 Appreciable amount of sand, stomach offal present 110 Stomach offal, large amount of sand, appre- ciable amount of glass present 120 1600 lbs. returned to mfrs. Stomach offal, appreciable quantity of glass and sand present 121 Stomach offal, appreciable amount sand pres- ent. 1600 lbs. returned 122 Stomach offal, appreciable amount sand present 123 Stomach offal, appreciable amount sand pres- ent. Relabeled No. 9082. Refund. See page 20 124 Stomach offal present 82 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. Official Inspection D Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found Evansville Packing Company, Evansville, Ind. 7403 5629 Hanry 'Dugan, Owp.nsville 8.2 15.0 10.4 60.0 60.2 7403 5634 Henry Schnur, Mt. Vernon 6.3 15.0 8.7 60.0 56.2 7403 5675 Manufacturers _ 6.7 15.0 9.5 60.0 60.5 60% Stock Feeding Tankage 7403 5813 American Cooperative Assoc., Boonville _ 7.8 15.0 9.2 60.0 63.3 60% “Feeding Tankage” 124 8298 7821 W. H. Small & Co., Evansville. 7.1 8.0 5.7 60.0 61.6 Farmers Tanking & Fertilizer Company, Muncie, Ind. 7860 5916 Manufacturers 12.3 10.0 12.8 45.0 50.0 White River Feeding Tankage 125 7860 6312 Manufacturers 12.9 10.0 13.1 45.0 59.6 Goldreich Fertilizer Company, Marion, Ind. 4352 Manufacturers 9.1 11.0 16.1 45.0 44.8 7438 Manufacturers _ 6.0 11.0 14.7 45.0 40 0 4352 7926 Manufacturers _ 10.3 11.0 11.6 45.0 42.8 Hancock Fertilizer Company, The, Greenfield, Ind. Feeding* T&nkage 7659 7425 Manufacturers __ 6.4 6.0 17.7 40.0 41.4 Holzapfel, Henry, Richmond, Ind. Feeding Tankage 125 3551 6235 J. F. Maher Cold Storage, Richmond 3.3 18.9 28.0 25.4 Home Packing & Ice Company, Terre Haute, Ind. Digester Meat & Bone Tankage __ 7450 5688 Overpeck & Branson, Rockville. 10.9 10.0 13.9 32.0 34.0 Digester Meat & Bone Tankage 125 7450 5699 Manufacturers 7.8 10.0 12.7 32.0 35.5 Digester Meat & Bone Tankage 125 7450 5705 Sam Milligan, Jr., Waveland— 10.2 10.0 12.0 32.0 36.9 TMg'ester IVTeftitr & T^ne Tanlragp 7450 6658 Manufacturers _ _ 12.1 10.0 11.7 32.0 38.5 Digester Meat & Bone Tankage 128 7450 6927 Schultz Bros., Elberfeld 5.3 10.0 9.7 32.0 37.0 Huntington Fertilizer Company, Huntington, Ind. Farmers Commercial Feeding Tankage 6247 6597 Manufacturers ._ 3.9 15.0 19.1 50.0 39.6 Farmers Commercial Feeding Tank- age 129 6247 7590 Weber & Purviance, Huntington 4.8 15.0 16.5 50.0 40.8 Independent Feed & Fertilizer Company, Indianapolis, Ind. Digester Tankage, Clover Leaf 130 8503 7202 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., Lafayette 7.1 6.0 9.3 60.0 31.7 Digester Tankage, Clover Leaf 131 _ — 8503 7245 Prater-Mottier Co., Terre Haute 5.2 6.0 9.6 60.0 38.8 Digester Tankage, Clover Leaf 132 8503 7253 Uhl- Snider Milling Co., Connersville _. _ 6.6 6.0 9 0 60.0 36 8 Higesfer T'anlrage Olrwer Leaf 133 8503 7254 Shirley Rr, .Tones, Lebanon 5.8 6.0 9.3 60.0 39.1 Digester Tankage, Clover Leaf 134 8503 7255 Uhl-Snider Milling Co., Connersville ... — 5.4 6.0 10.4 60.0 39 6 Higesfer Tanlragp Olnvpr Lpa.f 125 8503 7256 Manufacturer _ 5.6 6.0 9.8 60.0 37.6 Digester Tankage, Clover Leaf 8503 7424 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., Lafayette 7.7 6.0 45 60.0 60.1 "Digester Tfl nlrajp mover Leaf 136 8503 7442 Hart.ing # ; L!o , "Rlwnnd 5.5 6.0 8.1 60.0 37.4 Digester Tankage CUnyer Leaf 8503 7519 Lou Puckett, Shidler 7.6 6.0 4.7 60.0 61.1 Digester Tankage, Clover Leaf 8503 7796 Morrison & DePrez Drug Co., Shelbyville ... ... _ - 7.2 6.0 3.7 60.0 60.7 Digester Tankage, Clover Leaf 8503 7859 E. E. Whicker, Sandusky 6.8 6.0 3 8 eo.o 61.0 Digester Tankage, Clover Leaf 137 8503 7864 Richards & Lawson, Shelbyville 6.1 6.0 8.6 60.0 37 8 Digester Tankage, Clover Leaf 8503 8287 Scottsburg Elevator, Scottsburg 7.1 6.0 3 5 60.0 63 3 125 Stomach offal present 120 1 ton -removed from sale 727 5 tons removed from sale. Stomach offal present i 28 688 lbs. returned to mfrs. Stomach offal present 120 *4 ton removed from sale. Stomach offal present 1 30 25 tons removed from sale and shipped to Jacksonville, 111. Stomach offal present. 131 5 tons removed from sale and returned to mfrs. Stomach offal present 1 32 Not offered for sale 133 i is/ 20 tons removed from sale. Stomach offal present 134 t i7 / 20 tons removed from sale. Stomach offal present 135 2V-z tons removed from sale. Stomach offal present 138 j o/ 20 tons returned to mfrs. Stomach offal present 137 300 lbs. removed from sale. Stomach offal, appreciable amount sand present 83 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Number Label Sample secured from Inter-State Rendering Company, Kentland, Ind. ♦Tankage .. 7778 Manufacturers 8.2 Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. T3 1 T3 u 8 T) 3 3 g Ss £ 0 tf 12.5 48.2 Joslin-Schmidt Company, Cincinnati, Ohio “Abattoir Brand” Digester Tankage— “Abattoir Brand” Digester Tankage 138 “Abattoir Brand” Digester Tankage 139 “Abattoir Brand” Digester Tankage— “Abattoir Brand” Digester Tankage— “Abattoir Brand” Digester Tankage 139 “Abattoir Brand” Digester Tankage 139 Abattoir Brand — Digester Tankage Abattoir Brand— Digester Tankage 139 . Abattoir Brand— Digester Tankage 140 . Abattoir Brand— Digester Tankage 140 . Abattoir Brand — Digester Tankage Abattoir Brand — Digester Tankage Abattoir Brand — Digester Tankage Abattoir Brand — Digester Tankage 6376 6376 6376 6376 6376 6376 6370 8615 ■8615 8615 8615 8615 8615 8615 8615 5394 6045 6133 6185 6320 6860 7068 7439 7574 7686' 7687 7929 7940 7941 7967 Osgood Grain Co., Osgood ! Hartman & Dotterer, Bluffton John P. Frazee, Rushville | Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co. Lafayette Union Grain & Seed Co., Anderson Hartman & Dotterer, Bluffton. Osgood Grain Co., Osgood ! Hartman & Dotterer, Bluffton Union Grain & Feed Co., Anderson 1 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis] McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis New Castle Elevator Co., New Castle C. W. Caldwell, Bentonville I E. C. Caldwell, Connersville ! Warren Elevator Co., Warren.. 7.5 13.7 9.2 7.1 8.3 9.2 10.3 8.6 8.5 10.6 10.6 10.6 12.6 10.4 8.0 8.6 60.0 59.4 8.0 8.2 60.0 58.9 8.0 8.3 60.0 61.1 8.0 9.2 60.0 61.4 8.0 7.7 60.0 8.0 8.2 60.0 8.0 5.7 60.0 1.0 7.2 60.0 62.0 53.2 60.1 60.8 1.0 5.7 60.0 1.0 8.2 60.0 1.0 6.6 60.0 60.8 59.0 60.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 7.5 60.0 4.8 60.0 5.2 60.0 7.1 00.0 60.1 60.9 61.9 59.7 Kalberer, Wm., Lafayette, Ind. The Tippecanoe Hog Grower _. Kendallville Fertilizer Company, Kendallville, Ind. “Feeding Tankage” .. 8050 6144 Manufacturer Manufacturers 8.2 8.9 10.0 10.0 13.0 9.3 50.0 44.0 50.5 Kingan & Company, Ltd.. Indianapolis, Ind. Kingan’s Digester Tankage Kingan’s Digester Tankage Kingan’s Digester Tankage Kingan’s Digester Tankage 141 Kingan’s Digester Tankage 142 Kingan’s Digester Tankage 143 8574 8574 8574 8574 6997 7023 7086 7453 8574 8574 7633 7681 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., Lafayette C. V. Graft, Winchester C. G. Hunger, Madison Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., Lafayette Bloomingdale Mill Co., Bloomlngdale Hardin Grain Co., Fortville i Kuhner Packing Company, Muncie, Ind. Kuhner’s Tankage Kuhner ’s Tankage 144 Kuhner’s Tankage 6406 6406 8464 5917 6143 7090 Manufacturers Manufacturers Manufacturers 8.4 8.0 10.1 9.6 10.7 8.4 13.8 5.3 4.9 6.0 11.7 6.0 12.9 6.0 11.3 60.0 60.0 60.0 66.7 65.4 66.6 6.0 8.0 60.0 54 4 6.0 8 9 60.0 55.1 6.0 8.5 60.0 57.2 9.0 9.0 5.0 6.2 30.0 9.2 30.0 5 3 30.0 34.0 33 7 34.9 Maher Cold Storage, J. F., Richmond, Ind. Feeding Tankage 144 Manns’ Fertilizer Works, North Manchester, Ind. Mann’s Feeding Tankage Meier Packing Company, Indianapolis, Ind. Feeding Tankage Feeding Tankage 8552 7916 Manufacturers 7032 7161 J. W. Strauss & Son, North Manchester 8075 6009 8075 8198 Amo Mill & Elevator Co., Bargersville Manufacturers 7.7 7.1 6.8 9.1 5.0 15.0 50 5.0 18.5 16.2 21.8 21.3 28.0 45.0 28.0 28.0 25.5 47.6 31.8 32.6 Mitchell & Mitchell, Martinsville, R. R. 9, Ind. tFceding Tankage 146 8849 7677 Manufacturers 7.0 16.0 30.0 40.8 * Not tagged 1^1 17Ms tons removed from sale. Relabeled with t Before registration No. 8886 138 Refund. See page 20. Stomach offal present 142 114 tons removed from sale 139 Stomach offal present 143700 lbs. returned to mfrs. 140 Stomach offal, approx. 1.6% sand present m Stomach offal present 115 Large amount sand present 8 4 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1913 (continued) Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. Official Inspection D Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found 5766 7958 Montpelier Fertilizer Co., " Montpelier 4.7 24.0 15.5 49.0 40.5 4224 5340 Nixon & Van Deventer, Attica. 6.5 8.0 10.7 60.0 60.5 4224 5352 .Hurst & Co., Indianapolis 7.9 8.0 9.9 60.0 623 4224 7479 Hamlet Grain Co., Hamlet 7.1 8.0 7.2 60.0 58 4 8155 5694 W. C. Hall Milling Co., Brazil. 7.2 6.0 7.6 60.0 63.0 8155' 5861 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., Lafayette 6.2 6.0 9.7 60.0 60.2 8155 6915 l_I. B. Clyne, Crawfordsville .. 8.0 6.0 8.1 60.0 56.6 8155 7318 Hurst & Co., Indianapolis 6.2 6.0 7.9 60.0 60.8 8155 7449 V. H. Bulleitt & Sons. Corydon 5.8 6.0 8.0 60.0 62.6 8155 7488 B. I. Holser & Co., Waikerton 8.3 6.0 7.7 60.0 60.8 8155 7480 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., Lafayette _______ . _ _ 6.4 6.0 9.2 60.0 61.1 8155 7689 Hurst & Co., Indianapolis 5.2 6.0 9.3 60.0 60.1 8155 7712 I. B. Clyne, Crawfordsville 7.3 6.0 8.3 60.0 60.4 8155 7802 Morrison & DePrez Drug Co., Shelbyville 5.9 6.0 8.7 60.0 61.9 8155 8022 Hurst & Co., Indianapolis 7.0 6.0 9.0 60.0 60.5 8155 8331 Y. T. Reid, Salem _ 6.2 6.0 8.5 60.0 eo.5 5223 5443 Letts Grain & Lumber Co., Letts Corner 11.8 3.3 60.0 59.5 5223 6079 Manufacturers 7.1 5.8 eo.o 60.0 5223 6472 Manufacturers 8.4 2.8 60.0 60.6 5223 6488 Manufacturers . _ _ 7.6 3.6 60.0 58 4 5223 6825 D. B. Zimmerman & Son, Cicero 7.8 3.1 60.0 61.1 5223 7357 Manufacturers _ _ __ 7.8 4.2 60.0 62.9 5223 7683 Manufacturers — _ _ __ ___ 8.1 3.7 60.0 59.2 5223 7684 Manufacturers 8.0 — 4.3 60.0 60.4 5223 7962 Ossian Roller Mills, Ossian ._ _ 8.6 — 3.4 60.0 59 5 8238 5695 Manufacturers _ __ 6.6 8.0 13.1 55.0 eo.s 8065 8356 Manufacturers 9.4 10.0 19.5 40.0 56 9 8554 6193 Manufacturers 4.1 8.0 21.6 38.0 39.7 5015 5438 Manufacturers _ 8.1 5.0 8.7 37.0 33 9 5015 5760' Manufacturers ___ 13.9 5.0 10.6 37.0 42.8 5015 7105 Manufacturers _ __ _ 7.8 5.0 11.5 37.0 38.2 5015 8153 Manufacturers 10.9 5.0 8.1 37.0 1 41.8 7308 5996 Wm. F. Pruesner, Freelaridville _ __ 10.7 8.5 60.0 58 9 7308 6010 Ajno Mill & Elevator Co., Bargersvllle __ 12.6 — 4.9 60.0 59.8 7552 7015 Manufacturers _ 6.7 17.0 24.8 40.0 45.4 3575 5369 j Manufacturers _ __ — — 4.1 4.0 eo.o 73 0 Label Montpelier Fertilizer Company, Huntington, Ind. Farmers Commercial Feeding Tank- age 144 Morris & Company, Chicago, 111. Big Brand 60% Digester Tankage- Big Brand 60% Digester Tankage- Big Brand 60% Digester Tankage- Big Sixty Meat Meal Digester Tank- age 146 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis, Ind. McCoys Choice Hog Digester Tank- age 147 Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Hog Hog Hog Hog Hog Hog Hog Digester Digester Digester Digester Digester Digester Digester Tankage Tankage Tankage Tankage Tank- McCoys McCoys McCoys McCoys McCoys McCoys McCoys age 14i McCoys Choice Hog Digester Tankage McKenzie & Company, J. H., Brazil, R. R. 8, Ind. Tankage , New Castle Tankage Company, New Castle, Ind. tFeeding Tankage Newton County Reduction Plant, Kentland, Ind. fPendergrass Hog Tankage Pearl Packing House, The, Madison, Ind. The Pearl Brand The Pearl Brand The Pearl Brand 149 The Pearl Brand Rauh & Sons Animal Feed Company, E., Indianapolis, Ind. Rauh’s Digester Tankage for Hogs 149 Rauh’s Digester Tankage for Hogs Roby Bros., Winchester, R. R. 4, Ind. Roby Brothers Feeding Tankage 144 __ Routh & Company, W. C., Logansport, Ind. Routh’s Best Feeding Tankage f Before registration 114 Stomach offal present 140 4 i/ 10 tons returned to mfrs. 147 Stomach offal present 148 Stomach offal, approx. 1.6% sand and ciable amount glass present 149 Stomach offal present 85 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Number Sample secured from Moicture percent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. Official Inspection D Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found Schmadel Packing & Ice Company, Evansville, Ind. ♦Feeding Tankage _ 8163 Manufacturers 12.8 6.2 40.4 Sears, Roebuck & Company, Chicago, 111. ♦Blue Bag Brand Digester Tankage — 590® T. G. Carsell, Bloomington.. 6.6 — 7.3 61.9 Stadler Rendering & Fertilizer Company, The J. L. & H., Cleveland, Ohio Feeding Tankage _ 8173 6018 Union Hardware Co., Lebanon. 11.2 10.0 8.5 40.0 38 6 Stolle & Sons, Anton, Richmond, Ind. Stolle’s Feeding Tankage 758*6 6236 Manufacturers _ 4.2 6.0 11.3 34.0 34.0 7915 Manufacturers _ 8.9 6.0 10.5 34.0 31.6 Sullivan Reduction Company, F'armersburg, Ind. 8282 Manufacturers _ 11.2 2.0 15.5 35.0 49.8 Feeding Tankage __ 8282 7208 Manufacturers ... _ __ 6.5 2.0 20.2 35.0 46.0 Swift & Company, Chicago, 111. Swift’s Digester Tankage 151 __ 7030 5378 Vandalia Elevator Co., Colfax 7.0 6.0 8.0 60.0 57 8 Swift’s Digester Tankage _ 7030 5397 Walton Elevator Co., Walton. 7.2 6.0 7.6 60.0 60.8 Swift’s Digester Tankage 152 7030 5510 Chalmers Grain Co., Chalmers. 5.7 6.0 7.9 60.0 58 4 Swift’s Digester Tankage 7030 5539 C E. Bash & Co., Huntington 7.0 6.0 6.5 60.0 60.5 Swift’s Digester Tankage _ . 7030 5588 Farmers Union Elevator Co., Carlisle __ ... ._ 7.6 6.0 6.0 60.0 61.4 Swift’s Digester Tankage 7030 5625 John Dunn, Wolcott __ 7.3 6.0 8.2 60.0 60.9 Swift’s Digester Tankage 7030 6042' Studebaker Grain & Seed Co., Bluffton __ . . 10.6 6.0 5.7 60.0 51 0 Swift’s Digester Tankage 7030 6160* Joseph Minch, Chalmers 6.0 6.0 8.5 60.0 60.9 ♦Swift’s Digester Tankage 0168 O. B. Valentine, Clavpool 7.3 8.8 60.8 Swift’s Digester Tankage 7030 0296 O. F. Cattrnn, Westville 6.3 6.0 9.3 60.0 60.1 Swift’s Digester Tankage _ . 7030 3342 Otto Lef forge, Rossville 7.2 6.0 7.3 60.0 61 6 Swift’s Digester Tankage. 7030 6742 McCoy Bros., Liberty __ 6.3 6.0 10.3 60.0 59 5 Swift’s Digester Tankage __ 7030 7148 O. Gandy & Co., South Whitley 9.3 6.0 5.9 60.0 61.2 Swift’s Digester Tankage 7030 7280 R. E. Findley, Arcadia 9.5 6.0 5.2 60.0 60.5 Swift’s Digester Tankage 7030 7394 J. M. Wagner, Roann.. _ 10.0 6.0 5 1 60.0 64.0 Swift’s Digester Tankage 153 7030 7413 M. S. Smith, Goldsmith 8.2 6.0 9.3 60.0 57 3 Swift’s Digester Tankage 7030 7421 W. J. Lawson, Chase . . 6.4 6.0 8.3 60.0 60.8 Swift’s Digester Tankage 7030 7443 Harting & Co., Elwood _ _ . 6.5 6.0 8.3 60.0 60 1 Swift’s Digester Tankage _ 7060 7613 Busenbark Elevator, Waveland. 8.2 ■6.0 8.6 60.0 58 6 Swift’s Digester Tankage _ 7030 7680 Pendleton Feed & Fuel Co., Pendleton ... 6.7 6.0 6.0 60.0 60.2 Swift’s Digester Tankage 7030 7729 Farmers Grain & Seed Co., Darlington __ ... 8.1 6.0 3.8 60.0 64.8 Swift’s Digester Tankage 7030 8005 Daniel McDermott, Elwood 6.7 6.0 8.4 60.0 60.7 Swift’s Digester Tankage 154 7030 8009’ Harting & Co., Elwood 7.0 6.0 7.9 60.0 61.5 Swift’s Digester Tankage 155 7030 8011 H. H. Pinney, Wanatah 5.2 6.0 6.9 60.0 67.1 Swift’s Digester Tankage 7030 8159 Kraus & Apfelbaum, Ft. Wayne 5.8 6.0 6.8 60.0 63.2 Swift’s Digester Tankage ... 7030 8197 C. E. Bash & Co., Huntington 5.4 6.0 6.7 60.0 63 3 Swift’s Digester Tankage __ 7030 8295 Montmorenci Elevator Co., Montmorenci 6.5 6.0 8.5 60.0 59 2 Swift’s Digester Tankage 7030 829 8 Wakarusa Milling Co., Wakarusa _ _ __ __ 6.3 6.0 6.8 60.0 62.3 t+Swift’s Digester Tankage 7030 8337 Huffstetter & Gray, Nabb . __ 9.2 6.0 7.1 60.0 60.2 Swift’s Digester Tankage 7030 8373 C. A. Mendenhall, Economy 5.6 6.0 7.2 60.0 62.0 Tanking & Fertilizing Company, The, Muncie, Ind. Feeding Tankage 5620 5919 Manufacturers 8.2 9.0 18.2 43.0 55.8 Feeding Tankage lr,e 5620 6313 Manufacturers __ 24.5 9.0 15.4 43.0 I 43 3 Feeding Tankage _ ... 5626 7892 Caldwell Tanking Co., Muncie. 4.1 9.0 24.3 43.0 53.0 Wabash Fertilizer Company, Wabash. Ind. Meat & Bone Tankage 7605 1 5558 1 Manufacturers _ _ 27.1 8.0 14.9 40.0 47.2 * Not tagged f Before registration ft Not tagged. Labels furnished 150 Stomach offal present 151 500 lbs. removed from sale 152 400 lbs. returned to mfrs. 153 Refund. See page 20 154 3 i/ 20 tons returned to mfrs. 155 1 Vz tons returned to mfr. 156 Stomach offal present 86 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. Official Inspection D Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found | 8066 6166 Little Crow Milling Co., Warsaw 9.5 3.0 19.9 40.0 49.4 8066 7167 Little Grow Milling Co., Warsaw __ 7.9 3.0 18.0 40.0 53.4 8066 8063 Manufacturers 12.9 3.0 11.8 40.0 52.7 8540 7184 J. L. Morgan, Lyons 9.0 6.0 8.9 60.0 62.1 8828 7592 Manufacturers _ _ 10.2 8.0 17.1 40.0 46.8 8202 6302 M. A. Conroy, Jeffersonville 7.2 11.0 10.0 36.4 38.3 4169 6582 E. F. Johnson, Paoli .. ___ 8.7 10.0 18.3 40.0 47.9 8175 5897 Pierce Elevator, Union City 12.9 5.0 8.2 60.0 48.7 2709 5640 Edw. F. Goeke Co., Evansville 7.7 0.5 1.0 8.0 9.5 2709 8206 W. H. Small & Co., Evansville- 6.9 0.5 0.9 8.0 11.0 8652 7617 Lacy Feed Store, Noblesville— 9.3 6.0 6.4 20.0 22.0 8652 8172 Maumee Valley Mills, New Haven 8.0 6.0 8.8 20.0 21.3 8654 7174 Manufacturer 10.1 3.0 9.2 6.0 11.9 3030 5808 Manufacturers _ _ 11.5 4.0 7.6 90 10.3 3030 6884 Manufacturers _ 8.6 4.0 7.0 9.0 10.1 7388 6796 Chas. W. Brizius Co., Evansville 9.1 4.0 4.1 8.3 9 5 7388 7886 Manufacturers _ 9.1 4.0 6.7 8.3 10.5 2163 6803 Manufacturers 11.3 4.0 6.2 7.0 11.2 6129 6722 Manufacturer 10.1 2.0 6.7 8.0 9.7 1728 6025 Manufacturers 11.9 4.0 5.0 7.0 8.9 8747 7801 Manufacturers 9.4 2.5 4.7 6.0 7.6 1 3673 7145 1 Manufacturer 9.8 4.0 5.0 78 9.5 Warsaw Fertilizer & Tanking Company, Warsaw, Ind. Tankage Tankage Tankage 157 Western Packing & Provision Company, Union Stock Yards, Chicago, 111. Western Digester Tankage 156 Whitley County Tankage Company, Columbia City, Ind. ■^Feeding Tankage Worm & Company, Indianapolis, Ind. Eureka Concentrated Hog Pood 158 _ Wuichet Fertilizer Company, The, Dayton, Ohio Stock Tankage 158 60% Tankage 169 DRIED SUGAR BEET PULP Larrowe Milling Company, The, Detroit, Mich. Dried Beet Pulp Dried Beet Pulp COCOANUT OIL MEAL Proctor & Gamble Distributing Com- pany, Port Ivory, Staten Island, N. Y. P. & G. Copra Oil Meal P. & G. Copra Oil Meal CORN BRAN Bloomfield Mill & Elevator Company, Bloomfield, Ind. tCorn Bran Boonville Milling Company, Boonville, Ind. Corn Bran Corn Bran Brizius Company, The Chas. W., Newburgh, Ind. Eagle Corn Bran Eagle Corn Bran Browning Milling Company, W. A. Evansville, Ind. Corn Bran Cauble, O. L., Pekin, Ind. Corn Bran Cauble & Dunlevy, Henry ville, Ind. Corn Bran Cutsinger & Thompson, Shelbyville, Ind. Corn Bran Hampton, W. D., Worthington, Ind. Corn Bran T Before registration 166 Stomach offal present 167 Stomach offal and appreciable sand present amount of 168 Stomach offal present 159 Refund. See page 20. Stomach offal present 87 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Number Crude Crude fn 4- protein Label o Sample secured from 2+j per cent. per cent. o 3 § . TJ TJ . TS T3 o fE o CD £ m O o <0 S ft Guar- antee £ I Guar- antee § & Home Mill & Grain Company, Mt. Vernon, Ind. 2598 6896 Manufacturers — 8.9 5.0 8.5 8.0 11.7 Kennedy Milling Company, The Geo. W., Shelbyville, Ind. — 7791 6986 Manufacturers * 8.7 5.0 8.5 8.0 11.1 7791 7862 Manufacturers __ 8.0 5.0 10.0 8.0 11.9 Moore Milling Company, R. P., Princeton, Ind. 999 6717 Manufacturers 9.4 5.0 7.2 8.0 9.5 Richmond Com Mills, Richmond, Ind. 1727 7953 Richmond Roller Mills, Richmond 10.5 5.0 6.6 8.0 10.5 Shine & Company, John H., New Albany, Ind. 6677 6271 Manufacturers 9.4 5.0 1.9 8.0 8.0 Sims Milling Company, Frankfort, Ind. 6926 7770 Manufacturers 8.1 3.5 8.8 8.0 10.3 Smith, D. R., Tipton, Ind. rinrn Rran 1543 5562 Manufacturer 11.1 5.0 10.5 8.0 11.7 Stader, Frank E., Evansville, Ind. rinrn Bran 6343 6838 Manufacturer 10.5 5.0 9.0 8.0 10.7 Valentine & Valentine, Franklin, Ind. rinm Rran 1999 6559 Manufacturers 9.3 3.9 8.8 6.9 11.2 Yaw Bros., Terre Haute, Ind. rinrn Bran 6450 6659 Manufacturers 9.9 4.8 6.3 8.0 9.6 CORN FEED MEAL Akin-ETskine Milling Company, Evansville, Ind. Cnrn Fepd Meal 8572 6926 Akin-Erskine Milling Co., Inglefield 9.7 2.0 7.5 9.0 10.6 Boonville Milling Company, Boonville, Ind. (lorn Fped Mpal 6851 6906 Manufacturers 10.6 2.5 4.4 7.5 9.3 Branch Grain & Seed Company, Martinsville, Ind. Corn Feed Meal __ 3888 6705 Manufacturers _ 11.7 2.5 2.3 6.0 7.2 Brizius Company, The Chas. W., Newburgh, Ind. Eagle Com Feed Meal 6075 6797 Chas. W. Brizius, Co., Evansville _ 9.8 2.7 4.3 6.8 9.5 Browning Milling Company, W. A., Evansville, Ind. Cnrn Fepd Meal 3537 6804 Manufacturers _ 10.1 2.4 4.4 6.7 9.7 Burge-Thomas Milling Company, Marion, Ind. Corn Feed Meal 5759 6334 Manufacturers 11.7 2.5 2.7 7.5 8.1 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Company, Lafayette. Ind. Corn Feed Meal - 5310 6789 Manufacturers _ 10.9 2.0 •3.1 7.0 7.9 Daniels & Pickering Company, Middletown, Ind. Corn Feed Meal 4331 6284 J. M. Walker & Son, Middletown 11.4 2.5 2 9 7.0 7.5 88 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Number Crude fat Crude protein o 2 O +5 per cent. per cent. Label Sample secured from Official o tons removed from sale. Relabeled with ft Not tagged. Labels furnished No. 8553. Made from yellow corn 93 TABLE IV.— Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. 73 *3 & o | u | Q C a 3? a § •a c 3 o i 173 u 5 3 i Emison & Company, J. & S., (Baltic Mills), Vincennes, Ind. Hominy Feed ___ _ _ __ 8040 5742 Scarlett & Pope, West Baden.. 4.5 7.0 9.6 80 11.2 8040 8389 Manufacturer 5.7 7.0 6.3 8.0 10.1 Evans Milling Company, Indianapolis, Ind. 20 5439 O. G. Hunger, Madison 8.7 7.5 8.2 10.0 11.1 Hominy Feed _ _ 20 7335 Otto Lef forge, Rossville 8.3 7.5 8.6 10.0 11.5 Hominy Feed 20 8348 New Castle Elevator Co., New Castle 7.5 7.5 7.8 10.0 10.0 Ewing Mill Company, Brownstown, Ind. Hominy Meal 290 8830 John H. Shine & Co., New Albany _ 12.1 7.5 6.0 9.0 9.4 Farmers Hominy Mill, Seymour, Ind. Farmers Hominy Feed 8298 5871 Cauble & Dunlevy, Henry ville. 9.0 7.5 8.1 10.0 10.6 Farmers Hominy Feed 8290 0787 C. G. Clark & Son, Rushville.. 6.8 7.5 9.0 10.0 11.2 Fisher Bros., Evansville, Ind. 8737 7843 Manufacturers _ _ 8.3 6.0 7.7 10.0 11.0 Hall Milling Company, W. C., Brazil, Ind. Hall’s Hominy Feed _ 7482 5691 Manufacturers 7.6 5.0 8.8 9.5 11.2 Kidder & Company. F. L., Paris, 111. Peerless Hominy Feed 2449 5713 Stiefel & Levy, Avilla 6.8 7.5 8.5 8.5 10.7 Krause Milling Company, Chas. A., Milwaukee, Wis. ttBadger Hominy Feed _ 5101 6040 Hartman & Dotterer, Bluffton 10.2 6.0 7.5 10.0 11.9 Badger Hominy Feed 5101 6187 Stiefel & Levy, Albion 8.0 6.0 7.3 10.0 12 2 Badger Hominy Feed 165 5101 0694 Jacob Portman, Columbia City 7.9 6.0 8.1 10.0 11.4 Badger Hominy Feed 5101 0699 Chas. A. Krause Milling Co., Columbia City ._ 8.1 6.0 7.4 10.0 12.0 Badger Hominy Feed 5101 6700' Chas. A. Krause Milling Co., Columbia City _ 11.1 6.0 8.5 10.0 12.3 Badger Hominy Feed ___ 5101 07O1 Columbia City Mill & Elevator Co., Columbia City 10.2 6.0 7.2 10.0 11.3 Badger Hominy Feed 166 5101 7352 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis 8.4 6.0 7.7 10.0 11.6 Badger Hominy Feed 5101 8060 H. T /. Hagep, Peru 7.1 6.0 7.4 10.0 11.8 Kuhn & Company, Paul, Terre Haute, Tnd. Hominy Feed 1(57 _ 2735 6864 Paul Kuhn & Co., Clay City 9.1 7.7 8.1 10.0 11.8 Louisville Cereal Mill Company, Louisville, Ky. Hominy Meal .. __ 2020 5867 T A. Pass, Sellarshnrg 7.1 7.0 7.8 9.0 10.6 Mosher & Company, A. B., Columbia City, Ind. t+Hominy Feed 8482 6163 F. F. Mosher, Columbia City.. 9.4 6.0 8.8 10.0 11.4 National Feed Company, St. Louis, Mo. “Hominy Feed” __ ___ 3020 6165 F. F. Mosher, Columbia City.. 9.9 7.0 10.0 10.0 12.2 “Hominy Feed” 3020 6640 Prater-Mottier Co., Terre Haute 8.8 7.0 8.9 10.0 11.3 “Hominy Feed” 168 . __ _ 3O20 0098 S.'F. Tremble y Co., Columbia City 9.7 7.0 9.1 10.0 11.9 “Hominy Feed” 108 . 3020 0725 Aa.rnn Turley, Orleans 9.2 7.0 8.3 10.0 11.2 “Hominy Feed” 3020 7582 Melvin Pence, Columbia City.. 8.9 7.0 8.5 10.0 11.5 tt“Hominy Feed” _ 3020 7936 Hawley Hall, Lewisville 8.3 7.0 9.6 10 0 11.1 “Hominy Feed” . 3020 8071 A. B. Mosher & Co., Columbia City 7.7 7.0 8.6 10.0 11.6 Perin Bros., Cincinnati, Ohio Hominy Feed .. 8721 7063 | O. W. Curtis, Aurora ______ 7.5 7.0 9.2 10.0 11.6 ft Not tagged. Labels furnished 165 Small amount of yellow corn present 186 40 tons removed from sale. Replaced on sale. Corn germ meal and corn grits present 1(57 Sample composed of corn grits, germ, and bran from yellow corn. Relabeled No. 8614 188 Wrong labels attached. Relabeled with No. 8637 94 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. Official Inspection D Guar- anteed TJ a 3 o fa Guar- anteed — TS 3 1 Pfeffer Milling Company, Lebanon, 111. 1 Pfeffer Milling Co., Hominy Feed.. __ 2617 5781 John Gienger & Co., Jeffersonville 7.7 8.0 9.6 10.0 11.3 Plymouth Milling Company, Lemars, Iowa **Pure Hominy Peed 169 _ 7047 P. W. Havens, Hartford City__ 10.1 8.9 11.1 Raidt Milling Company, P., Louisville, Ky. Hominy Meal _ 1920 5777 L. Thorn & Sons, New Albany. 7.1 6.0 8.7 8.0 11.9 Hominy Meal _ _ 1920 7433 John Gienger & Co., Jeffersonville 6.2 6.0 9.2 8.0 11.3 Stiefel & Levy, Fort Wayne, Ind. 7860 6514 Stiefel & Levy, A villa 9.1 6.5 9.4 9.0 11.4 Suckow Company, Franklin, Ind. “Perfection” Hominy Feed 17 o 6177 Manufacturers 9.0 7.5 7.1 10.0 11.4 Suffern-Hunt Mills, Decatur, 111. tfAcme Hominy Feed 7479 5388 Osgood Grain Co., Osgood 9.0 7.0 8.6 10.0 11.4 Acme Hominy Feed . 7479 6618 Anchor Milling Co., Rochester. 7.5 7.0 8.8 10.0 10.6 No Manufacturer Hominy Fped 171 7411 Bert E. Barnet, Bargersville 8.0 8.8 11.0 Hominv Feed 17 i _ 7779 Fairland Grain Co., Fairland 8.2 8.3 11.5 VELVET BEAN FEED Acme-Jones Company, Inc., Louisville, Ky. Big J Bean Meal 8443 6278' James M. Lee & Co., New Albany 8.7 4.0 4.5 19.0 19.3 Alabama Black Belt Company, Montgomery, Ala. Velvet Bean and Pod Feed Meal 8568 6809 Boonville Milling Co., Boonville 8.1 4.0 4.4 18.5 19.1 Joseph Company, Dan, Columbus, Ga. Velvet Bean Feed 8415 6172 New Castle Elevator Co., New Castle 9.0 45 4.6 19.0 18 5 Velvet Bean Feed 8415 6208 Valentine & Valentine, Franklin 8.5 4.5 5.0 19.0 20.0 Velvet Bean Feed 8415 6976 Wm. Nading Grain Co., Greensburg ... ._ ... 9.7 4.5 4.5 19.0 18.4 Diamond Brand Velvet Bean Feed 8874 8131 Lingeman, Adams & Co., Brownsburg 10.2 4.0 4.5 17.5 18.5 Diamond Brand Velvet Bean Feed 8874 8347 Valentine & Valentine, Franklin 9.0 4.0 4.2 17.5 17.7 COTTONSEED FEED Buckeye Cotton Oil Company, Cincinnati, Ohio Buco Cottonseed Feed 7965 7964 P. A. Froh, Corunna. _ 7.0 3.5 6.8 20.0 39.0 Bnco Cottonseed Feed 7965 7966 ri'arl FppVpt* ; Fnmrma. 7.0 3.5 7.1 20.0 39.2 Buco Cottonseed Feed ___ 7965 8050 Kraus & Apfelbaum, Ft. Wayne 7.3 3.5 6.8 20.0 36.9 “Buckeye” Good Cottonseed Feed ___ 8184 5495 Wm. Eesley & Co., West College Corner 6.9 5.0 6.5 36.0 35.5 “Buckeye” Good Cottonseed Feed 8184 5985 Murdock Farms Co., Morocco.. 7.4 5.0 5.7 36.0 36.7 “Buckeye” Good Cottonseed Feed 8184' 7965 Carl Becker, Corunna 6.9 5.0 7.0 36.0 37.3 “Buckeye” Good Cottonseed Feed ___ 8184 8380 0. G. Whelan, Richmond 5.6 5.0 6.6 36.0 37.5. Imperial Cotto Sales Company, Chicago, III. Imperial Cotto Brand Cottonseed Feed . 8094 6158 Edw. F. Goeke & Co., tflmperial Cotto Brand Cottonseed Evansville 6.5 3.5 3.7 20.0 21.7 Feed ___ _ 8094 6329 M. Jungles, Fair Oaks 5.8 3.5 3.2 20.0 21.2 ttlmperial Brand Cottonseed Feed 8446 5969 G. H. Hillis, Fair Oaks 7.9 4.5 6.6 35.0 35.0 ** Not registered 170 20 tons removed from sale. Relabeled with tf Not tagged. Labels furnished No. 8521. Sample consists of corn grits, 169 200 lbs. returned to mfrs. germ meal and bran from yellow and white corn i 7 i Not tagged. Manufacturer’s name could not be ascertained TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. Official Inspection D Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found Memphis Cotton Hull & Fiber Company, Ltd., Memphis, Tenn. “Cyclone” Cotton Seed Feed 8704 7970 G. E. Eberhart & Son, Dale 7.7 3.0 3.6 20.0 20.9 8704 8335 Y. T. Reid, Salem. 7.5 3.0 3.6 20.0 20.5 Southern Seed Company, Louisville, Ky. Atlas rinttnn Seed Feed 8792 8053 Edgar Colen, New Albany 8.9 3.0 3.9 2 - 0.0 22.6 Tennessee Fiber Company, Memphis, Tenn. Creamo Brand Cottonseed Feed 4952 5762 Star Mill Co., Huntingburg 8.0 4.0 3.9 20.0 20.2 Creamo Brand Cottonseed Feed. _. _ 4802 5970 Michael Jungles, Fair Oaks 7.5 4.0 3.7 20.0 21.1 Creamo Brand Cottonseed Feed 4952 6082 S. F. Trembly Co., Columbia City _ . 7.3 4.0 35 20.0 20.5 Creamo Brand Cottonseed Feed 49 ® 7707 Geo. Niemeyer & Son, Dillsboro 8.2 4.0 4.0 20.0 21.9 Creamo Brand Cottonseed Feed 8495 8044 Chas H. Porter, Rensselaer 8.2 3.5 3.7 20.0 22.2 Union Seed & Fertilizer Company, West New York, N. J. 8653 7840 Fisher Bros., Evansville _ 7.7 3 0 4.3 20.5 23.1 Columbia Cottonseed Feed 8653 8277 J. Jay Baldwin, Crown Point. 8.5 3.0 4.5 20.5 22.4 COTTONSEED MEAL Bartlett Company, The J. E., Jackson, Mich. tfFarmer Brand Straight Cotton Seed Meal 8064 5486 Richard Hagans, Greenfield 5.8 5.0 6.6 36.0 37.0 Farmer Brand Straight Cotton Seed Meal 172 8064 6068 Hammel Milling Co., Fremont- 7.8 5.0 5.6 36.0 32.4 tfFarmer Brand Straight Cotton Seed Meal 8064 6515 City Milling Co., Kendallville.. 8.2 5.0 5.7 36.0 36.1 Branch Company, T. O., Little Rock, Ark. Holstein Brand Cotton Seed Meal and Screened Cotton Seed Cake 8789 8275 A. L. Cartwright, Crown Point 7.2 6.0 6.7 36.0 39.7 Hereford Brand Cotton Seed Meal and Screened Cotton Seed Cake.. _ 8790 8321 Edward Curtner, Union City... 6.5 6.0 6.8 38.5 38.7 Makfat Brand Cotton Seed Meal and Screened Cnttnn Seed Cake 8791 8340 C. O. Fisher, Union City 6.9 6.0 7.1 41.0 38.4 Brode & Company, F. W., Memphis, Tenn. Owl Brand Cottonseed Meal 173 4840 5422 W. F. VanNatta, Fowler 7.4 6.0 6.4 41.0 39.1 Owl Brand Cottonseed Mea.l 4840 5423 J. K. Kirkpatrick, Fowler _ 7.0 6.0 6.6 41.0 41.3 Owl Brand Cottonseed Meal 4840 5494 W. E. Lowman, Mulberry 6.8 6.0 6.7 41.0 41.4 Owl Brand Cottonseed Meal 4840 ' 5574 J. H. Wright & Harry Dickey, Columbus 7.8 6.0 9.6 41.0 42.3 Owl Brand Cottonseed Meal 4840 5595 Rollin Rogers & Edward Haines, Pendleton 7.7 6.0 6.5 41.0 41.8 Owl Brand Cottonseed Meal 4840 5837 Terre Haute Cattle Co., Terre Haute 7.0 6.0 7.0 41.0 42.3 Owl Brand Cottonseed Meal 4840 6125 Tuhey Canning Co., Muncie 6.9 6.0 6.5 41.0 41.1 Owl Brand Cottonseed Meal _ 4840 6169 Wm. Raff, Conrad 7.9 6.0 6.0 41.0 41.3 Owl Brand Cottonseed Meal _ 4840 6170 Wm. Raff, Conrad 7.4 6.0 6.0 41.0 41.3 Owl Brand Cottonseed Meal 4840 6186 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., Lafayette 6.3 6.0 6.8 41.0 42.6 Owl Brand Cottonseed Meal ... 4840 6218 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., Lafayette 6.4 6.0 7.4 41.0 42.9 Owl Brand Cottonseed Meal 4840 6827 Ezra E. Rupel, Briant 6.9 6.0 7.7 41.0 41.2 Owl Brand Cottonseed Meal 4840 6954 John Brown & Son, Shelby 5.9 6.0 7.0 41.0 44.5 ttOwl Brand Cottonseed Meal 4840 7984 Wallace Milling Co., Dale 7.6 6.0 6.7 41.0 41.4 Owl Brand Cottonseed Meal 174 4840 7994 Tapp & Bridwell, Bloomington- 7.0 6.0 6.7 41.0 38.9 Owl Brand Cottonseed Meal 4840 8077 Animal Husbandry Dept., Purdue ... 7.2 6.0 6.6 41.0 42.3 Owl Brand Cottonseed Meal 4840 8147 C. G. Hunger, Madison 6.6 6.0 7.2 41.0 42.1 Dove Brand Cottonseed Meal ... 4885 5448 Barney Eders & J. W. Linkhart, North Vernon 6.5 6.0 6.5 38.6 39.5 It Not tagged. Labels furnished 173 Refund. See page 20 172 Withdrawn. Returned to mfrs. Refund. See 174 15 tons removed from sale. Relabeled No. page 20 8009. Refund. See page 20 96 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. Official Inspection D Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found Brode & Company, F. W., Memphis, Tenn. Jay Brand Cotton Seed Meal __ 7902 5372 S. J. Carroll, Logansuort 6.2 5.0 6.6 36.0 39.1 Jay Brand Cotton Seed Meal 7902 5466 Hurst & Co., Indianapolis 6.2 5.0 9.0 36.0 36.3 Jay Brand Cotton Seed Meal 7902 5521 P. Dorner & Sons Co., Frankfort — 6.6 5.0 6.1 36.0 38.0 Jay Brand Cotton Seed Meal 175 7902 6381 Probst & Kassebaum, Indianapolis _ 6.0 5.0 7.3 36.0 33.9 Jay Brand Cotton Seed Meal 176 __ 7902 6510 Oen. Steekley, Kendallville . 8.3 5.0 6.5 36.0 34 5 Jay Brand Cotton Seed Meal __ 7902 8089' Paoli Milling Co., Paoli 7.3 5.0 6.5 36.0 35.1 Jay Brand Cotton Seed Meal 7902- 8177 C‘. E. Bash & Co., Huntington. 7.2 5.0 6.3 36.0 33.5 Dove Brand Cotton Seed Meal— _ 8009 5379 Probst & Kassebaum, Indianapolis - _ . _ 7.1 6.0 6.6 38.6 33.9 8D0Q 5388 Chas H Reynolds Osgood 6.7 6.0 7.0 38.6 39.5 ffDove Brand Cotton Sepd Meal snoo 5414 Wm P Se.hrock Decatur 6.4 6.0 6.6 38.6 39.8 Dove Brand Cotton Seed Meal 8009 5429 Patrick Wade Madison 6.1 6.0 6.2 38.6 38.6 Dove Brand Cotton Seed Meal _ 8009 5442 F. N. Benton, Letts Corner 6.3 6.0 6.7 38.6 39.7 ffDove Brand Cotton Seed Meal— _ _ 8009 5449 Dr. T. J. Martin, Aurora 6.6 6.0 7.0 38.6 40.0 Dove Brand Cotton Seed Meal 8009 5621 Terre Haute Cattle Co., Terre Haute 6.6 6.0 6.9 38.6 39.8 Dove Brand Cotton Seed Meal 8309 5622 Terre Haute Cattle Co., Terre Haute 6.6 6.0 6.7 38.6 38.9 Dove Brand Cotton Seed Meal 8009 5633 Heldt, Co. Fyansville 6.2 6.0 6.9 38.6 41.9 Dove Brand Cotton Seed Meal 8009 5644 C'has. Winslow, Carthage 6.1 6.0 6.4 38.6 38.7 Dove Brand Cotton Seed Meal . 8009 5608 W. H. Small & Co., Evansville. 6.0 6.0 7.1 38.6 40.4 ffDove Brand Cotton Seed Meal __ 8009 5740 Albion Bohnert, Jasper 6.5 6.0 7.0 38.6 41.0 Dove Brand Cotton Seed Meal _ __ 8009 5745 Cen. P. Wagner .Ta.sper 6.1 6.0 6.5 38.6 38.5 Dove Brand Cotton Seed Meal 177 8009 5962 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis. 7.5 6.0 5.9 38.6 37.1 Dove Brand Cotton Seed Meal— 8009 6083 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis. 5.3 6.0 6.7 38.6 40.2 Dove Brand Cotton Seed Meal 8009 6084 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis. 6.2 6.0 6.3 38.6 40.3 Dove Brand Cotton Seed Meal 8009 6085 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis. 6.6 6.0 6.4 38.6 38.4 Dove Brand Cotton Seed Meal 8009 6120 ~F > pi ol i Milling’ TPftoli 7.8 6.0 6.0 38.6 38.4 Dove Brand Cotton Seed Meal — 8009 6122 M. T,. Miers Burney 7.2 6.0 6.8 38.6 38.7 Dove Brand Cotton Seed Meal 8009 6131 W B. Crane Rusbville 7.0 6.0 6.9 38.6 40.4 Dove Brand Cotton Seed Meal __ 8009 6132 John B. F'razee, Rushville 6.2 6.0 10.3 38.6 44.7 Dove Brand Cotton Seed Meal 8009 6176 Suckow & Co. & Valentine & Valentine, Franklin ... 6.1 6.0 7.0 38.6 39.6 Dove Brand Cotton Seed Meal 8009 6191 Bora.m &■, Fifield TTebrnn 6.0 6.0 6.7 38.6 38.8 Dove Brand Cotton Seed Meal 8009 6743 MeCoy Bros Liherty 6.0 6.0 7.6 38.6 39.2 Dove Brand Cotton Seed Meal 8009 8170 H. C. JessuD, Madison 6.2 6.0 7.0 38.6 41.1 Dove Brand Cotton Seed Meal 178 8009 8200 A. H. Hilands, Madison 6.8 6^0 6.9 38.6 38.2 Dove Brand Cotton Seed Meal 8009' 8202 T^rnpst. Smith Mftflisfm 6.8 6.0 6.9 38.6 38.2 Dove Brand Cotton Seed Meal 8009 8208 Ed. & Geo. Schuman, Madison. 6.5 6.0 6.9 38.6 40 3 Dove Brand Cotton Seed Meal 8009 8326 Fisher Fisher Nabb 6.4 6.0 6.9 38.6 38.7 ffDove Brand Cotton Seed Meal _ 8009 8351 R. V. Snepp, Lebanon 7.2 6.0 7.0 38.6 39.1 Dove Brand Cotton Seed Meal 8009 8364 Marengo Milling Co., Marengo. 6.5 6.0 6.7 38.6 39.3 Buckeye Cotton Oil Company, The, Cincinnati, Ohio “Buckeye” Prime Cottonseed Meal 5534 5789 Orabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., Burnett Company, The William A., LaFayette .... 4.8 6.0 6.4 38.6 37.9 Louisville, Ky. Burnett’s Prime Cotton Seed Meal 179 _ 7160 7877 J. M. Hornung & Sons, Greensburg ... ... ... ... 7.2 6.0 6.5 38.6 36.7 Burnett’s Prime Cotton Seed Meal 180 _ 7160 8324 Huffstetter & Gray, Nabb. 6.8 6.0 6.1 38.6 36.2 Burnett’s Prime Cotton Seed Meal 7160 8325 Huffstetter & Gray, Nabb — 6.9 6.0 5.9 38.6 38.1 Burnett’s Prime Cotton Seed Meal 7160 8391 J. & S. Emison & Co., Vincennes 6.5 6.0 8.2 38.6 38.6 Campbell & Company, 0. L., Little Rock, Ark. Double Hump Camel Brand Cotton Seed Meal l80a 7937 8357 Farmer’s Exchange, Mulberry.. 7.4 6.0 7.6 41.0 40 3 Single Hump Camel Brand Cotton Seed Meal 8031 5345 .Tay Crain Co , Mnlherry 6.2 6.0 6.7 38.5 39.8 Single Hump Camel Brand Cotton Seed Meal . „ 8031 5463 Marshall & O’Hair, Greencastle 53 6.0 7.1 38.5 39.3 tt Not tagged. Labels furnished 177 2 tons removed from sale 176 14 0/ lo tons removed from sale 178 Composited with D8202 176 2 tons removed from sale. Refund. See page 179 Refund. See page 20 20. Returned to mfgs. 180 For consumer’s own use. Refund. See page 20 18011 Refund. See page 20 97 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. Official Inspection D Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed j Found Campbell & Company, C. L., Little Rock, Ark. Single Hump Camel Brand Cotton Seed Meal __ 8031 6119 .Tay Grain C,n ., Mulberry 5.5 6.0 6.4 38.5 38.6 Baby Camel Brand Cotton Seed Meal- 8144 5893 Goodrich Bros. Hay & Grain tfBaby Camel Brand Cotton Seed Co., Winchester _ 6.4 6.0 7.4 36.0 35.7 Meal 181 8144 7025 Berry Bros., Lynn 8.0 6.0 6.7 36.0 33.9 Chicago Heights Oil M’f’g. Company, Chicago, 111. “Prize” Brand Cottonseed Meal 8000 5984 Wm. Kessler, Morocco 7.6 6.0 6.4 38.5 37.7 Choctaw Sales Company, Kansas City, Mo. “Choctaw Quality” Cottonseed Meal and Cake __ . _ - 7176 5973; J. J. Lawler, Rensselaer 7.2 6.0 6.3 43.0 44.6 “Choctaw Quality” Cottonseed Meal and Cake ___ . _ _ 7176 5978 Thos. Lang, Rensselaer 6.0 6.0 7.1 43.0 44.3 “Choctaw Quality” Cottonseed Meal and Cake 182 _ - 7176 6057 tL Brown & Son, Shelby 5.3 6.0 7.3 43.0 40.1 “Choctaw Quality” Cottonseed Meal and Cake __ 7176 6105 J. J. Lawler, Rensselaer 7.3 6.0 6.0 43.0 44.2 “Choctaw Quality” Cottonseed Meal and Cake _ __ _ ___ 7176 6100 J. J. Lawler, Pair Oaks 6.0 6.0 8.3 43.0 44.2 Choctaw Standard Cottonseed Meal and Cake 183 ___ 7177 5501 Edw. J. Randle, Moody 6.8 6.0 5.7 41.0 39.0 Choctaw Standard Cottonseed Meal and Cake _ 7177 5682 D L. Trout,, T,pe 6.1 6.0 7.2 41.0 41.3 Choctaw Standard Cottonseed Meal and Cake ___ _ _ 7177 6014 Geo. W. Hinkle, New Ross 5.4 6.0 8.7 41.0 40 6 Choctaw Standard Cottonseed Meal and Cake ___ 7177 6180 D. L. Trout, Lee 6.6 6.0 7.3 41.0 42.0 Choctaw Prime Cottonseed Meal and Cake 8159 5508 •T. S. Minch, Chalmers 5.8 5.0 5.7 38.5 39.4 Cottonseed Products Company, The, Louisville, Ky. Good Cottonseed Meal 184 7981 7988 Charlestown Milling Co., Charlestown __ _ 8.3 6.0 6.6 36.0 34.7 Good Cottonseed Meal 7981 8033 New Albany Milling Co., New Albany 7.4 6.0 7.0 36.0 37.5 Good Cottonseed Meal 185 7981 8041 John H. Shine & Co., New Albany ___ - 6.7 6.0 6.7 36.0 35.2 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Company, Lafayette, Ind. Crescent Brand Cotton Seed Meal 2765 6141 Manufacturers 5.2 7.5 7.3 41.0 47.2 ft Crescent Brand Cotton Seed Meal_ 2765 7851 Manufacturers _ 6.0 7.5 8.0 41.0 43.9 ttCrescent Brand Cotton Seed Meal 2765 8076 Homer Dresbach & Ernest Stotton, Chalmers 6.3 7.5 7.8 41.0 44.4 Davis, S. P., Little Rock, Ark. Good Luck Brand Cottonseed Meal... 6671 5424 M. S. Strawn, Scircleville 7.1 6.0 6.7 41.0 42.1 Good Luck Brand Cottonseed Meal 0671 5643 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., Crawfordsville _ 6.6 6.0 7.0 41.0 44.6 Good Luck Brand Cottonseed Meal 0671 5645 Thomas Wilkins, Linden 5.9 6.0 6.7 41.0 42.5 Good Luck Brand Cottonseed Meal— 6671 6019 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., Crawfordsville 6.1 6.0 7.0 41.0 41.9 Good Luck Brand Cottonseed Meal 6671 6110 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., Crawfordsville 5.9 6.0 7.1 41.0 43.8 Good Luck Brand Cottonseed Meal 0071 6159 Majestic Distillery, Terre Haute. 7.0 6.0 6.8 41.0 41.8 Veribest Brand Cottonseed Meal 74321 5580 Klondike Milling Co., Danville.. 6.3 6.0 6.5 38.5 38.7 Veribest Brand Cottonseed Meal 7482 5764 The Farmers Mill, Huntingburg 6.6 6.0 5.7 38.5 38.7 Veribest Brand Cottonseed Meal 186 ___ 7432 5974 Suckow Co., Franklin 5.0 6.0 5.8 38.5 37.4 tfBeauty Brand Cottonseed Meal and Cracked Screened Cake 8152 5498 Sam Leni, Marion 6.4 6.0 6.8 36.0 35.5 Beauty Brand Cottonseed Meal and Cracked Screened Cake 1 8152 8134 W. E. Griner & Son, Middlebury 6.2 6.0 6.7 36.0 37.6 - See page 20 11 400 lbs. removed from sale. Refund. See page 184 19 tons removed from sale. 20 See page 20 1 2 Refund. See page 20 185 Refund. See page 20 186 Refund. See page 20 Relabeled. Refund. 9 8 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. Is o JE o c _o u a M CD c 1 % O § 73 g A* gS O CS C 1 Davis, S. P., Little Rock, Ark. ' Good Luck Brand Cottonseed Meal and Cracked Screened Cake 8438 6153 Ora L. Loveless, Clarks Hill 6.2 6.0 7.0 41.0 43.7 Good Luck Brand Cottonseed Meal 8438 8266 H. C. Vestal, Montezuma __ __ _ 6.3 6.0 8.2 41.0 40.5 East St. Louis Oil Company, National Stock Yards, 111. East St. Louis Brand Cotton Seed Meal 6258 5086 L. E. Simpson, Vincennes 6.2 6.0 6.1 38.5 41.9 East St. Louis Brand Cotton Seed Meal 6258 6010 Goshen Milling Co., Goshen ___ 6.3 6.0 6.3 38.5 41.3 East St. Louis Brand Cotton Seed Meal 6298 6520 Goshen Milling Co., Goshen 7.8 6.0 5.7 38.5 33.0 East St. Louis Brand Cotton Seed Meal 6258 7216 J. W. Emison, Bruceville 7.9 6.0' 5.9 38.5 39.8 East St. Louis Brand Cotton Seed Meal 6268 8015 Salem Co-operative Assoc., tfEast St. Louis Brand Cotton Seed Salem 7.2 6.0 6.2 38.5 39.0 MeaU87 6258 8138 Walter Scranage, Goshen 6.7 6.0 6.6 38.5 38.0 East St. Louis Brand Cotton Seed Meal 6258 8139 J. J. Zollinger, Goshen 6.7 6.0 6.6 38.5 38.0 East St. Louis Brand Cotton Seed Meal 6258 8361 Tower & Merriman, Marengo 6.3 6.0 6.9 38.5 39.7 ttlllinois Brand Cotton Seed Meal 7091 7771 J. J. Lawler, Fair Oaks 7.1 6.0 6.1 41.0 40.5 tflllinois Brand Cotton Seed Meal 7091 7772 J. J. Lawler, Pleasant Ridge 6.7 6.0 6.3 41.0 41.6 St. Clair Brand Cotton Seed Meal 8859 8312 J. M. Hammond, Milltown _ 6.9 5.0 6.3 36.0 36.4 ffSt, rilair Brand Clntton Sped Meal 8859 8393 L. C. Simpson, Vincennes 6.3 5.0 5.9 36.0 37.7 Eberts, H. F. H., Little Rock, Ark. Milko Brand Cottonseed Meal 7428 5491 Vincennes Feed & Produce Co., Vincennes 6.7 5.5 6.5 38.6 40.1 Milko Brand Cottonseed Meal 188 7428 5573 Silas Y. Hardwick, Danville 8.1 5.5 5.9 38.6 36.5 Milko Brand Cottonseed Meal 7428 5703 Roth Bros., Rensselaer 4.4 5.5 6.6 38.6 39.2 ffMilkn Brand Cnt.tnnsepd Mpa.l 7428 5718 E. A. Kitchel, Kitchel 7.4 5.5 6.7 38.6 40.1 Milko Brand Cotton sppd Mpal 7428 5719 E. A. Kitchel, Kitchel 6.1 5.5 5.9 38.6 38.3 Milko Brand Cottonseed Meal 7428 5739 (1) Suckow Co., Franklin 6.7 5.5 6.1 38.6 42.0 Milko Brand rSottonseed Meal 7428 5739 (2) Suckow Co., Franklin .. 6.7 5.5 6.1 38.6 42.0 Milko Brand Cottonseed Meal 7428 5758 Ira L. Pritchard, Edinburg . ___ 8.0 5.5 6.2 38.6 38.7 tfMilko Brand Cottonseed Meal 7428 5787 J. B. Harrell & Son, Fairland-- 7.0 5.5 6.7 38.6 40.4 Milko Brand Cottonseed Meal 7428 5829 Valentine & Valentine, Franklin 6.2 5.5 6.5 38.6 40.4 tfMilko Brand Cottonseed Meal 7428 5830 Trafalgar Grain Co., Trafalgar 7.5 5.5 6.7 38.6 40.1 Milko Brand Cottonseed Meal 7428 5832 Valentine & Valentine, Franklin 7.6 5.5 6.2 38.6 39.6 Milko Brand Cottonseed Meal 7428 5964 Hurst & Co., Indianapolis 6.4 5.5 6.4 38.6 39.3 Milko Brand Cottonseed Meal 189 _ . 7428 5965 Hurst & Co., Indianapolis 8.9 5.5 6.5 38.6 37.3 Milko Brand Cottonseed Meal 7428 5971 Ed. Myers, Danville 6.0 5.5 6.5 38.6 40.1 tfMilko Brand Cottonseed Meal 7428 5972 Valentine & Valentine, Franklin 7.0 5.5 6.2 38.6 39.5 tfMilko Brand Cottonseed Meal 7428 6021 Jos. H. Mullendore, Franklin 5.8 5.5 6.2 38.6 38.0 Milko Brand Cottonseed Meal 7428 6078 Hurst & Co., Indianapolis 7.0 5.5 6.3 38.6 37.7 Milko Brand Cottonseed Meal 7428 6123 Chas. Gartin, Burney 7.9 5.5 7.0 38.6 41.8 tfMilko Brand Cottonseed Meal 7428 6136 A. J. Mable, Connersville 7.2 5.5 6.4 38.6 38.4 Milko Brand Cottonseed Meal 7428 6487 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis. 8.0 5.5 6.9 38.6 40.0 Milko Brand Cottonseed Meal 7428 7346 Indiana Seed Co., Indianapolis. 7.5 5.5 7.0 38.6 38.2 Bossy Brand Cotton Seed Meal 8133 6012 Lingeman, Adams & Co., Brownsburg 5.9 5.0 6.8 36.0 38.5 Bossy Brand Cotton Seed Meal 8133 6121 W. S. Smiley, Burney 8.4 5.0 6.7 36.0 37.4 Edinger & Company, Louisville, Ky. E-Co Cotton Seed Meal 8053 5875 Scottsburg Milling Co., Scottsburg 7.9 6.0 7.0 36.0 36.4 E-Co Cotton Seed Meal 8053 6300 Pickens & Brengle, Orleans 5.5 6.0 6.4 36.0 37.7 E-Co Cotton Seed Meal 8053 6732 Salem Co-operative Assoc., Salem 6.6 6.0 6.3 36.0 37.0 E-Co Cotton Seed Meal S053 8109 Orleans Mill & Elevator Co., Orleans 6.7 6.0 6.2 36.0 33.8 Eldred Mill Company, Jackson, Mich. Gusto Brand Cotton Seed Meal 8125 5717 Omer G. Whelan , Richmond 5.2 5.0 7.1 36.0 36.0 Feeders Supply Company, Kansas City, Mo. tt“Equity Brand” Cotton Seed Meal 6167 6103 J. J. Lawler, Pleasant Ridge 6.1 6.0 7.4 41.0 43.6 “Equity Brand” Red Tag Cotton Seed Meal and Cake 7690 5678' W. H. Webb, Inglefield 6.3 5.0 7.5 38.6 39.0 Goodrich Bros. Hay & Grain Company, Winchester, Ind. Magic Cottonseed Meal 7317 6195 Manufacturers 7.7 6.0 8.5 36.0 38.3 ft Not tagged. Labels furnished 188 Refund. See page 20 Composited with D8139 189 Between 4 and 5 tons removed from sale 99 TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. Official Inspection D Guar- anteed Found 1 Guar- anteed TJ G g Gronauer & Company, Gus, Memphis, Tenn. “Daisy Brand” Cottonseed Meal___ 7966 5687 Frank Adams, Montezuma 5.0 6.0 7.2 38.6 40.1 Hayes Grain & Commission Company, Little Rock, Ark. Arkansaw Brand Cotton Seed MeaL_. 8825 7993 Bloomington Milling Co., Bloomington .... 7.1 5.0 6.6 36.0 36.0 Hopkins Fertilizer Company, New Albany, Tnd. Cotton Seed Meal _ 8458 6275 New Albany Milling Co., New Albany _ 8.8 5.0 7.1 36.0 37.1 Cotton Seed Meal 8450 6276 John H. Shine & Co., New Albany 9.5 5.0 7.2 36.0 37.2 8450 6731 O T, Oanhlc, Pekin 8.5 5.0 7.3 36.0 36.3 Humphreys, Godwin Company, Memphis, Tenn. Dixie Brand Cottonseed Meal 5064 5552 Robert Bailey, Wabash 6.4 6.0 6.2 41.0 41.8 5064 6112 H. E. Pitman, Bedford 8.1 6.0 7.0 41.0 40.4 5064 6113 Miles Standish, Bedford 7.5 6.0 6.5 41.0 40.4 Forfat Brand Cottonseed Meal 7116 5381 Indiana Seed Co., Indianapolis. 5.3 6.0 7.1 38.5 38.4 Forfat Brand Cottonseed Meal 7116 5382 Indiana Seed Co., Indianapolis. 5.7 6.0 7.1 38.5 38.8 Forfat Brand Cottonseed Meal 7116 5383 Indiana Seed Co., Indianapolis. 5.4 6.0 6.7 38.5 38.5 Forfat Brand Cottonseed Meal 7116 5415 Judson Creamery & Produce Co., North Judson 6.5 6.0 7.3 38.5 39.3 Forfat Brand Cottonseed Meal 7110 5417 Judson Creamery & Produce Co., North Judson ._. 6.6 6.0 7.2 38.5 38.5 Forfat Brand Cottonseed Meal _ 7116 5520 S. A. Bryan & H. R. Smith, Rossville ._ ... 6.3 6.0 7.2 38.5 38.5 Forfat Brand Cottonseed Meal 190 7116 5522 Willard Milner, Frankfort 7.0 6.0 6.0 38.5 37.7 Forfat Brand Cottonseed Meal 7116 5524 J. H. Harper, Sharpsville 6.0 6.0 7.0 38.5 41.8 Forfat Brand Cottonseed Meal _ 7116 5525 J. H. Harper, Sharpsville 5.8 6.0 7.4 38.5 41.0 Forfat Brand Cottonseed Meal 7110 5588 J. H. Leonard, Sullivan 6.5 6.0 6.8 38.5 38.7 Forfat Brand Cottonseed Meal 191 7116 5594 G. W. Robbins & John F. Allen, Sullivan 6.8 6.0 6.7 38.5 37.7 Forfat Brand Cottonseed Meal 7116 5749 Farmers Supply Co., Spencer 5.4 6.0 7.0 38.5 38.9 Forfat Brand Cottonseed Meal 7110 6001 Davis Grain Co.. Clarks Hill 7.3 6.0 7.1 38.5 39.0 Forfat Brand Cottonseed Meal 7110 6050 J. E. Remley & Son, Waynetown 6.7 6.0 7.0 38.5 38.6 Forfat Brand Cottonseed Meal 7116 6489 Hurst & Co., Indianapolis 8.1 6.0 8.1 38.5 39.6 Forfat Brand Cottonseed Meal 7116 7116 Hurst & Co., Columbus 7.8 6.0 7.7 38 5 40.5 Forfat Brand Cottonseed Meal 7110 8212 Orabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., Lafayette 5.4 6.0 7.6 38.5 40.0 Danish Brand Cottonseed Meal 7178 5592 Omer G. Whelan, Richmond 7.1 5.0 6.5 36.0 36.5 Danish Brand Cottonseed Meal 7178 7813 The Heldt Co., Evansville 6.4 5.0 6.1 36.0 36.5 Imperial Cotto Milling Company, The, Chicago, 111. Imperial Brand Cottonseed Meal 192 __ 7307 5390 W. P. Neel, Holton 7.3 5.5 6.5 36.0 35.5 Imperial Cotto Sales Company, Chicago, 111. ttlmperial Brand Cottonseed Meal 8091 5502 R. B. Tolin, Fair Oaks _ 6.8 5.0 7.6 36.0 36.2 ttlmperial Brand Cottonseed Meal 8091 5505 Hartman & Dotterer, Bluffton. 6.5 5.0 6.5 36.0 38.3 ttlmperial Brand Cottonseed Meal 8091 5968 H. G. Hillis, Fair Oaks 6.9 5.0 8.3 36.0 35.1 ttlmperial Brand Cottonseed Meal 8091 6104 J. J. Totten & Son, Flat Rock.. 7.5 5.0 7.9 36.0 37.5 Imperial Brand Cottonseed Meal 8091 6209 H. A. Stewart, Hope 7.3 5.0 7.8 36.0 37.5 ttlmperial Brand Cottonseed Meal 8091 8122 H. O. Greene, Goshen 6.8 5.0 5.2 36.0 35.8 ttlmperial Brand Cottonseed Meal 8091 8123 E. D. Logan, Goshen 6.7 5.0 5.5 36.0 36.0 ttlmperial Brand Cottonseed Meal 8091 8124 Bert Stutsman, Goshen 6.6 5.0 5.3 36.0 35.9 Imperial Brand Cottonseed Meal 8091 8278 J. Jay Baldwin, Crown Point... 6.7 5.0 7.1 36.0 36.3 Imperial Cotto Brand Choice Cotton- seed Meal __ ___ ... 8092 8377 fins Weyle, Ecnnnmy 6.5 6.0 6.5 41.0 41.3 ttlmperial Cotto Brand Choice Cotton- seed Meal . _ 8092 8378 Frank O. Cain Economy 6.6 6.0 6.4 41.0 42.6 Imperial Cotto Brand Prime Cotton- seed Meal . ... ._ 8093 5509 C. W. Brackney, Brookston 5.9 5.0 7.5 38.5 39.9 * Not tagged i»i Refund. See page 20 tl Not tagged. Labels furnished 1024 tons removed from sale. Refund. See page 20 190 Refund. See page 20 100 TABLE IV.— Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Label Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. [3 ‘3 se o Inspection D Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed j Found Imperial Ootto Sales Company, Chicago, 111. tflmperial Ootto Brand Prime Cotton- seed Meal _ 8093 5995 John W. Johnson, Goodland 6.7 5.0 6.0 38.5 40.1 Imperial Cotto Brand Prime Cotton- seed Meal 8093 6126 Arthur Cecil & Sons, Muncie 6.4 5.0 7.3 38.5 39.4 Imperial Ootto Brand Prime Cotton- seed Meal _ 8093 6127 Arthur Cecil & Sons, Selma 6.5 5.0 7.6 3S.5 38.5 Imperial Cotto Brand Prime Cotton- seed Meal ___ 8093 8355 John E. Wilson, Wingate 7.4 5.0 6.7 38.5 39.6 Imperial Cotto Brand Extra Choice 8401 8042 A. T. Brown, Mnnnn 7.2 8.5 8.1 43.0 47.0 Imperial Cotto Brand Extra Choice 8401 8043 ,T C. Brown, Mon on 7.0 8.5 7.4 43.0 47.7 tflmperial Cotto Brand Extra Choice 8401 8047 W, N, Mopply, Frfvnep>3-> r| 0 d S I° §'■*1 -s® •P ^ ctf fQ O o o u O Ed +» d , J3 Sh *' o 8 O CJ rd . Ph d • «3 IlSS _ > 6a ^ o * to-d-s ” bn s a g I .S s ^ S gSg c - fl ■“ 1 § g to >» S- 0 ' *2 (D^j- ri rQ r* to eo -*+e 03 ° d ^ fl, ^ w O^P U o i d?» , d rH 03 d 03 ^3 ,isj _ m d oC«o 3 ds-gdp i-, o 2 u t-> U O $ U V PP 5 S ** d 8 5J ft — *0 £ >■ d 03 D s > 03- a d . 03 br ® d 03 >■ d 'O c bn ,rt ft d _ g *> ^3 ? d ® to C H W H 60 hh 0 00 d CO 00 CO d rj +J (O to to ^3 d -.h tDtcto S^dd tototfi^^bfiS — < 03 03 ?aa « d d 01 CO 03 03 03 d'dsd'd - o o © o © o ©©©■©© CO lnioiomio© (JO 03 C<3 O’ 03 'tdH : t~ CO to 03 : CO ^ IS > 33 S§£»2 P* 0,0 w ^ ^ x: £1 p c3 ^coco d W . . d w 03 o ° “3 H §3 : to rL SHhlOh <1 o „ Ph d 33 ^ tuo i cgagCC -g W to 4 ^ i BT3HO Sh g to' Fc] ?SSoc 5 O ” S-s a H ^. d o *h O-W 4) +3 ba-^ be d p | SO a o . °Oft O K 1 d : o d |d l.“ o o i’sS§§ ;^o.^ 1 g'S'^ ^ |§^s“ to Sh d 03 ai«° 6>?oo g s§ g2 © -itt t- to co ® ©fo. liliil SISI! CO © to c^ 00 ^5 OOcSDoOoDoD q? a? CD CD PH a .g 5 ’S a . o to «<5 03 O'ft r° w o ggSS rC rT “ “3 HR » 05 05 >> A C/i s«s& d d *3 gjM-s S 5 § § ft O Q 03 03 05 & *3 a tq C H o 1 ^ NN | | s 05 g * d ° r S 6 03 Q "S d d c qj ° gpq cm 'C'O S.03 PhPh be o.d a-R o £ WM io9 fi 3 .-s 33 iS -p ft o "So .2 fl d ^ tO C S: co co 00 d r -5 ^ 00 oo CO C 5 ^ LO U3 IO ^ ? oa £o •5 S ° £ ft O d P ~ 3 d 8 ■a «S d o 3 8 S 8 : ft ft O w eo d » - ftM > ft ft rt O 60ft _ Oifl ft' O 0) ft af , to to M j to W .Q d d d 2 o ft _ O O O : ft 2 d 8 8 8 j o im o ^ oj ^ 50 tOtOtO P o' 3ft' ft cl O d 8 d « d Jh to o QQft. w X o c bo !h .8 2 d • co . 2 d tj W © >>iS ^ d c ^ d 8 - _o> S 3 © ftd I* c « .8 ® S o SW- © r- gco < © © - - 'gSdS 500 g ' s 9 G O S w r -a o O -© Ph O gf 25 r c3 p5 w -j- O -Sl w a ring's & • S .00.5 o^K'g'p _§ ©^ g a E-i *fS i-3 P-t ,— 1 ^«Is «S°o W O © o X3 O .20 ft . ©ft to . * O P p:d ftft P’3 Oft fl © ft 3 5 d do © © S 2 ftft oo ii m ® Cl © © iiii Sfe -■3 © 0J rX ® d ft © © © Rr. ftftft^ t>. >. P. ^ ft ft a cs > a; ^ +_r >ft ©p © o to<$ OO o o © © a. a « >1 f© a © d S ft ft a >1 O n O ’3 60 fi .a >. rd d) ft 03 s^ t ' d 5 P" *-§ r^O M ft Not tagged. Labels furnished 217 Conflicting guarantees no p c$ 000000 o 4 ) C 33 ■iaio -tomtotoaKD g - eS to ifi " ia io io io in io g j; jj 10 SPPPPPP 8* o 8 op w w 0 d ctf ctf oj ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 'd 'd p & d a saagEBpg- c § §3 a Ma 3a3co3rfrtJ^ £lil J;* J ' c ‘rf UWttHCWtOtfiO 0 CQ « 5 n « « S^sg Oi^ ^ ^ ’P . ,Q co cS CD f- c« O S 3 S M © +j ^ M .3 23 O £ C o P 4-J (X) Sh £3 Ch 03 H m o H o O S a> O 43 O q_i _. 3 ^ 'O ^ ’D --< i i 33 fl :i q,B S a = 3 « B S p. 9 ^ ■O r x) r q O o on » h OqO a o S 6100 Si 3 ^ h m ?>.N ! 03 o r \B o jfl .fl ! 3" «8 3 n a 9 OjjOO . ^ > go« .22 cd 3 ^ . 0 >ica i O rl iO-S o^ §3 hgqgO oW 8 Mc« ' , ffl ^ >> ^ SB 59 “CC 002 3 O 02 S 33 p: t> t> to co ri a > > MH CD q) a ft sh q 03 03 ww ft ft Ch tH 03 Ci MM I ^ \ > S S < . vjs U5 cs> y? tr i ss^^sis i 03 > 33 ”33 M © > ® > 33HgP Eh .Eh M O o o MM bo bo MM M ^4 bo m k m ca . O fl. w OS rQ _. bo p 00 33 M « 3 3 ^ S 3 5 S ffl o o 3 .M M rv ^ n P P o s2 S °l6 o 2? s M Molasses Food Coi III WOH c4 >d o Q © c © S w +j s o « cs O w 50 k. ® > bo O c$ ~ M . C fc< aj P ■*-> O > © 3 •§ . cd P ,Q O - SfcJ ^ T3 S 1 © C « es ■a ® ©m. §»-«« 5 ® 'O 2 © o ® 'SOg « 6 « - © cd ^ 2 O ft cd cd cd t> W 02 03 V -d . © f-> © s to o c C gj >» C ® d t - 1 o cd c n ®*°°ns^ bOi-H ,-1 JO 05 d °o 5300 C _ C3 dfiQ «Q ra cd cd g, cd bo ®* c®® u ® = a b © g ft cd cd S cd MW M 05 05 00 00 ICO ITS 1 PPI © <10 s a ° . 2 fifi £ ^05 00 g g gj05 05 05 00 LO ~ Wo °oooo g l_0 CS UJ ^ tO LO LO 5 )P BpP btp gppp g w W t» « J3 ft ft 05 © ^ © © ■g ao ce 2 e - c -a « 5^3® £ ft, cgfio§ ■ -m cs 2 S cs 05 S* 0 "' 6 ® •>* ■*»< S ©I 00 W 00 05 05 ^ BSLra^io^aoooo a © oujio 0 Sq Sfi = QQ tn "g cd cd ft ® -w g-d 2 ® a ® s ® a « EdJ5 Sc id M M M © +a © rrt © © © as a® a a a cd pfi cd *« cd cd cd M W M M M asg cd cd M M -3 © — © © «6®sa ® cd * cd cd M MM 14.1 14.2 11.2 14.8 24.8 23.8 24.1 22.6 00 S3 19.6 22.4 24.9 24 3 23.9 24.0 csi CVJ 22.9 23 8 23.0 23.1 a oco ^ CO T44 05* O d d 05 00 05 05 d 06 00 ’ 05 00 00 00 OO* od od od s i l* U3 s s <© e> . >5 )M S bo CO M a o © .-. ^ J3 >5 S ffl © « S g § ^2 Pi-G ^ a ® u O O tn « a 00 o <0 ~-§ Q M O t-S © bo . C © I o g | |U)^ • © I ,g p,<5 g 1 a S « o >5 3 .•gffl 2©^- huo S CQ O C/3 §«ss . p © ^^ ^02 ■3 o 00 c a o o "C 'C od cd 6 d CO MM £3 72 53 g >J f-d C3 . P3Q co^ ss 3 >> © £ 2 2 °C gSS o S o O o ® Cd 02 - - §Ph EH H :8 Si :£ SFi 8^ a 8 2m o> cc r( a o a> o ac ^ «w, S««f ^3 Wg^S^ ^52g^ *h © S cd od © ft ri 50 OjGOflg Kpqo 1 ' 3 i 9 ° ] O bo I bo -9 |§3 f ! gS o ig w ^ 1 ^ a .S 1 o a c3 C3 M dCC-o 5«e g ft » g ; cc m □ 3 g 3 od og 3 • - “ ^ 9 s i«la|p!| £ *«! s © |l| saw a ° . co > tr ^ i» ® :e fc t-H ^ ^ 1 si EEEE 11 fe O - 1=3 O o« bo . *8 S^-o ■3 • OJ Ph -C > a> 20|m 3 w m i> /- 1 > f- fc- t- p.F-f- i’S ' 2 ’ 2 ' 2 'S -a -a © © © © jM MMMM MM M M 1 tuo bo bfi bo bo bfl 54) bn be «+H O OOOO O O O 0 SW wwww ww WW ^a a a a a a a a a A.S 3P33 n p ■§ a a a a a a a a a © 0 0 0 a; g © © 05 05 OM Ph Ph Ph p-i MM MM ^3 T3 © © © © Mm bo bo o o WK as 3 3 a a © © >H Jh MM d3 r O 'O © © © © © © M M M bo bo bo OOO WWK aaa 333 MMM 73 73 73 CD O) Oi a> _QC '*-* a t> m d 0> fcj S .a P T3 - r ” p w 13 ft © H £ ® 2 .(j o^ 3 *3 S ”p, g •« -a . - p. bO O ” ” p p s a a .. . +* © w O -M °S? ;p3® © ;**g s i p ■** pg > w o o 5 +j * be W cq cd o.S” - 1 .S ■ jgoSJ* ■ 'P pj to 'P id « 'P g£gg >d b ts » S®P P.+-* a CO "5 Mg rP^^ 4 Pp-PP!iP 2 k > Cj t> MM o bb OSs p a « d ter P © ^ -f ^ « © _4 a P '*-* 5 © .03 © P H ® (<5 B cd p v, j. g»§2S p£»^ r& Cd 3 6 # 7 b £ P -P'S . 2 d ° # p - ^ ^ (h •pPQSo O X >» s -j» • -II 5 sf*!: C ft = S , p © .. +J- o a S*«,§ (u _, w ® d "P © s ,S«Sb d fc 2 J C" ib ™ ^-pf-d ^ u a © o 1 13“ I ^la-s . '-> © s F-p 2 >> a d 4 ! rP f n 2 ©W •pi*a cd +f v O © flOlh SC ” sis _ a v °%£ c2 5 M -+S ©.S p 'O © © S*d« 6 fcS punoj paa ^ u-e -aeno puno ^ paa^ui 3 -aeno *^uao aad 0 an^sioj\[ a uopoodsuj IbioijjO 3 »§«ac5| |f Sosa a s-d >, sh cu P fH od © “SMSfHiHW ft O 1 1 1 1 H a j 1 1 1 id ! CD © 0 a O | 03 © PS 0 0 a a ! ^ is i © 0 © 0 0 s 0 r >> * Ph w "te. s 6 1 I p ! So 1 a ; ! Eh | d d a Eh d O s O | Sh j ! §3 ! ta | *2 | 0 O 2 be a" 0 O 1 4-> 1 ! fl 1 0 ! be be 0 a m ^ ! > 1 03 > !R ! .a .a a >> a =8 (V s s co O P2 a pp >> a) t y a a w ^ § S g 1 a H g SoPd °<5^o m ui £3 72 so? a n M im ^ >. O a> KK a'g ^ a a | a a PhW a a f=h mw M S Btfli. S ?5 a 'S a -p a^< a^< a^H PQ W cq a£ a^ a^H PQ W « o ^JTS a o a .© 0.^1 o w O © be ^ is Sts 2* 3 ^ o >> . 1 I s i a~° O fl-c 0.2 © •9 m Sa o 1 1 x 3 S §11 p fl) « « (U-'g g « i « ^ bfi'd'S fl Si 44 flaga Sh +» ' 60 ~ S'® C3,g 4) +j *s a ^ 2 41 w t*«3 S3 Sh C3 •" d) -* » a> 2 C A S^‘3 g « 33 4) £ © p •2 <2 bfl bo | Q M X S3 wTS CS © p V 0) -»-» .P V S ^ M Sm fi 60 bo fl 'g S3 fl * s s * g tn o ^ § *1 5 |“a« °£|§? •- .S w 2 6 ■ bJO O fl . fl X g fl © £ a® „ CO __; ft w O 05 1 © w c © ® fl S P A 'S * ■<-> B ci b ** H il i fl s3 fl o +j P i S O M ” © - flxgsS P A c3 <*< d go - S3 S S£ A fl fl 5* •° © fl ~ M ® Cj © c-l o 'fl «$ rj © fl r; £ as o >>"3 A* £ 5'0'3’es S ofl o ® S 1 °£-gg — I S Hi fl a aj 4) to fl , 'fl a> s o a -fl rs p 0, rf « - S | 5 |sl ijfis d a S.5 g « 5c u - fl vS> — ^ 6^ o -. ,Do fl ' ' 00 'fl -fl 5 V o •r 2 2 £- "“ C 'w 4J S. C u -M C ^ 3 1 § 53 « S .2 3 -M (- O p -fl Jh 0 ) p< ^ « w t L* p a) j, . ^ V •'I cd (P 2 22 Q 27.9 28.0 27.0 26.2 27.9 10.5 1 10.2 10.7 12.2 CO o CM 19.0 Oil 19.2 19.9 26.0 o *p 6vl 26.0 26.0 o 8 O 00 12.0 o o 11.5 22.0 22.0 12.0 20.2 20.2 05 CO CO T-j CO r— CO J>- mH r- CO O id x> cd i> id 00 c4 cd cm’ id cd lO LO lO LO io o O o O o o o CO CO id id id id id (>i cd cd cd ^5 id id CO nj go IO CO t- 00 m i>; CO °q 00 i> 05 1> rH o cd oo 00 1-1 1-1 rH > ® 3«1 «i . ^ s Sh fl QJ cd IS Ph ip s s 1 I SM Bb «8 fl .S3 x& oi 03 03 KK CS C3 fifi &p TO V a> P fl) ® 8 flpH ft ° "S ° aS ® • A - i“ gi* nSSa 03 03 . O B 8 o B Bfl 60 03 5 i >5 ai •S° o 2-siW 33 fl Jj fl'3 QJ g.B« •30 o .9 * O o ft Not tagged. Labels furnished 227 5 tons withdrawn from sail !25 3 tons removed from sale. Returned to mfrs. Refund. See page 20 228 700 lbs. removed from sale !26 1500 lbs. removed from sale. Returned to mfrs. Refund. See page 20 229 Refund, See page 20 ii 4 cS 'S “ S.2 g S a cd ^ a a |Ss o ^ § .2 g o a 2 a ft <13. S a 'O QJ O g 3? u &2. P Cd y S'" 2 '»' CD puno^ pao^uu -aeno puno^ paa^ire -aeao •}uaa jad aanjsioj/^ a uoiioadsuj IBiaipO S3 » © 53 3 bd >» 3 c$ 73 cj at mic meal t hull! ■» o » 3 M CQ w cj 3 cj pQ W M III 03 •'H Cd 4J O ® S ft oats, co screenin o ft M o a “ a a 41 O m . rolled c ses es nd oats ^!g « ^ a S £ <13 a <13 ft O ft U © © © O © o ©©©©©© t>> cd y CD a o a >( s M Wgj cd O ft d ft >3 cd <13 5 W 1 o aO o d 173 03 C3 ^ wo fi* fe • fe £ fi >-g w 6 ° 5 -£ g OS'S O 03 TOg £&T gE ffl cd s! A -73 be E 3 g2op °-e<« w ►.n a ® 03 Q3 Cd fl a ode c? a 3ft SI aa •Si w m > > o fl “ “ cd cd C fi > > « * K «S 6 c5S 3 ! X3 5fl 1 Cl ^3 "S Q P M M J* oOS § §«<«- vi m ' y ' x SSss sd S3 CO £Z2 opoc . . 03 03 td tri S3 cd HH t>i >1 I o aa ‘ o OO | , >>$16 is oEHh 0 Jg EhoToTu, .g g n a) ►> e O Pa+ju^ 03 co oq a c s « 03 03 03 § S !> ^ 03 g ® W ^ ^ M s§«gS| |00^ g 3 g 03 . • 2 Eh OiPh P4 8 888iofetsi S I CO Jt- Lft nil l u i 1® is is® i i 2 d Cfo <33 ft © ® ft ft Si -h< -+«'0<^hh§151 5 0 12 d lfl lA tn 1 ft © lid £R I® i! iSS ^ !88 I S 03 « d^H 'O h-l a^S o K >3^ g : e e a o o £h W tfi Q -oo ^ O Sh e - MOO ns fi CO 03 fi 'd 03 03 03 03 U PR O 03® 2 ►» 0'S w-§ 03 W O 03 O o tH-d _ QJ QJ r O C a) oj w 0323 a o o ° td ^ Vi ^ ixi P l-H *C ks bjo |3 > sss a) qo o 'O n o - o c ® S 3 ^ „ n S •% S « 5 -d U 4 J bx-P p a; ^ 6.2 g _ 1 ^ w O ?H O (1) 0 > t-H £§£ -d £ Q S £ R d o o o d bo to Q > O U £ 0 ?» 0 (j O UM . i a M - io LO io £ 5 « fi ft fl d g O W » ® M © ^ W Cti Ctf Ctf 02 d fi ^ r- r— , CD (D (D o <0 £ § 6 £ £s£ g E* d d d o ^ O mmmo m ^ , bo o G O d O' 02 P d 1 ® « « O O O +j +j £ d d ^ W M cj®® w Q Q - 0) 0) £ £ a odd U M 03 — j « c .2 « o e -S tj g§o' aS° “»S OB ^ C a O 3 Sd d £gg *S«, ^ S ■® £1 9 d O W^'o, - m 5? - ® 2 « S*£ . X H 'G >> P "SdS flS c d g q,„ « 2 £ a* 50 > 03 ® P d > . . | S g « 5 ■“ o d ftf 42 -e o 'S § ra 3 S s ^ o d d P< g 41 4 ) 9 £ c-o N CD QOS CO rH c 1 co ! a i d : > . iw 3 |g fcjo 1 o jSSfi o 3 H a ' o S g I o 42 S5 42 w co 3 ^ 5 08 g n oW w o... o w J>S5 si o o £ ® bog^ l £ l a l cc ^ a> o So t_^ Sh W r-1 g.-d.s bo O »h flP^glg, S»8 2 | a ^3 s a) m a> -o ^ S > O • tH »wi< Q ft 3.2 On Oo dQ o 66 c >?5 in d w O O O a ’O'O’ d r o> CD CO0Q d os cb d> 0 ) i) oo O^H z r s 2 o fflW 4 -» d >n d w OJ C) 0J OJ . >» G G d d 40 < ^ ■<# «t Tj< ^ 0 0 0 9 4) 9 9 OJ 42 ,9 45 ^ fl « 8 « 4) 4) CD 9 S £ £ 9 9 9 ££4: 'd -d 'd 43 43 43 > > > 9 9 9 £ £ £ « 4i 4) ce » a 0 S S S 9 9 9 d d ® Ph ^ b*> bn - d .so 4 - wg - H co d aw HiHHHH rH «5 C <5 00 tO CC Q0 GO 00 Q0 00 _ . .©999 « ns 83 'd d 4) 4 44 M 4 4 4 4 J 42 42 ^ ^ h S S 8 8 rr "S "3 ® 9 «« ^ ^ * > ® | J 5 9 9 9 9 £ £ £ £ £ •6 ® £ 2 £ ® ho rr, ® ® ® ® So C s S S £ rrt 5 o o © o gs# ^5 ^3 eo r- m rr n< TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) Il6 S * _ O CO S c Id 73 ” 5 o ^3 M fl a © .9 a CD CD p 4J o punojj 13.3 12.9 o 25.3 ru ia.4 u.i 22.2 14.9 15.0 14.7 11.5 CO d tO lO CO CM CO dHHHHO q d 2 g £ paa^uc t- o o o O q o o q O o o q oqoooo q Wft p, -^n0 cm’ o d i-i to CM* ddo CM* (M* CM t-H d d 05 d d d d d d CsJ CO njioos q ,_, o q °o 00 00 CM oo q !>■ © d ctoI punoj CO CO* CO CO CO* CO to cd d td CM* CM d CM 1— i rH — H d O H paa^uB i>. o to o o vo q q 00 00 q O q oqiotoiow o w 0) a -anno CO CM CM rH CM ^ CM S ^ o ~ “i g.g§ T3 cd cd •" d g S 0) 0) 'd s « §S W C v T3 > cd *-< cd ' (D C £ O rj TO.Sg U g X! C O TO O TO e ho d c a TO J* p Pi - ss „S £ d 5 © O <13 W TO he'd a £ © _ S3 TO TO o £ w ^ ^ ^ ^ m c3 *15 oj c3 ^ ,2 CQ ^ OO 00 OO r-, OO *> l> dio la m m m D rfi Q fi 0 " CD ~ CD CD CD £ £ £ £ £ £ O TO O TO TO TO O xu u m in m a uorpaasuj l^PWO m ui fc g o a o C ,22 C3 m w o i *r a ^Saj-Sl IwfilSSrf <2i « 2 t 2 , - H B . • ^ £ a -- p . O ,,C^ g TO OO n u b °' C og c-' ^ ^ „ “ °® ^ fl r a TO o^^iS ^ toM' .9 g to § O Sag . to . j ® .: £■§ r 111 00 CQ Q 3? 9Q C lllil; @ isi i i g o6 So 5 S S S fe ~ C TO C kA TO £* P.r^ bo |sfi p 'd >> o c 'd aj «j to od >> T3 a v TO ® ft Ah 9 To o 'd °gS 6,0 o .9 TO^ 5 "a « a|s M O .9^W ~\co a i'S ! v , i i I ^ r C r C r C r C r C r O CJ O (U o Qi q;^ a; O) O) Q) Q) ^ > P -o §: , gS'd'd c 0 n H - § § TO TO TO sW o C3 TO TO TO TO Q® H ^ x: p: p: p; c TO TO O TO TO TO tjtjnfiBas . - g O O O Ohh •| gwwmwmffl * £odb ; 5 ^ i = O O it 7 dg «C H a> © *0 tO M © C * « .c3 M © © a 2S °S S s ^ 3 H) O £2£ O O tc w OvO CD CD CD P QQ tn mm ft o ft ° fe _ O 2 -2 a & a 0 0 Xu d cd cd © u xi © O . ^ - 4 - ) O 'd ^ rd W +J 0 0 0 U r^J O , . © W ^'cS tn £ ^ C cl Id .a d >i A rQ g ” a a a d © d © o d E d t- © © © d © j2 , -g £ c • d d d S d w £ to" ° o o £ © d 10 1 © 8 +j d T, c if, o c qj bo © d d d cd S cd C ^ a. 5 ft rj >.o tn B=; - m +j +j +j ■“ w ft C , 22 0 O 0 ft ® cd ft ft '-? ■ be r-i cd cd cd «* cd O 03 03 03 5|S3a o w M g . d . . . C d cd ”* &S © ai "T 1 flijS © _d 5 "C "3 ■o g-g ■ "w - K , bo © c ft C ft ni es © lH © "*. cd £ es CC M rfft 6c| ft 4-. © o — d cd cd S (h m cd O 03 0 0 a a cd cd tn m © jH a I rtf 60 © © ^ o do. U ss„-g 0Q sl W 02 o 2 Ctl C3 73 ) 0) . 2 < 1)00“ i a a g £ m3 CD CD CD PQP 0 0 0 a a a -t-> ft © cd £ © . « rj W TO £ 6f o •S s c ® - d ^ cd o © o ^ to © 0 ics cd — i , °° a © i « a » p^ev ■ s° g cd to “ *» © o P © 2s£- a cd o ~H © d 03 O 03 . ft o © Sf £ ! § Q-d j2 w J cd w « S o o a as * td o 03 O a ap §flP' CQ ^ 0 .02,0 02 2 Cd £ ■t? 2 *£$ ° Cu 0 CO +J (D Cd H (D +J gules t> 03 t> d cd 2 d ft © © £ S« 12.3 11.7 10.0 r*^ 05 10.6 10.4 CO o O ft 9.9 CO 14.9 14.9 21.5 oq o q 3 o o o in o o m q in q q q q q in o q q q q q O o e? _ o 05 05 05 05 o s ci ci d C<1 05 05 CO oqinw q o co q ^ °5 Ci ■5^ 00 «3 r—t Tl? i— 1 co 05 CO co in c4 rH rH i— 1 CO 05 05 co 00 co O 00 o 00 00 rH rH rH 3* •3 © o U PH W bU^ d ft: . •ft ft 6 S£ O s «8 a to 03 £ w ago .2 4-> OCm ^ *h rs. O ^ g § ss 8 3 g£ g s , ©o K*> 0 rQ a f 3 o o S2 0 ^ ' 20 . d £ftlg © 2 i- 1 B 02 6 o a| 6.2 w SO'3 . Ph © ft a 6 '© 6£CD r d ^ d ft ^ 0 I— I CD og S S 03 O ,5S I'aia « s w <3 03 |2h Ssw 0>H . *h O 05 ra CO i ft >> O a° ■Ofl O cd I ’> 02 02 a a od cd > > RH © aT o o ft ft >1 !>> cd cd 65 SS o o © © CO o . ft ft >> S cd So |a § s So I 11 1 I! fe fei £ £: Cd 05 J s I; ^2 5 ^ o g ^ S . cd o c> 02 02 02 02 03 03 a} ° 00 > U VH irH P .s 02 ^ g* •'O 5 a a) ° Sph «5 W o 10 -M w a5 m u .d ^g 73 T3 QJ 0 0 0 dd © © © © in tn n ba « g | .2 © RR bo ft S5 SO a o '/>* lo •3« MM aW a W W a a ft 6 do tq a a T3 © © © “j djj ^ d « g-9 a ST5 03 oo'rt •30 a 2 ft o H fSTt So >. a 'cd ’« tm © e3 fl © „ # « E-i © 'B oo a C3.g cd cd cd O O O © © © h tn f-i cd cd cd ,C.G.CrH ooo « rcJrQrQ^H fl c a . cd cd cd M O BO'CM > ^ S •3° P «i X © cd +-> a ci .a «s oS cd G3 cl d o o .a r— ( rS o fS © C5l-i S“a ^ . S § •d i-j ss do © © d d -d^J o o n8 c .9 +j o a> Q. g ® a c ^ ft 9 a) ih r.Ti 9 c © to g a S . ' 3 rL O CO 9 d 3 9S c - 1 fl 1 ,£< to . [* toi; ft c3 +? i •q w o , >2 ! ' t» 1 w • Cu .— i Cu Cfl « a JS 3 gS? g d 8§339 S g * a 5 ■S 2 2 ° <1-1 o.'H c3 g ® d ga •* j .a -3 -2 d c d d 0 ) s®#« 2B2S u 9 03 to 29 b* O f* © o 43 x ii-g d d 2 ad to © c- -C w cti ■d © S3 a> © Q © Id c © w rt C to Cu -r . o d.o O y O g 5 " “1 * £9 & a >, 5 3 CtH -Md 3 t ~ 9 2 o 2 OtcH o « d +J to <13 3 d (H d d 03 ft to K g S9 S: d 5 d 5 CO « W <1 ffl co O rH « c -3 g a s + j cj . d H d ^ w 11 bfl ^ to® c ® 43 to d fl w P ^3 w 03 ^ 3 r* g 2 ? d o ft 9 p .© © d bd s-, vi to ? 42 to ®< O .03 -3 to J S to +-> d dS 3 3 , 1 ) IH 5 ^ lH ^ d £ a fao C 0)^5 Jh

n 'd w ^ O wU.rt-H w 9 -2 « SfjOd 9 O +J ^ — J O aj d - 3 iJ 2 d ' 9 S d5 - a d 'S w O to 03 50 3 C » g” § S P§ «3 g-d a o ® pG s 1 2 » i ft to 1 COO d o w 3 ^9- “ d 1-1 co : co Csi c- tr- io 10 Qfl to to cti c$ +J 03 03 9 a a to d cS XU CO ^■ 5 - >d >1 03 ft 4-> ft Cj cj 3 d ^ B 9 c d C-^ft 03 tn C y d « ft o d rf (4 3 K. U +J ^ o > o 1 10 as LO O OO HQ OOO O q Xti O OOO o o d IO LO LO d i 0 ' ui d 0 to 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 0 1 a 0 0 , 2 i ft 1 S 1 ° ’ r 3 9 M n 0 > 1 ft d § i °Sft . o 3 3 c 3 «2 d I 3 S 3 S 3 I ® ° g d S 2 si s 43 -M ft 0 ft 9 g s I'd ! ft 9 d 'O t 3 S ft 1-1 0 toft rQ Q - 9 ft° 0 2^=8 O PhS 3 d“ d“ a"! ^03 JZ 5 6 6 |S 0 co 0 S co .2 4 ^ ~ O ». w cod ^ CO ^ O a uopoadsuj V*PWO II ® g » o 00 a as a 8 ^ '#Oi 03 1ft » a 8 ^•2 is a > Sh bD Qffl d d ‘3 '3 -i’U 11 'd ^ s to 3 § 1 1 0 Ih ft 43 +s O SH ft 43 0 0 ftft 4343 0 ft 43 0” «9oT d 03 5® 2^ toft a 0 " s * 0 a 3^ to 3 M to to S CO to to to S3 CO CO to to to 3 tn to ft ft 33 2 S ^ -s ® 33 ftS t-i tn 03 03 to to 52S9 to^< d d d d d dS ^ 03 ft d 3 3 33 3 Cj Sh «« 3 M i-d 1 1 1 1 'd [ fd ® T3 h3 TP 'd'd « 1 gft © © o> ^ a» 0? © © ft 'd ft >, ft ftft Et, Eli © ^ © o? ^‘S >> © © 2 ft m m 3 2° 3 ^0 53 d ft to ®5ft 0 CO d, n ft OS 73 ft (Tt H PQM H Sh P fl) QMD O) S bfl hQ g p S fti ||| a co 43^ S3 Mpq WPQOM g j 1 19 C w .2 © cj m (h “ bo a o ■a g c e 3 - o to C (h _ o w w be a co o » +-> S3 “a g j* a © to © p j£.5 £ £ © a °£ M o rH rH d 8 . n g a - 8QQ gap n c C ° ^ ° e ss 3 a © p *s . W 50 H C M ^ « > >. >> *■> i i i i i i • 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i • i > ■ i > > i i • i i • i i • I i > i i i . i • i * ■ i ■ • I i ! 6 ! • i i > i * ! O j • • • i i ’ ! ■ i i © >» P S sj C3& ffi W Cfl w © © © © h H H i< a a a a a a a a a a a a o3 os a a *6 go a Ph N Ph o r ft o a 0 a be -S.S aa "• s o be -£.a ^ g a £ CD W gra a PP m M s r a o a oa © ► r a o a 0-3 |^ad ° M OQ a. o M ’ o c pH 'to " 05"P OQ jf; o a a o a a a n a a ~c a ^ HPh mPh W aO oS . ' SPh- N r o o flD M a £fP a a S o >>X a a l OPS ,S2§ r2 y 1 C3 • PS o ft - a f| l^.S&s 4j o.g qJ r -2.- 2 ©"PP a a q a s* OcoPh^S ^ g hSW> a^a © g ^© ©* Ph • £ CJ Wjfl •gH o o 5? H * ills I • t- £- CO 00 I! s 8 jb aaa © © © © © © Ph Ph Ph SSS£ s s a . ' «« ® a © o w qPh C« -M 4-> 0> 03 P °cg ss H ^ 03 « o o +* & ft egegeg P £ ©® cj yi ui in Up gooo a «WWW ® °8 =3 a ©a O) o Ph^ x aaa o ■p+j+ja a a aiP S?> o o o a mMOJco'S ^ a >> >> >>Q xj «3 cccocq O a © © ^a a «fe II C^J (M II PhPh © © a o ^a ©' © aaWW Wd^ a bo-2 5| CO I=i a r o SP'g PP a oV 3 a a~ Fh i-5- - ^ vi m tn S © © S S .£ V 0) QJ .O) a a. a S a 0 . tuo aO^ft •2 Fh QJ "oj •SO 3 S Ph <1 OPh © Ph Ph Ph3Ph a 1 ; Ph -r VI W VI a? a> M S -£ 53 +f Jj xT> i SS|. . 08 ” Sx! 'S ft © ft a M 33 o 02 j ■§ ft ft . 33 © biOS « a > ft >> m ^2 © 'd o »i^2 C3 ft c3 *h ^HO ft ' © ft ! o “ w-O Sis - 03 •s g«8 g ft. 2 g ft c3 ^ ^ So" S "E § os a ft^A) .a-sg To h 3-3 O^j ft Pm d O o Pm d *-s a a « g 8 11 © -ft is o ©O Jz; K> 3 ft” t5 ^ o.S 5Z5.2 -Pm 6 - M 1=1 21 0X2 .2 a d ft «o ©O Ul g*« pH >> . o S Q £8 gg e g g % gg|gg i g g & o © io^i LO O SI a.S'g Pm ft ft ^ o Pm 33 1-1 f © ft ft +i o ft 02 M3 « r° »8 O l«o g ft ft I ! | i i i ^03 0. ft A OPh Pm Pm Pm £ £ o o c3 o3 d m3 X3 ft ft gOQ d d ts.SP.SP Pm PmPh Pm A Pm A -as s A Pm A PO 33 ft ft s ft ft A A A A A A a s s ft A A A A ft. ^ § .w„ £>3 ^ * © SoSh oS^-g cj a? Sj d ft « g§ ft o a ptj o © S o ° A © O P< ^d ft ft ft ft x ft ©•"ft (H ^ © O co "ft ^ ft^ or' cod © .ft ■Sa II ■ft O co§ <0 g a 3 a 2 £ to S3 gg fl -w ■S 5 . 43 A rd ® 0) *H ^ ® V ^ CO a to c3 2 121 ins, oat 0 “ >> c rrt 42 fa •«®o« oS fn *• O S to a 9 fa fa s c d ft to bjo “ “-0 2 c3 £ a 0 fa 03 O ® w ® S a^Sg listillers oat si alt W >> © g L meal, s, 0.6% determi determi leal, wi groun uffed r salt. C ® ® 4) ® rj3 B ° C - o w -2 bo S w -fa O - c »S 2 £ o bo ^ c w i gS,* o — ' i B £, 2 go 2 -«« i c c ® a ^os s"s o 15«S S W w o * O a s u • g o o O u _ o w “fl'd ® o+j a « X 5 2 "SS* .-S^I fa _ o a 11b2S C ® fa d +-> w -fa o fa o o o ^ 8 $ ■ 38 “ £ 2 Q bo o P _< a m £3 § boo 5 m o§ ! o 0031 o cd t-’ 1 C , o o ■ 02 C _ m ._ fa (B j. ® O Xfl . r^-i > "I H fl c-gSS § 0 * g ri £ 0 -wp P ® ® (B ■“ ^ a-oo ° 3 *■> ■ c3 c3 c3 c3 CO CO co LO LO LO flop w w w 05 05 Cl C5 H OjU'fl a 0 ® C ci a) cb fa 'fa 02 U (B w . - to bo - . aJ g C ’ H)«m a LO CD CD O LO t-S eg eg eg eg 0 23.5 co 05 eg cd eg ei eg eg eg 21.2 9.7 eg O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 OOO OOO 000000 O OOQ 0 0 0 O 06 05 05 d CD 00 06 00 06 d odd 0 0 d d d C 5 a S S ©q s 05 05 00 00 - O 00 r~- co lo CO CD CO oi 10 LO CO co CO CO ^ Td? ^ ^ ^ cd LO LO LO ID eg eg* 0 0 0 10 LO 0 eg eg eg eg eg eg eg eg eg eg eg eg 0 O OOO 0 LO LO co co cj 10 LO CO co cd co co cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd CO CD CO CO cd 00 0 l>- 0 LO eg 0 05 0 eg eg 05 co Th O H 05 CO CD 05 1 >- TH O (N d co* w LO rH d 0 00 05 05 d GO 05 rH 05 00 O od 00 00 LO \d rH s ’g Lh o> H pH § I 03 CO a ^ S ° o .a HH Tj 2 n ~% c3 O °g 2 !a ^ i*o O o § 3 o? 1 l 1 1 a 1 1 0 1 1 P3 fa i fl ~ > • 0 n JO ss §1 0 g □Q •— a ® - M gS a fa s >. o I s -22 : O m • rd O =. v po«o >-a JZ5 PQ« o =3=3 & ?-• d S % gc PIP, 1 ^ ! a-g P 5 S p OPsJ -fa as fa .Ssw „ _ o 6 s 3 O r 9fe: OoM i s I ■gw o w2 S 3 6 03 O Pi .9 - „03.9 • *h 03 CO rK - . g°o Wg fa^ d o go faiS 0 O 'So O rn wor u a . fl u 60 ® flg. jg^M ft S 0 §oT«8SS ^2 03 fa~0 ! d 00 03 . 1 i 03 9 « «8 ,°A gPp 1 6 ^ ce W Npb §®bOC5 O O ^ Ifi LO ^ rH W ^ b H H CD CD CO l>r-J^O0t- 9 d C3 jO 'S «+H CO -fa 1:3 s d o .fa! P d c ^5 9 ® d-ft 9 9® g „ w S ocQ” « 20 .S 9 rr 03 ft <1^3 gfa® 1 §i»J is^I M o £ 0 to a g§8rS gf2£§8 CO CO CO CO 83 CO CO co CO fo 88 s§gg 88 ) CO So < S o5 ^ ® o a £P CO » to d o on rC d! > 2 5 § 6 & ^ ^ > t>j >> >> >> .fa _fa _fa _fa B «“ p S 3 03 03 03 p 9 'O R RRfifl p 0 0 O 0000 9 .0 to to to to to 0 w 02M S 3 H 5 5 ■3 M 122 «_ o a o -G w £ $ fa c ft a +> •8-§S 2g“ O a a oSl S'" z ^ aj a punoj paa^uB " JBn D puno^ paa^uB -aBno *^uaa aad aan^stoj^ S w IsS LO a a J— < ^ ^aa o bo ^ jg O MM PP 0 ) <0 a a oo oo S3 © © © oj ss oi © © S3 S3 irs in mm o a a o ®3o M £ c n & °5 g^Oh 03 OQ 'o5 ^ oo°a o Mp 3 ■ am . 'r o aj . oo Oft ■ o a >><3 03 "S, - a bo . w 3 o 'S OO ftft 53 « So g g-S « w ^“Sg c -fa 1-1 'O ft- c . G c flj -H aj ^3 2 fa G « 83 es to" bo S £ G bo •S ' H eS g 5 £ « ® * 2 IljS’Sg <2 O .75 > aj ^ — ; 02 -fa P Sh O < u 5 a GO) 2 1 — fa ~ 02 0> i*s 0’S fis 02 § cl S g a> a fa fa u £ c3 jg eg 02 .<12 0j •O § ” 50 « 6 ^* 8 w 33^ G J - ,« eS ~ oj ^6 5 5°w o 2 2 s as ~r ° fa 2 oe -g ^ Q ■“ “ -| a “ “ to 42 fa cj ffl “ , -G « W •fa aj as to oi ti fa ^ (0 G <0 42 ® 0> <12 a-§ aas a a 02 02 ' 1 P PPP P 02 02 02 02 02 cj cd cj cd cj O 0) O d) © a a a a a M M MM M MMM M O © 02 02 © © © 02 02 02 CQ <=3 P=5 ®tO t»3* JH © 03 ^ 02 >^W QQ fl r • 03 oO OO . W 1-3 9 ] O ■S ! O C5 > fajgW l s ^ -^^33 o .2 S3 03 33 S 3 sl ah| PH^O I & a &* a & O o , sea! a^§is«2 °^ Q laa° e.2 P! P 2 >d fc* d r >. a> -“ 7; to to d £ d'g o5o| ft2 s g -d u S w P M tjSifl d 2 " &ftg £ fcj) £•§ .5 £ w d P -d -d <0 a> 3 3 is ^ Jh s: - 3 a _r d 2 {" d 0 g d 0 d P - 03 c J 03 d 1 CO ^ fl 0 ^ w w ' ?nd- C M ^ u O 03 W P o ^ (1) o w ^ M . ,Q ri r d ■ r 3 c 3 s ifo . ^ 3 fc, to ® o ft bo 2 dta 3^ g K W ® d d£« «,* °a . S 3 to " J p 3 33 P 8 "« “1 ” §M* ce ^ ® -m o wo 3 — S -3 -d - '3 w d Sc g 2 *3 60 -d ® (Ll -3 8 *"S 3 03 2 +J 3 0> ° c3 2 t) t- ^2 ^0 : -t-> -d i d 33 ; 03 33 0 33 ^ 00 to 00 © eo co co >33 H ^ o > S tn O 2 * §<« Si® &a 5 ^ gs a r§ P? ^ pP K <£ O P ft^lgft' Oa (hM d . bo W -O • CD J -q ^ >C 5 .ofcj S3 .2 ^ O -o ft 22 P 4 Number | a uoi^oadsui 81 S 7 8186 : 51 a g S ! § S sl 1 3 38 S8 1 Ift 1— 1 IfS 8 ll 1 O S ; f: g I^PHJO ® ® ! §1 ^ W ^ S 0 ? 08 GO S 1 1 1 ^ ^ ; : §3-^1 1 P „ ', ! 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 i ■ 1 1 a bo o r W S 4-3 * • W *¥* d o £ ft^!, ® ri OJ0HH d C 03 q ol®« o 05 -d S .2 53 53 .2P>h s ■3^ 33 d'g a 9 a 53 ° 2 O g 03 W cl) CQ >> « a £ o ® fl £ ft is w 5 w p § _, -d -P 03 P 33 d O d WP o o c rt o o 03 03 ww -d -a Q3 03 03 03 d d PP a a o- s 5 i 0 O 1 O bo '- 2 . C) d p: a S3 P S'3 00 ®® 03 o d W« W o |k ® >. a •- O d fl 0 P 125 S+S a . a m h d"° g 2 8 g S eS «r S <2 bD ft ‘S ® *W S 03 03 £ a pJafl a • * ,2 o 2 © a C ^ M H W . CCm sh bx) ft © a -*-* a c* a o a u y a rf h w -a -a ta _ © © © >a « .5 .5 £ e a e s t< (h a a © © © y a ,a ^ .s a a a +j ^ w w Mat! © to • 2 *a © a c to © 3 a © a »« 2 -a w _ «»g n « ■a to(-> ■a © - © « © to r^S CO © to c ft a ^ s ft o ° g © q o- : s~ o a o WO : Q 0 : ^ © © : « a a 11.6 C<| 10 10 0 0 1 > n.o 13.0 12.1 14.3 10.5 26.7 26.4 25.4 26.5 24.6 26.0 27.3 25.3 0 17 , 15.6 h; q *cr cd 10 LO LO LO LO Lrt LO LO 0 00 oq oq oq oq oq oq oq 1a q q q q 06 06 06 co cd cd 05 eg eg rH rH sa sj « rH eg rH cd cd cd cd cd 05 ONO r— co 0 0 0 rH eg eg co q q rH q q q c 4 00 CO co eg cd cd 00 05 * 00 06 06 06 05 LO cd LO 10 teiON 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 q q q lo q LO LO eg eg eg eg eg eg eg eg eg cd cd cd cd cd co cd cd cd cd cd cd cd CO eg co 00 co 0 t- oq eg TjH 05 TjJ t -00 q q rH rH q q co 3 iq eg eg C^l cd eg eg 3 cd 00 * 05 00 cd 06 cd O rH cd cd cH "© t® £ § © -M M © W tf ? £ i •a 2 2 y ^a 'p > © © o > > ill ■ © © U *H » M _, ^ S S3 a: o o i a i to 'O a SQ | « o .-a ao as ' © w jxj °>,§ ax -t> a «^pq ^ a «8 .s Eh O S o iS^ >1 I o £ ■g « oS o5 g : 32 a ^ 5 « .^i CO co O as © © CC cc a a o o o oa? a o to a sf > ® a oS a.SS to «og ft-+-i a © °o a „ aa ft . to ft M d O to a Si © *rl Ph^ - a © o to co a a , ffl & i sii s h 4 ^ '5 Wd f n° ft gf> g« r o g -CQ ,0 W © rj ft a CG -ft a a' s ►C « o to+f ft .a .2 o ti c3 O o-s" wj gg JS! p - oO fa S ©« sc eg isi ^ S ^ ^ < So 8 8 8 S gB c ia 5§ 1 i ! 1 1 l 1 1 oS . co > P >5 t» ’a a PP >> ‘a P gw M * « © © © 2 a a a 31 © % a a a a a a a a tsa <« a 0 0 < ft ! © © a a a a MM o a SM •a a g a oW a a fH © OP to T 3 a a o o a a a a a a MW 'O T 3 © © © © pH ( 3 H OP -a ra a a o o a a a a a a ww 'd © a a © © w © © "S a S ft 2 P ej a . to >a *ft v„ © © to to P®.S bjO to+a ft ft « £ +J Is o y S 'ZtZ'XJ 126 to ■tj 'ft to TO Q) -M g ® C o g « <3 3 ft C 60 TO _ O M C c TO 5 +j -o 3 3 m o -S TO TO.S TO 'O to to EI2 CD rj ^■g § s«a « u & A punoj paa^ue -•ran*) punojj paa^uB -jeno •*uaa .tad aan^sioj^ t) to 43 TO 1/2 0 £H o X M ’3 to g £ " a>c CO 'C , ^ n-( - TO ^ ° C ° CO ' 4_l O ■ ]L-2 ^ TO ^3 a) 3 w v* S TO TO ft 1 - ft" 43 S-2 C 2 o K ^ TO g-3 ® 2 o Isr S " S-g . 3 - o X m? +j TO '3 >d to 42 TO to to TO - O O 3 : TO _J TO tS S o TO TO 3. TO " To TO 6 “2 12 TO "TO 'o 01 TO ;ft g -ft S g-HS 0 0 G 0 t5 o +a w o e ^ S rH OS r - fa £ 43 05 co TO ¥3 it C S43 g fU >.*& .ills' ■§ .S TO TO . p -. TO o ^ “ ft^-. to 43 *55 o “ B TO P TO TO d] »«£ 5 6 s§ a ■ •§. 0 ccj W > g .- q; TO *2 — 1 O TO u o O TO o TO3 42 TO £42 _ g to ^ ’ro T3 .33 TO TO +j 4. CO TO C3 irj U2 V X f lgp o g -d‘« * g TO ® - O l:ii .ills W o , c S ' TO TO TO — «.W «-VJ «.VJ f— « ^ £ ca cq in £ « g ^ ^ ^ to to to bo o bo TO tC 3 >TO g 7 ; 0 £2 0 ^ 3 x-S 8 £ g o * -g ft- (M 3! CO $ CO CO IP ©q id 1— 1 q O q q 0 q 0000 °o c? (M CM s vrf CM 05 cc 00 q x>. q rH LQ LO CO ©q ^r 00 i>^ LO co lc 3 cd oi 0 q q q q q q q q q 10 CO id rj? 10 irf 10 id lo 10 q ©q q q q ^ l> CM Tin co c » 00 05 05 06 05 05 00 05 GO 00 * 1 1 f 1 r ; J 1 1 1 1 1 CO 00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 O j ’> ! 00 >> ! n ft+i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 >5 | CO ! g go 1 1 1 bfl TO O | TO 1 G G 1 TO .03 ^ 1 1 1 5 O ; H I'S'ft'S 3 3 j .9 a l 4-> O O O £ jQ CQ G 0 0 O O TO TO TO 6 ! © ! TO ' ft m 6 O MHHfl 2 - -ft "O Q 3 a c5 £5 S- 1 O TZ ! 'C-S TO a r o , o 6 c ! ) q a 3 TD >5 O u 1 £ O ! O C5 £ $ SO 6 O O TO 3 , 3 3 ! O TO Ph • ft ft^ § ft £333 £ E oS 5 1 1 J a 43 0 t-S D 0 \ °3 w a ! co T3 ! Edw. TO TO « ft 11 O pX 0 G C/2 1ft 88 s s g £ s 1 c© g s fc i 1 1 8272 (M g 5496 cp cp cp co 05 05 05 ^ -H -H ^ <50 lO iZ5 lO a; 5073 a uoi^aadauj i«pmo aV. >> §,5* O q H a ^2-2 _ “ TO g 43 Q SiPS ft ft a S M I £ o pj CQ _ fci'g ^20 OpS T3 TO o s s 'O . H C TO m bo 53 jo TO ft TO « W ^ II Q2 .43 ft o 3 ^ s^l a c to 33 So ^®*TO to | .a .ao 5 3 * Ph o bo^_ TO TO « TO sa o.. , a- a a ®s 0 2 Oo C3 Cd eg C3 0 0 0 0 Cs5 oa c 3 dodo a a a a c3 03 c3 C3 0 0 0 0 Sh !h ^ Sh OOOO M M M CO TO TO TO TO ti'd'd'O >.>>>»>» KKKtf o £ ft o a TO O ft o Sdrr, "So °S£ >> , g-2S « TO f» >>S-r 127 t Before registration 253 Relabeled with No. 8856. Conflicting guarantees tf Not tagged. Labels furnished 128 0 ^ M TO (P g a c ^ 5 ^ 5 g ® £ 3 3 C 60 d . o w 5 ft d Ifl s:s “So XJ M 5 Cl) (-. a « Crude protein per cent. puno^ paa-^uu -anno Crude fat per cent. puno^ paa^uu -anno •^uoo aad ean^sioj^ a uorpadsuj I*P®0 ©ag 2 i O §2 i E 0 - “hfl go t» E pH =3 a M S •■£ 2^3 2 ft c =3 fi H ^ o - °!- g*l w -£ tH ft CO ®° «S 2 ^©! S 3 tu bX) cm C 3£ 2 8 S . - o3 ft fe c3 ij a 'w £ ?5 S 13 rO - d 2 ? C3 ® S &28 rd * »d ;■< ft XI O «„-2 d « . cd a a g M a xs _ c S 3 d 1-5 * o ■ft 1 -U t) S v ; SO <® a ■ S 83 W C flS 60 o3 83 f'fl , s| ft £ 0 50- 5 g g c3 i-> a s to fC 68 bo a; _ C N » ft Z £2 S ctf ® ft a ® M Codo ‘ '5 1 a >a ■ft S

X! o2 c3 p o3 ’-5 be X .ft g -a . ft ft ® » 2 n -ft 8 ft -ft 73 1£$ t d®S lllStfi Z *-«l g 2 ft >> ® M-M ' H L GJ ^ -M I d OT 1 W ■g'S *»- “■ ■d ^8ft c A ft2 < & 4) . £ ' , -r. u J Oil > 43 ft ^3 >> 4) O ft 23 s C3 .s g>. bo 4> > W H 03 03 ft ft r >^d o Wo S O o rr *** if ” S3 w PS >2 Mh 08 1* >> 03 >> ^pp So go ^ Ph O 0 o >ft Pn S 08 s & 03 Q Ph Ph 03 ^ & P4 129 >> o> (3 s a •ft u d) ft s a a, 3 X 02 8 I- c s3 O „ £ «S' s S' cC & ' cd ^ * £ 'O bo . ® • ;^3§ IS" § g^ 2 .P go , S3 -5 02 — 1 . m, c ; *5° - to w - ft "3 ic'd ft5?S I x? ® £ ® i to fi H ® !* ! « o © t: C w eg ft = «®S^S . ■ bo S a 2 xi S^Sji 8 * - -Ss M'S ft ® * £ ft.* ; T3 - « 1 S § s 44 pp - w ft 02 ig ?3 P © tn " 4) ft P 5 ; 02 T} ft c ’ T3 P 3 S3 eg c ft >C ^ O) £3 W r^H 2 « fl -* " be 02 ® £ - C H o ft 1 - o 2 ojj ts .§ ;= tiB- ^ 'ft t. O ^ ^ ft -ft cd S”1 S 5 s’ « ® 1 1 £ 0> 42 ? £ Jo £m 2p o *3 V 3 S a .2 'ft 43 © w — CC , oj cs a ( SC’S* bO-ft M ft $ 4a m — Mo 10 a S eg 8 ®‘ 02 o 1 s s W .Q M ni —( TO eg .5 w 22 c , «|S JJgs cd o _ 4-» d s £ S "I bo ft ► Sh >. o 02 O ,Q *3 cd 'd , p a c >> 35 eg eg •§§««» CJ ft* tSeS cd w 00 00 o^ft°QflO c ®P 3 P fe eg ^ EG P- » a eg eg eg tf o 02 02 02 « 3 £ £ £ ■“uggd EG Til EG flfi w a/ w JlElS eg ft 4 j j;® q •Sp-ft ■— I o 02 •d © 'd _• ■g M |S“ ^ S’S ^ & C - g cd cd C *H 0) •° S'? cd ^-T iJ cd ce e o> _r £ d ss eg 02 e2 C 4- - 'd tj ’d W CD ^ C^J cd ; q q d o d 00 00 00 oor^oo* d oo oo 00 d od -c S'd U ® o ft" (^ § go w 2 ®T3 -a o §£ 44 ft ft o oco -a'-' ►S' 0 . H w O 0)2 § gft • i ft] »g gift (C 02 ( PM ft o j 'ft 1 S3 00 T3 £| S3 g C3 O 02 O O ftM r os ss r ° 2^ oM d 0+4-^ M NM ft! ft O 5 to bo ft .3 "S 3 o o o o bo 3 ft 0X2 M 02 <4 o « «M do CO ^ aOOD ft o M » ft a OKS co 'ft ”3-5 M Q Q OO P P +M 4M «2 C/2 C/2 C/2 C/2 M M MM M M £~X3 C3 S3 SS >» >> Ch (h Pfi o o >> >» eg 03 MM MM Si s- o o S3 ft ft M II w * an 03 “§! Vi m i a? ^ q to .§!■= S3 03 ft a 02 02 OO ft 3 6o cc . |!i W M MM .3 03 So o S ft « •ft M ftO M M ft c/2 'd "3 £ M ft » 3 d ID -Q bD O P, C o wr o S -5 S? OJD CD 8 *3 CD . S 0 £ ^ ^ 02 © 0 os CD • O S3 3 a 3 be § a a £ o w Oofl S3 S ^ a „ « ■C.2^ 2 30 Ph -P C3 o 4J -r i^g P3 £: Efiti or!® o 43 . d ^ TO m id d d a ® ® § 43 g d|> R 02 > odd U ID ID sge .2 ° So S'O a c« m ja bfl co m d o . >> o 3 2 CD ° ® Ph 02 rC . 02 cd fl* +^> d f£ 2 C3 d O o'5 p d os O os ® d ^ O - a p'a §i co -d3 d 3 4<3 l g a a d d O O P3 C3 CC CO o o CD CD a a o o MW o © a a d O A rn Ellis A +j 02 o § w a ® §w W . s 2 M M ■ 43 d 2 2^ o d hj4:2 w w Q o d po“ 5913 . i CO 1 2 t- g§ fib S8fe £ g2 I So GO d © gd © ■8^ £ | ’Oaa d2 81 Sw I3 1 u a cs ofli p torf it O O m S' 9 $9* d r$ •° 0) 3 ® g d d s O “ V .» « £ ^ *o -h o'C .« to c c S © G 3 « £? 3 fl # ® to > ^ -P ? d +J ® 42 d .2^'S d^.££ 43 * 44 5 * o 3 £ 3 ill? a .da >.»8 ® a 3-si p«« . 8© c .5 48 ^ 'P d c-dS h d O 4d ±d 5 Cd w o 4ti ^ X P >> but no corn, :, sunflo aflr, b; r seed corn, wild bi corn, flower, r„ barle r seed iliJ .eked seed, icked t, sun 5722 tG ® =3 d £ f 1 4x1 o 5 P3 4 G ■gS es *d*S . H *t >> s ® —■ _, .5 SSl,, *S|S .-43 £ ® •s * s 4*3 - 'P O -0 o*S G3 d G3 o 3 ® 'a s G ® G m H a Jl 0) § d w w 43 a >• 5n £ . « 6« OJ d i! d 'O G | rye, owei oal 43 ” tn . P bo G § J ^ W u d G °£ * d« OP c ^ G *h aj n o

d G G !> p t; d d t> O 02 02 § 3* P o . frt «c’3 'P > .5 32 d 3T Qj 4* 5 * o « . X d 5 » a $*§* GO || d G? U . 41 G «® £ ® * d to , ■a d G* 43 o 4s 48 'P O . d d . 48 i t 3 d d 43 G44 £ 4*1 E E « d d p to 43 •S d 'O TO ; S E Q ^ bX B Z 52 a) 03 o* o »d o « 43 d h 02 ,r ? ’“J CO co’ £5 G«2 a >S G G d d43 ^ e; > r W o r O P tuo O G 'd.a «2 a >.g£ a)5>0 S O-^ fm o o ati r O'3 r o: 8 d d oo 6 2 ■3^. O hsPQ a § §i g ■S 5 pq « piq 53 00 Q & ® ■fr ® r 1 lO so j> Irt Ift rH t-ioo d d i ’>"> ! to to G G 1 C3 OS to >>a WHg * *Q) 6 6 § r a , G . O o ri a> o Jz f>g •2.2d 43 43 d ooo 3 fe S 8 a p- W G O a *3 G O 'z. * ? pq 6 © d o 1 6 r n -M Q _G d 'S G =3 B o l d s GO cc So 3^ G « pH d 02 fcj P-G3+3 O -g Q q 02 a iS 43^ g o3 <3 Ph Ph d o d d d 02 02 a G^ d “ co H T3 73 HG d d d C COj pp pp pp S) _d o 3 3 3 ooo 'OTSTJ G G G OOO a a a 6<£ - o >.Ph d >> a3 o o O Ph O -r QfiO dO W o o +S +H 4H © o O © o o o o & tuo tuo bo tuo be tuo tuo bo H W P3 W >. >> >> >. d d "d = d ft Q fi O tt Not tagged. Labels furnished - B8 6% tons removed from sale. Labels 6640 replaced by No. 6781 257 Relabeled No. 8242 TABLE IV.— Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) 132 a J TO to £ bo o C TO TO £ TO y w .2^-2 TO y 3 TO .2 *3 go's t) 5 ™ £ ’ o n he g TO d - TO o “ •S s .2 © 0 .TO toR w ^ is £ TO TO y © ^Ja ^ d P* CQ d ► 0) I s CD ~ CD U M 3 s d S d 0 5-5 c TO ■* -d 5 > cu X ^ W y 0 Ah .'d °s ri O 0 rrt TO ° X 44 CO Pj £> in £ ~ Q ° 3 +j .’ Q TO TO m y -TO TO g t> 0 TO t> 02 ^ S 'S _ 7 © T3 !> 0 0 ^ w X 'O _ 2 © y 2 vP TO to w co P* CO © tc : 0 ) 3 'd CD ^ fe-TO C m TO „ ■a “ ^ u p . y © © .* to y TO TO u o sills I TO ° ° HISS ^|Bs| » £ o ■“ - TO 2 ® - 2*3 To TO Jgl S s = = ^ aS y M c< S " +r £ E to tj O 60 ^ y - 4 J.E tfl ^ s ^ S tc 'To ^ s C y ^ fe “’’y 0 £|p y © © rTO W TO , ^ TO 2 ^ 2 S e^j 2 8 02 l> 02 CO 00 j H W m T3 1 1 1 r ! 6 6 0 Lh d CJ 1 1 1 1 1 0 O O ■ CO 0 m w a uopoadsuj >1 © TO TOR w > l> •l w co ^ 1 i Ss 8 8 g I 7 © Ph o °8 TOT Wg-O r .Sro O h S° <«! ";C S TO O |Z«| w l|o'o O W ^ 1-5 o <0 © ® 3 ' 02 02 "S £ • TOR -'O ■ a 2 >> 0 O TO 2 'Pm >> 'TO 'TO +3 ® a -s WoS S ^ 002 eg TO TO >> >» d 4 ^ 0 TOR W g TO TO W P5 .SJ pq W PQ 2 ‘“’to sa.° >PM ® B 3 o § > O TO gm§ o « m 00 o o PH ,© 2 «r r TO ^ © TO .02 B-tor „ S bfl.S © tc .TO O" O t* bc^ S TO >> 3 © • . to | -i Ah 0 O Lh © TO 5 Q TOR °> 8 hO 0 -3 O 0 > 0 0 4-> P-> c8 03 F-h Ah 0 © TO 0 0 O |iS& 2 TO 0 be 0 rr 0 S Ah « cu o.H fcH fH 0 Ah © N ‘C *7 3 -a TO P TO TO TO O s ss g-0.2 © 0 a “c TO ea f-i §2.S 3° 3 O O mm .0 0 0 c pq •q i-q t-q TO Ah 5 0 »p © 0 33 pq O 0 s o o Ah Ah 133 ■OfiC u © O’" £ C-0 O © (C 3 33 5-qS a a “ 'd ® © o‘T H gd« :sf +j a a ,B t^'O > © a p a O V 3 fc 1 0) © < S-o* a o h sa J) oi 8 fi « q a; u Q3 a a; w ■p o"H« a a » a ^ a a ^ id 'd j d w g -a . ■a * a -a 2 „ © © X u Q) a- ^ o ■gslsg >S*o .-w-a s - g a - g -m (j » , 2 ij o^-g 2 o .a > 2 r.a ^a^ a o a g © x & G qa g ^ ^ S3 P M > a « a g a Cu S | ■§1 £ S| - O !- © )H a © -a -a jr , © © o J © ^ c ! | a a 1 a mi o a © a ei u b « a 4* £-® a 0 . £ + J © W a -r © © a 'd a © 42 a 'a ^ © © ©. © +r a © 5 5 2 > ^ in © a a; a o o o © © © <~> o a w Mo na c ^ > aa > o o 2 > a 03 £1 “ a © fl > a 03 T3 C3 a > G •4G ~ > G n © ©> a r g •* 6 OQ CD G 6 O 5 0 0 S t 'd 6 0 £ a =8 bo © , - a © >h .S rr> «8 slo W W&O fc T3 a a « §W W o 5 a a o 0 02 CO $ e nnw, Baa So 0 Ojfl s“w 3 2 © « G G 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CO CO 1 1 1 1 a « s 5 s T3 ^ 1 1 1 0.2 ° CJ r ° 1 G a 1 G a © 'd CO “go 33 w £! o> C » 03 c* 'o+'g P d y punoj -jBno putlog paa^ire -a^no *^uaa jrad aan^sioj\[ a uorpadsuj X >> r^J « £ +-> o d c X * o « O 03 JS'se# 0J ,© 4) 43 fc. 03 it fe dTS * a p X 3 « 2 *g ® £ * Ml «‘S I a +j ® r— C ogsS-S „ bU « ^ H. ^ bD « g^- gSSsj Os c^2 in y >H «3 CC O fl > °° « ni:i «”§g,S Sh t, +J Sh 43 « oj £ a p » O *N » Se-'gS t> P 03 C -fi 33 P fe o *0 ? ff 03 P JP -d “ 3 o) ax to « O !h O ~ o d rH ^ 1 . 03 .+-> d ■*d o ™ m a; 03 33 £ p 3 5 !> C P l> GO o CP ■^1 P5 tp n d d X © 73 02 OQ 2 \ •P 03 £ £ O .03 s- C d “ d aj 4s! 73 ® © 5 4S -® 03 03 O 03 S $5 £ flel s«§S d to d 03 03 03 r| 43 £ 43 % 33 «2 i 1- ! bo 3 6* <0 baW 9 ?? 03 Oo $< o Ph ftOfl £43^ 6 ° 2 a 5? 00 So® 3 0 .9 "2 « 9 ^.9 p bflO O .9 * O rH So 03 - ! S >> pq +i 73 1 1 1 1 1 3 CJ fla ^ 2 r. a og 5 p 373 d 73 PH d-l >. 0 fl 'P02 « a d 3 oS S a Q +-* d cc tri s w W 'd 9 Sh 1—1 O 0 O 03 +j d P 4l«°o 73 " flgcfi fc. 03 03 U 03 73 ^ 'P 03 O 03 C ^ 53 43 03 « e « 2 d 3 P o h ® r . ® o - o 03 bfi C P 03 d 03 0343 0343 43 > 43 > ^ P p o‘° W boP3 05 ?3 « £ £ tin cd cd 43 ^ ° C O CD v co > S * o' ®+j« CO 0) *i h 3 S > o ko . p 5s ! O 1 1 a a? • ~ a) i .a l 1

p W 03 « 5 a s s ° 0 D ^ m g a ’Sh $ F*3 « PM a> R >» a «2 .2 « Wm. Ro Belt Ele Indians a w o fl aj o •«§ g CO cd 1=1 ^ oW^ 2 « cd o a « a * 6 « fafl od ! fe i 02 is-a P ^ cd X x « u T3 O V O . V ^ -d S % J5 ^ o /coG •S p cd 03 .S -d a 73 03 O a PM X 43 1—1 >. o 3 i 9 H a P Td o >» 'S a J S 03 rT i t: > a > a l| 1 ’ ^ i a 71 !J 5 S d .2 s o a cd a 9 o 'S £ s 2 6 GG ^ : « „ 1 £V GG 2 SO =3 ed 03 oa cd te § | PM O X3 O M O SpH u O -F O .F •a od r ^ H J-i "S ^ 8 5 PH OO Q B 4=3 O s £ cd s ho g cd bn m u 03 S c3 s JJ 1 PM 0'S 03 ^ do oS 52 rS LTD o -lO grip o © M rC M ^ £ © © © © 2 <3 £33 r 42 d > EG 5 £ 43 a ^ a a © «3 42 £3 © 43 a 4X1 £ ■d s-T d ^ 32 © tp © © c3 5 0 43 «,S £ 2 0 ^ c fl a 3 w£ © QB CD y 03 J U ^ +JP o 3 M fd w J £©3sj .g d fe a O fe c3 § ■g * 33° 15 « ^ S'o'ia TO © 5 © ©43-^43 a o © o f^W^, O ^3 P ^ P oj ^ wo o EGl> «s - fel © a ■“ 5 O a 0 © S| . « <3 b a *d 0) © 43 © 1 I bD « •dH rQ p. © d a 'o w I; q; 42 g © * © ^ tc (C © a = 3 .2 ■* 43 c £ c .a p- to © _ d3 43 M © o 0 © © © w t, O O 3 Q l 3 © 1-1 o © ^ « X | ®3* o y -a ic 'o d d © © . 43 © 33 © w t* © O d > © “ © £ © © ^*=1“ (N 00 Ckl (M CO CO o 00 CO O 00 o d to Ol > a| © g ^•2 ©Jq^ 6 © § s 0 O >, 0 £ P W ^ dO 30 30 (i| aCL| ft £? Cl 2 d £ O 0 cn -p p c n ► w d fH © "m £3 a a 1 -S d l-S M rnd aid § r © 0 cn O a 0 s Ph . d OW d 42 . m< Eh' ©d ©i 2 P3 >Q H s | 1 1 O 05 05 s © H CD @ 1 § gi Ss 3 i s 8 r—H rH rH CO JO CO i0 >Q S 5 © 3 i-ii 44 44 | 1 1 ! j 44 c 0 43 | d 0 43 +h | d O | 4 ^ 1 d) © 5 42 | i'g 1 1 1 1 1 *£ O ! pi !g p> w *Ph ^ C5§ 'C 0 d 0 jJ d «0 O- d5 0 44 d a» 2 0 02 P O I d 1 a> 1 CD 1 S j EG ! 3 cn .3 cn .3 cn .3 Ph jS 4443 djj 42 it ■p ! 44 3 3 p S (h © ! 43 I » O io O O 0 s ."S cn cn 02 j£ a ^ ! 44 a ^3 X3 0 !0 ^.a a dPH 1 § ' d 1 0 0 0 0 © ! 0 nd _. © 3 p gg a 42 1 42 c3 p 0 CZ2 "S Ch O 02 c3 O 02 44 44 13 i3 % Ph go ^42 O rg OH « a> a Cc Mo. 1 Wil II P S P a? X3 S3 42 43 j3 4 c 43 © ! S r^-M O 03 rt M S. 0 c3 Cd 0 Cd.S S3 H .s ^ d dPn 1 T3 1 OP 1 0 ! ^ 0 C3 0 03 O o3 ©O ©O ° Oc/2 02 ”6 ^543 'pd a £ §d -M *3 • «i - . ’§ > 3' d 10 a S « ^ Ph P*h «66 sg- 'd'd J J R HH 43 43 © _© 33 00 i § I Eh £ | ■8 © ^ C3 ! o -2 .2 d o‘i o *> O co a t,.H43 © 42 (^Ch g 43Q 2 tut d (3 W d •- 3 w a 2 +» 2 +j S .-2 2 4 J S 4 ^ 3t3fci3t3o3o 43043(^33043 o43 o zj Q y y u c/} C» CZ 2 CQ 02 cn c/j a a 03 o3 PMCM OT <& a .2 03 !h ChPh a «. -c >>a gM o Eu . P R O O M © © C3 Opt! b04d 3 w m “is !«§ eg Oh « PQ w« ©O 0 S 3 ft^ ft Not tagged. Labels furnished 267 Relabeled No. 5371 TABLE IV.— Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) 138 'o hi 2 a, +j g o> c § L, 0 O g ® ® 3 ,3 c “I _ O CD Cert S S Jh ^ 0 ftS puno^ paarnre -anno putlog paa^ire -a«no g ^ 133 - 0) s-. m § s r- ft CD £ CO .rt g CO d a) o > o> > C of s- w o3 +-> L( c3 0 ) 3 CO g "ft w TO C/2 O ^ 03 •+-» O _ _ g ^ 0 CC3 o> 5^ 2 00 tft ft ei ft 44 d d ,e W ^ M W ca ^ ;3

d cs OJ 0) 44 rC S ^ 44 O fe aS -d S o> ^ >» X 01 o T fn i a °-d •i ® g 0 K CO tj' *-l c £ rt £ . c d CD |.-S , £ d 2 : o44 ® fl ® rt •a “ ^ 5 -g £ is u d«g 5 gt ® tn ® h ° g CD S3 _g >, C S -c ■“ o 4361® rt C 44 cd^ 2 £ 0 § «« r s3 s £ o n ^ o <£ ^ ® ® 44 £ c c 3 O CD 44 -a o ^ e3 •d O^H ft 03 fl ® .2 rt T3 h 1 t>. ! 1 1 i M j 1 | 1 1 W I 1 1 3 > i ■5 03 (-1 £ d ft^ as o O a ^3 o > d rt ft 1 « 03 W 03 pu 03 (-• 03 • ^ ►5 s <=^3 .a§” 03 <5} ft P a §^.2 d o -c « - d dS W -ft „o '3 ^ ft o o ^ D *f M ^ Tb osg ft rtpXJ -d-o g ft ^ °S .a as rt rtoQ 0^4) W 03 dw0 Jh 03 ft l fe 3 & 139 2 s O ft .2 2 ft ° “re H g >>d ti^ 2«|1 u w C'O -« cd ft to g * § Ss o £ o o >; « 2 w 4 . «" 1. L-c^fl 5 c$ « 2 s « 85 | . & . *« r Z, -t-> fa p ft es M ft « «5 8 cd 2 s- xO ^ ft ft a p^ o ^ S3 O 6B ® ^ m .S OO CO ■« ® te ^

cd bo 03 bjo bjo C G oo in o o £ *’ * h O O bjo tn ^ ■ ft ft ^ ft ft (U ; S ® oj o i: 8 » ja 2ft ■“ I ^ h " tc ®vC) ^ c . £ ®g8 tP * s? P -ft 8 i2£$ cd *" o <*> a-. 8 rrj a u ft ® S’ ® ft 3 2 r * TP « OJU ft ft -ft - u +j ft 111 cd a) cd > a> a. a> S *£££ * a a „ „ cd bfl ft o ® ftg^ o — < «v § ft cd cd ft ft s-i 2-P o " «Tf£ o «> £ * ft o eft cd cd ft * ^ r& r&

'w ft ft .5 eft , \& ~Z > M s 'd r a ft b, a ft it ft 4J ^ C re © ft P ft c w 2 -*;> ft ^ a c £ a rfi c .5 ft a ^ -c « - -e .5 g ’p ft « 8 ft - > X .id < g) ft *1 O Cj O ^ O ft - ft cd C ft ft C ft ft 3 1 | a b e ft 'p 2 'P > -ft C3 55 -M K > ft >1 ft ft ft a P c ft o fl a5 03 “ a PM || 03 CO ws PM 5 •p ft ft Ph 08 TP ft P |b S jp CO o S” ■g fe : O 4P 6JD co o 3 03 O W be ft 2 bfl o.fl ft^ |w 53 0 T3 TP P P ft ft w pq 4P P 6 O 03 03 $ J2 SS 2 $$ 1 S < 0-J fc- I I a a 53 oo :1 1 2 ° « 55 2 co ^2 --S -s « p pH 0-2x3 O o ft 05 Pi 53 8 C ft 303 p ft I— I ft Ph Ph Ph 4 ft '►T PM ^ t^TP* P g 5 Ph ^2 pO 2o 2 ° Q £ t-3 "ft ft o o O PM §3 P tM ft cu TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1, 1917 to January 1, 1918 (continued) 140 g © c g o g ® s * 3 ^ ft ft | ti -o o “ o ^ ” “Jo .ft w £ © t-, r- ft ®.S c 'B HMD So" o w ft © ft 13 s o * ft puno^ paa^tre -JBtlO puno^ paa^tre -anno •^uao aacl aan^sio]/^ . u X i cS O J -gft ft ri w O «J ■d - 5 w O — 1 “ <1) . w 'd o , CD ^ Ss ® ft ©’-i * ft .ft 3 . ■** o ^ ^ * £ IP oq , £ ^ m 2 , S^ i 2 £ 'S © 2 ® V, 2 P CB ft © g § 3 £ s • Q «'s£ * H fl§ - fi r O ^ rZt >i W 'O 4 ° >1 _. c '* |SS,;§§S ****** £3 © ,3s! .5 5 > X g P n O A d _ w t 1 ;“§i - BSalSfS 42 ^«sj seg ^©r t© © © 33 ^ £ 0 P c3 CO *J © 2 ts T S S © beg t> CO e« 5 02 a O Q, > §• a fl w « + 3 r O 6 O © 6 Q s> P >i =8 a? a r-< 1 O fH O t3 s s nW w ■Sg N O ^GQ Pi °a a o a d 2 M M S § m i n jn t» .©3 toft toft 03 > 03 > IS > SZ to rj to ^5 tn °g ogog © t> © i> « > gp gpgp a uoiiaadsuj I^P®0 « .ft 8| j'-d ^ s i-ip al £p °§s •gw §£ >> ft3 ft . o cstOg ft, ft g S' S D O P cu .2 W-g . © a s ^ © © © c a 'S s o o ; ; j 4 ^ 1 1 1 0 O *C O 1 1 < i ; i M 1 1 ^ 'S ^ a? -'O g ^2 2 ft 1-1 © ca „co ft .ft ^ a gf-a o d 'S w ^ . O § S ft s .2 I:J .a§g gw 2 2 m w I 4 I 1 td -M ^ > F* 5 x “ O TO H B b o a be o . ft °io a sl © Jh 2 - X 3 S ® GG cj OH ft 3 B fi 3 © 5-S. '© So a- © g g 43 o £ _ tc ■ * g 1 .5 © ® c£ s • 3 « ■*+; £ «J ft ■M ® ft 3 g 3 ; s s S » « p, <1 s bo £ 25 © © 2 c 1 1 il o 1 < fj 3 5 -g-° a v S |^Q Q ft . r* w w 'd <3 cj o ^ w 0 4 J rti O +-» Jh -rn — d ^ g ?H £ &-< O OJO ^ O TO EG ?> § 0> G c © o G 0 .5 G "" :J£?5 bO tn 00 O “bo ^ © £ o^ o ■*■> G w 3C'o bfc r , £ g d Oft®. 3 a B g cS 3 w I di O >> X S o ® o S tS h ^ © 3 ft wo g ■“S £ £ eft G j 3 fe * 35 2-® ft* ft© 3 © Q g-g Q © 3 CO £2 TO : s D d bo 0 M t> b S' t >0 cS m •8 .&* « 2 ® © a p °|!s « 43 g w «* 2 3 s s *c a l> mm l|« G laj-^ a d 1 ©43-® 2 ■o ©« § 3 G © ? © ' C G « gS *3 2 ►. 3P5 w 43 ^ 0* 43 43 3 S « 3 •3 © o 2 © bo £ £ Sojg £ £ ; $ “■ge u © * 2 6 £ 'EfcS 3^ o TO 'f C ITO 3 p ft E w - O G N “ 43 43 G m "3 ao 2 « - • ft M c3 a g c3 H G - t3 ^ ft! to o 1 §S°< G £: (3 H O OO W'S ^3 43 a to 53 o 'S 2 a 4 os - 2 -sgS§ w W.bog s cq • G 3 ^ ©O ©G 3 »-s c; 3 CO © 0 03 © “2 Eh © •G0 ft .2o s w G bO g .5 Ph a i|l ila SO 3 G r-o G © M © 0^3 mO •— < o o S H 3 So G .q ^ o 5 5 ^ ? I © |d& | M .iJ O 03 rt M r ^ Cl &U g.2 © aftft! •~0 o © O S 00 GG © © 66 © © GG O O Ph Ph 00 ^ 'd CO QJ 3S 0 . 30 ^3 o> ^■2 3& 3 G »H « © 4 - co r 3 tn © TOCO 0 © 62 © H G ft ft Not tagged. Labels furnished 269 Conflicting guarantees 2 ®8 1100 lbs. withdraAvn from sale TABLE IV. — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, January 1 , 1917 to January 1 , 1918 (continued) 142 ® eS A ej 02 o <0 S rn 8 |©p w 3 -a 2 © g © © g d t <3 a; .5 B W r-. (fl to bJD 55 .©I W 3 ~ 3 2 O TO 2 © _S C © ft ^Id © - . © >> X ■** © O fi P C 3 3 ft «s x ft 2 S 3 E SO N‘o B © — « W £ +r Su- ggs C s 3 3 © +-> to X ^ bo 5 (-g g 6t - c © ,.g^ © X 3 & O "o ® 3 X d !«s S® © a 3 m bo N u“ ftg j-i © 3 tjgo x -o ^ ! — ft' - o ft tgf^ X M « j * ® ■ +h £ © g s © ©^ . &0.2 ) N 1 £ 3 tg^ ’ ^*1 co d r^« g i M . -5 !“Sg I X' cS -Oft© ft^ . ft +-> o ftQ © ft .d c © . L. TO o w bx) 0 .5 . L C ^ ^ J Jh £ .5 | £ «g g tG O , 0 3 fe O ^ A !c#s''=g CB -“ =fgl a . a) o <• •• •*-> > 2 © oj 1 02 Co)® k 3 oC 0 to fe; o . £ J X ^-3 g £ ^§3 ^ o © p- 2 o o L. w j. ^ ft® p00^UB -aeno puno^ (M CO (M P00^UB -aeno •}U0O a0d 0an^sioj\[ © 1 1 CD 1 1 © , © © © 3 ! | j 3 > 3 3 £ ! , d ©• > ’n > co 3 03 > w 03 3 S3 > w 10 3 > * w > 03 03 > W 6 6 0 3 ! > 3 H 0 •N CD 0 m d 0 d © PQ 0 OD d 3 S3 > Jh PQ 6 3 c3 > pq r r _r O bo 6g g r © 6 O d 0 O 0 O 6 0 6 0 is a PL _3 5 3 o-g © ^ Ph © 6 0 © 0 d bo 3 O d 3 O m 3 O © =8 «8 a X ) ! (-C ■d 3 s > 2 d 3 H «8 co 3 S3 EH © © 02 >> 1 © © 02 >> ■o 3 S3 T3 3 S3 S 02 S 02 ® c ! 1 ) 3 © 0 3 ©pq 0 c n - at- I O) ^ ; d Q 0 3 © ! O ® 3 © ! « "3 M © 02 02 pSL ^ e > K> . d 2 d ^ {>■ > CO S3 CO A w W " P i 53 3 cl£ 3 0 ft 1 ■- ! .2^ 5 c ! w S3 .S O d O 3 W S3 W c ° 02 -A- 02 K* 1 Iph ©Hi _• PQ Eh i O a uonoadsuj I«PUJO ( 3 s s +* Wed 1*1 Ofo ®S sM ^ o ®o X Ph Q si ® s & i i j : ; s 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! i ! ^ 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i : ; : w : 5 o a i ~ i . d d © 1 1 1 'g i -d : ; £ § : ^ £! ,q.te 0 o 1 I -a -a 02 a> QJ CD Ph Ph a d 0> ■£ ■So O X! HJ.-S 3 S3 TJ II §Ph o o a O o’ °« bo 02 So S So ! I* ®' r d i rl C o o« «8 ,© S3 «1 S Offl® a © © +3 3 -IB o ^Ph , o , 2 a n o o S S 03 03 SS B® o x: 11 'C « © 2 go £ I 3 C © ft © ’See Ph =8 4 -> <=8 P P £ a X jS § p o. _ 1 S S 5 O d d © © d © © O § bo Ph Ph 3 .3 © X! X 3 rv. C3 — ■ S3 ■— - U © t* © © JC © 33 02 02 02 02 >» M >> S-i c3 _C3 © "a t« ’ft w tn !>, E 7 >, 'SO'SO Ph Ph So2 © © ^ C3 Cl •= .tc © 3O ^02 g •IE o pC a> -M O 5 !; So ^ © © bo S bo 5 w ogQ 3 oO WO 143 ft Not tagged. Labels furnished 270 Returned to distributor 269 Conflicting guarantees 271 Misbranded. Relabeled No. 3929 144 g 'ft m ra a) g a; a rj CQ £ CD U a » • 8 -S 8 gg 2 u ft£ ■ft -p 3 243 s u S a punoj; paaipre -anno putlog paa^ire -jBno > -M BJ o cd *d . © © wO • f! (US'- S. CG . <0 u o ^ ® ® bo ° H .g. 2 -m* 2 g ■° -ft g Cd ft n cd d ^ ^ M ■S^s-ftgg ^ cd ® ,° . CD b . cd >ft ft o P c- t. o cd O O Tfl is 6 its . H (31 c O ft p £ ft a ft-* g‘*s cd oo (D OO ■g® otfS ft o ^ X 2 <-. be a ^ ft cd >> c* o •ft °P g c a . fS ft (M ■g ft a <3 ® w P ft ^ a 2 fe tn ^ -a . >.ft£ cd 5 ,Q O U +J ^ rH l> u ^ . X - © c fe *a u a E s * ® 'ft tn ft 5 'ft © ft 0) +- O <0 ^a o Soft •“ftp J-® g 'O Sif 8 ” a c 1 * § d • « a g ® 33«») ft "E ® go's ^-1 S ft 'H +3 a 0) C .JN ^ 13 h^o c .2 ■M O Cl w 8 CQ -M o> a; a a (H c3 03^5 PH a uoi^aadsuj IBiaipo 145 to tfl u d X o £ F< © ^ be . y rQ 3 ,*' 5^ O , £~ ©Q 0 * 2 . . - , d d © £ d«? 2 > O e^ d t> W 0) Sh II X ^ O t- h C 0) § tn £ ft o o <5 O 53 c oo S «; CO M O - O g d W y y to "9 d ^ £ ■ s 2 go (h E O 3 laSg^; 02 1> | s ■§.§ 3 '- ft ~ 3 +T +J *i£'d O y y", flj y -a ~ 'n © boS 33 eo -g -gfl d iH C Q«^ ^ m o5 fiS 1 O ft fl to X — ©. 3 *-> a •= be r »® ft — C3 -S 3 2 *3 y ^ 'd ^ |"S I 5 ’!*- a ® 3- .5 ,3 3 ^ 3 to bfl ... © t -d .a ^ X O | 3 - d ft-P o ft © u 3 ^ © -d +j w © © d « 5 ,* (D « 2 o £ u W 4? »H J* > 1 “ o £ s oSA y £^ft a « 50 “to _, g _. X y 0'S oe ho y &-*> £ ftg ■m ' d © oft -* H ft to m C S | y O o* “ ® fl SS,g y - y 5 £-3 S ■M y . >» 3 ft y O © ft t3 • _. aga «|1 " ,o^ iJ xg§ ' 2 |§ " “ © ® d P ft X 2 y bo ” h p *^7 ®fl» g I s ! h . j d w x 3 o ft ft£5 A ti y y ft d y ° *°£ iUi ° g’fl-c! (D^O^ 3 F. £ i£ ,3 ft to be* +j ^ © O d © fl fl © E © ^•ft © | d S ““ ©hU y ^ © o.o © O CS C^"S 3 3 0 3 ^ OH W V c v § 2 ft ii 1 i o g°g s X. o JS +a ft o *2 -g S^Bs 3 y [2 ■u y tao © * H 3 o M 3 ^ 30 © © © rt O © 82 ft -3 g 3 SI «o X . 'O r-M ® 3 -p 52 y f- • o be Is ■BCS* . Fh 2 o Fh 3 O O +j bo bo fl 3 53 43 fl 3 3 SM M & li 1 1 ! ii 1 1 iS ! S- 8 Sc ! @ S 8 1 1 ft! ® l 8 S > CP JD~ i i ! Si i e § § §£ 1 s si fe § 8 ? I S S ^ S 8911 8128 1 1 1 1 J 1 1 ” 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l ; 1 1 1 I I 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 l l l i 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 J3 r® R t 1 l 1 1 1 1 4-3 1 1 1 ‘C 0 X .© 1 1 _< -M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t£ 1 1 1 1 1 Ind it ... a 1 Oftfr oa^ |o3 « boo O 33 ©ft I S°S 3 W Of O.S 3 2 -x ^ 8 8 ’ >?a ft* to © SMW Ph . ® M 2 3 os o oa bOft ^ srs Ahw Ph g 1 « -O «S •2fe ft ^ - © « ^ 3 _ ftO >.> ft^ Ph^4 ft a o O "d 7 „5ft .3 O Fh se« O T3 fl 3 P .2 fl 3 P P flO O a ag « ® -.9 dg fhO Is ft Not tagged. Labels furnished 272 Conflicting guarantees 146 csU 3 £.2 5 « S ^ _ o w C C cj | *i -d ^ 3 Q) §:i “go rj M 2 o 2 o ? "2 © 3 3 3 ■5 y J»35 ■y 3 £ y «5 IS’* 3 o £ y 3 3 £*1d °dB »3 y 4J 3 3-© £ & 3 o-S 33 3 y ftfte 3 '2 » 33 fl to y 3.2 3 3 o ft_ e”1 3 ’B 1 3)+J (.P-fl 3 5 33 to y ,-1 d y . . y y to ■£ 3 © S B3« 13 to U 3 y >, to 3 3 3 3 3 0 03 J 32 o c b y 3 a,* y §•■§ f«§ 3 . A bed fe •rt y d d gyS p. g 2 ~ ®s 15 © y 43 S £ •5 ,* (1 “ t-t £ £ 3 3 3 33 3 • 3 te a y - '32 ^ g £ S £ .5 o .5 ho 2^2 3 - S « d y to g U d ft- +J S Q. ft 3 3 3 5 o to 3 be 3 O M 3 y

E 3 o K 2 03 y s§ 2H 25 oS ot » 2 2 be o 0 faO O d^ 32 3^ T3 co o O'S O O d} ^ y .§ -m. 2 o c O OS 3 « B > y § £ O 03 33 « d! 2 § 0 3® y ,33 «|| is* |«d .£ 2 s fl cd ft? © .2 O 31 05° 3! Eh 2 be T3 O 2W . w M 147 +9 V O V b Z it S J! S S C! - 05 ,a £ £ £ t ng £ rs x X XX ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ & & £ U H ^ ^ ^ ^ « 4> ^ .£ pfi -S := .S £ *5 "£ 1£ "Su "S 0) ® t g£ a * a £ £ £ £ o « e © ® 'I ® a S A .3 O .- +> £ -« c c c c £ £ £ £ it it it it U %. ■- U S3 — 3 3 5 5 S 0) p ii ac ® « ob vr * SD © ^ 0 £ Tt 33 es os r- I? 18 0 8 « 8 3 3 CO 0) ft rj ft ® g 0 , 0)0 o CO W ?> C ft 3 ft $ M .xg § 03 3 ^ w | » O £ ^ ft Q) 0 O' 02 4-> . 3 O -53 _j 0 3 3 g B - ■ ft : 8^83; . p x to .g 8 2 & 5 § tt ™ ft 1 co C 3 0 ' o ft | 5 ! 2 Q) 3 d rO £ O J 3fi“6 CJ M rH d ODS Sf-Sg Oft s S_ a3^ ft ® E -r 3 O bJO co ,3 U O SgS 8 §*.2 5 3 c ® ft .2 .3s' H ft ft ft ■3 £ S 53 .6 43 to 3 CO ® 0 8 ij g 3 -a ft . ® co ft 'd 3 3 o 0*3 a - 2 ft 3 O O 3 Oh 0 0 3 O > £■§ 8 . ° 3 « ? . . to >> 3 r- 3 ft W ft 3 co Sfe ft ■S3 .ft O 0.3 3 3 «)0) 2g« °ft2. O ft +> 3 3 punoj[ paa^utj -JTrno putlog paa^uB -aeno *^uaa aad aan^sio^\[ to eo S 8 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 j 1 ! *4 0 6 0 l 1 d ! C3 II « w a >> p. ft 3 CO a a) O s Ch 3 ffl ’S CQ O 0. g <8 O 31 3 «r ^ 8 > ? I a3 P. V2 > l ^ f-i ft 3 co 3 O so PhCG o ft ft > t» CO w « ft O °55 125 a uopoadsuj I B PHJ 0 3 o » >. 'S'S i i «8 O 3 “ 3^ 8 ® 0 ft ■S3 O . °s bo bo 0 0 -ww 'i'S 0 ft bo ^ O Jl 3 '3 a a 0 0 '3 3 S oT ft ft* £ *3 2-a ftll aO« 3 tH +j 3 « CO to 3® D hJQ o <5W 0.2 HH JS ^5 £\ HH gS §« o §°£ 55-3 ft ft o 3 O O £: buo - .8 W ’■£ . 3 a £ ft ^ £j'ft o S'°g a’g" 0*3 >» ^ aj ft | 3 8 o o i-i . Ph a ** 5 bo JR §<« O ^J oc °s • Pa W r# , > .2 •3 » ogtrj I o’ 149 u d d _ U 2 ® -d S ® d « £ «- i > i P w h « «• ■' £ .p « a ® c c3 _ o £ »® o c tSe ^ p "3 OH)® ,ss P o OCQ £ »+) £ s ®

« 3d 58 b£ v - . o o ' N COO^ ®S5c!lH®OOp § a 5*2 O ® © 0 £ M Mi d g « Sr£ § ft P « 0) ^ 'O 0 ^ V O *2^ ® || gg & ,rt d O ^ ,d P W O « § 3 . co « 5 2 CO ^ • CD 2 &<> £ CD . P s cd P TJ “do P CD O Ss M CD rj to g * o d co > S-oti S53 O O M a«^s 23«fc «•-=« § nW^'C 3 U5 W P .a s 0) M P ft CD 0) i> o“» o co CO . to g r* ^ .5 a p a S c o- CD h mi Ml 5 . p W i cc 3 ft aw Ml . “ . g H S "d 3 d -3 n l"fig K CD , -rt d P d g cd d cd 53 ^ Tr,^ O) .X4 o oi „ d M)^ O B r w o flO .2 CH a | is >> a 03 ft a ..h O as fl Ot> O co >» P ft dJ +J-S o a P tn 3 O ^ oPM 111 ■3 £ o 5 P3 .g'd Z, CD pH CD -Ph d a fe| O co P K H OH Ph Pi §3 il © Ph - d o^a ® « K O cs BO T"J ^gp w «‘g fl d.2 d ft^2 s a a COP pO o o o O H P4 0 -P °'d 0 ■3 0 ^ C3 hH O r— ^ *12 _T c-> 4-» . >> a; ^ 0 OlS pc--: S 0 p rS °-Sg ail P C 35 a H g ® 0 53 £ 0 0 K Q « >> >H S 'P ft ^ a O fg o p Ph °§>> >> -+3 gas d ^ CD >1 . Cj +0 £cn 02 Eh g - P >5 . CO p c o ft o Ph O-o^ ^ cd rH O 10 0 , , , , , , , 3 CO S 1 1 1 1 1 1 co 05 co oq 0 »-j 0 05 rH GO 10 r—i co c4 0 O j ! ! ! I °i CO CO O °o cc Ph ft? MC«5 p D o© 4-> pQ-P ^ GC JjcOO CD 0«5s Jp dH Eh 2 Eh Fh hi re £ 0 ) x rs 4) V P h « v ® ; .S~S ts * ® - ^3 c a CD 5 O a£* JJ «H S'g'l .as I ^ s g P CD Z ® *H . ® . g £ 3 2 ft^ ft cfp SB * 3 9.0^^ N ^eo -p Se^e ■b t? -b « 4) M ® V h h « h 4) X O Pp3 S 5 S O u o fc< '*1 u p ®p CD > D > O f o c o sis Sr 9 . 3 D « D x x W5 rH CO £ Bn« 1| 2 1 M)JK ® v « j- h . ® -C ^ « ■d -sd- h .2 g S c a t ril s 8 X > ® c© Frt ^ g § | > 5 $ £ ® S g q p ® D-d O i_ . h 4) X • a !i tB o 5 g p s s CDc ty 3 g a &.S 5 «3 *S ® §3 , 3 & ^ +3 jOvO ® ® .S g i5o g © c t, 5 <- o g ® S s ,2 a ** _ o w S fi ® » 5 o a M £-s§ 2 p« T3 +> 3 o3 Ji'H puno^ poo^un -anno puno^ paa^uB -anno '^uao aad aan^sioj^ a uorpodsuj Ibioijjo a c o o aj © m 3 P a s s a us 3 00 0 ) 02 — * 3 * o £ « £*■ g 85 -g a g © £ •m a ssC 3.5 3 a £ •a c ® 5 © a , sand, of corn, rn scree orn sere corn, w « m O u © a © © rS « £ 2 s ■*» -m a £ © .&p © g as° d ■S g i m ^ m 5 to' w g> S •3s£ m be n •S tj 3 a © O . T 3 to r^j ft 3 '5 ! oj 2 JMo °o © oq oi d 05 s C /2 rt i i i "C p io £ $ a s 111 1 l a P- \% a © o a p a i iii ! iii a 1 rC CD h © 6 a > iii- § ! !<« O © o & a ! GO ^ JB ^8 „ C/2 C/2 C/2 r/, t_| S_( L_| CD 02 a) CD 2 © a ft 4- f o a 2 a a I a a a ^ Ss o £ § £ rt W >) O fa H « « « ^ «2 tS «2 S n" ;z2 w >>,c hs ^ '3 3 3 § tn C3 O c ’ M 1 O d h sss HH • ^ 1-5 PM K go Pm g «a Ph a c ^ 03 ®W S3SS8 PM af g a ° S »*«“§ .302 o§>£ ^•|'Sg H O) ^ g g a 18 aa^ S 1-1 x tS fl « SSmi ft* fP s a s 0 6s£ go -2 ° toa ^ 2 T3 ^ o PM ® O Ml on °o°a 5al 03 to<^ fid ca ©+^ °!« ■©o^ 3 a O C >»CL| 5 03 t-t ^ OT '3 Qpq a a 3 © H to gg ifiWu © a a! |6§ 3 « pq $ Pm $ SI 1 1 a 1 v. ^ © © fa fa << £ . =8 81 ts Sat s>> a ©a £ ci o> ph w Jz; _ 0 QJ Dapq ^ QJ o> Ph ^ a to QJ © ® 03 3 33 afi C 3 3 to~ 03 «o-g 02 d 0 * 03 cc * a o ^ * SO »s* * * Not tagged f f Not tagged. Labels furnished * Not registered INDEX Page Attention, consumers, agents, dealers 26 Cooperation with United States Department of Agriculture 21 Definitions and descriptions of feeding stuffs 12 Digestible nutrients in feeding stuffs 10 Discussion of several classes of feeding stuffs 21-25 Estimated sales 1917 compared with those of 1916 and 1915 17 Explanation of terms 9 Indiana Feeding Stuffs control law— Administration 7 Objects 3 Pounds of crude fat and crude protein ob- tained for $1.00 : 16 Refunds 20 Remarks to agents, dealers, distributors 4 Remarks to consumers 5 Page Remarks to manufacturers 3 Results of enforcement 18 Sales of feeding stuffs 17 Samples examined microscopically 21 Shipments removed from sale 19 Special notice 26 Special regulations applying to dealers in hominy feed 14 State Chemist’s label, reproduction 6 Tables— Explanation of 25 Table I Average digestion coefficients of feeding stuffs 11 II Average analyses of twenty- nine classes of feeding stuffs 17 III Estimated tons and retail value 18 IV Details of inspection 27 CONTENTS OF TABLES Average analyses and pounds of crude fat and crude pro- tein for $1.00 Estimated tons and retail value, dollars Details of inspection Alfalfa meals _ 17 18 76 Animal by-products 17 18 77-86 17 18 103 Calf meals 17 18 126 Cocoanut by-products _ 17 18 86 Condiment al feeds— Condimental poultry feeds, registered - 17 18 148 Condimental poultry feeds, not registered. 17 18 149 Condimental stock foods, registered 17 18 146 Condimental stock foods, not registered 17 18 147 Com feed meal __ 17 18 87 Corn germ meal 17 18 89 Com gluten feed 17 18 91 Corn gluten meal 17 18 92 Cottonseed, cold pressed 17 18 103 Cottonseed fe,ed 17 18 94 Cottonseed meal 17 18 95 Distillers’ dried grains 17 18 103 Dried sugar beet pulp 17 18 86 Hominy meal, feed or chop 17 18 92 Linseed meal 17 18 105 Malt snrnnts 18 Miscellaneous 17 18 150 Oat middlings 18 Poultry and scratch feeds — Mash _ ... ... 17 18 127 Without grit 17 18 130 With grit __ . ... 17 18 139 Proprietary stock and molasses feeds 17 18 108 Rice feeds _ ... * 18 Screenings oil feed 106 Unscreened flaxseed oil feed 17 18 106 Wheat middlings, palm oil 107 Velvet bean feed 17 18 94 Yeast grains 17 18 105 Mill by-products — Buckwheat hulls 67 Chop feeds miscellaneous 17 18 69-76 Corn hran 17 18 86 Corn and oats chop 17 18 68 Com, oats and corn feed meal 74 Corn, oats, corn feed meal and com bran 70 Low grade flour 46 Mixtures miscellaneous mill by-products 61-68 Reddog flour . 46 Rye bran and middlings _ 67 Rye middlings .... 67 INDEX (continued) CONTENTS OF TABLES Average analyses and pounds of crude fat and crude pro- tein for $1.00 Estimated tons and retail value, dollars Details of inspection Rye middlings and screenings _ , 67 Wheat bran _ 17 18 27 Wheat bran, corn bran ___ 17 18 58 Wheat bran, com bran, wheat screenings Wheat bran, middlings 17 18 59 17 18 53 Wheat bran, middlings, com bran 17 18 61 Wheat bran, middlings, corn bran, screenings 17 18 62 Wheat bran, middlings, screenings 17 18 54 Wheat bran, middlings, screenings, cleanings. 17 18 57 Wheat bran, middlings, screenings, rye ... 17 18 57 Wheat bran, middlings, screenings, salt 17 18 57 Wheat bran, rye bran, corn bran, screenings 17 18 59 Wheat bran, screenings 17 18 32 Wheat middlings or shorts (standard) 17 18 37 Wheat middlings, corn feed meal ... __ 17 18 66 Wheat middlings, red dog flour 17 18 45 Wheat middlings, red dog flour, screenings 17 18 66 Wheat middlings, rye middlings ... _ 17 18 66 Wheat middlings, screenings 17 18 46 Wheat middlings, screenings, salt 17 18 66 Wheat white middlings 17 18 45 PURDUE UNIVERSITY ' LfWfflv Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 218 August, 1918 Fig. 1. Feed grain in deep litter to insure exercise and proper digestion THE VALUE OF SKIM-MILK AND MEAT SCRAPS FOR WHITE PLYMOUTH ROCKS Published by the Station: LAFAYETTE, INDIANA U. S. A. PURDUE UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BOARD OP CONTROL Joseph D. Oliver, President, South Bend v q Chandler Indianapolis Warren T: McCray Kentland CHARLES Downing ::::::: Greenfield JAMES W. Noel Indianapolis town A Hille nbrand Batesville Andrew E. Reynolds Crawfordsville C%*vs M Hobbs . Bridgeport William V. Stuabt ... LaFayette CYRUS M. HOB w - i " throp E Stone ^ a> m>; Ph. D President of the University ADVISORY COMMITTEE (Under Legislative Act of 1909) T yy Mnnnti .... D. B. JOHNSON, MOOreSville John G. Brown, ^Mo^o association State Dairy Association TT -o tt, otttt u n np . .... D. P. Maish, Frankfort U. R. t ISHEL POULTRY^ ' fXnCIERS 7 ' ASSOCIATION STATE CORN GROWERS* ASSOCIATION F j heacock, Salem Indiana Horticultural Society ADMINISTRATION Charles G. Woodbury, M. S„ Director Harry J. Reed Assistant to the Director Nellie Tracy Administrative Assistant MARY K. Bloom .Bookkeeper agricultural extension George I. Christie, B. S. A., Superintendent Thomas A. Coleman Ass t State Leader Field Studies and Demonstrations George M. Frier, B. S. A As L 3 < i£ i Charge of Short Courses and Exhibits Mabel L. HARLAN .Ass’t in Agricultural Extension Richard S. Thomas, B. S„ ----- - Ass’t in Soils and Crops Extension ANIMAL HUSBANDRY John H. Skinner, B. S., Chief Claude M. Vestal, B. S., ; Associate in Animal Husbandry George A. Branaman, B. S„. ------ - Assistant in Animal Husbandry Herbert E. McCartney, B. S. A ------ : Ass’t in Animal Husbandry Extension BOTANY Herbert S. Jackson, A. B.. Chief George N, Hoffer, M. S Associate in Botany Luna E Allison, B. S Assistant in Botany Edwin B. Mains, Ph. D Assistant in Botany DAIRY HUSBANDRY Ralph E. Caldwell, B. S., Acting Chief Howard W. Gregory, B. - --- ■ — -- Associate in Dairy Manufactures George Spitzer, Ph. G., B. S - --- --- Associate in Dairy Chemistry Harry M. Weeter, M. S ----- Associate in Dairy Bacteriology Turner H. Broughton, B. S Assistant in Creamery Inspection William F. Epple, Ph. G -- - : .--- Assistant in Dairy Chemistry Hubert W. Fleisher, B. S. A ........ Assistant in Creamery Inspection ENTOMOLOGY James Troop, M. S., Chief FARM MECHANICS William Aitkenhead, M. E., M. A., - Specialist in Farm Mechanics HORTICULTURE Laurenz Greene, M. S. A., Chief Harry A. Noyes, M. S Associate in Horticultural Chemistry and Bacteriology Joseph Oskamp, B. S.. Associate in Pomology Walter A. Huelson, B. S Assistant in Horticulture NUTRITION Ralph H. Carr. Ph. D Associate in Nutrition Chemistry POULTRY HUSBANDRY Allen G. Philips, B. S. A., Chief Dwight C. Kennard, Ph. C., B. S Assistant in Poultry Husbandry j Lewis H. Schwartz, B. S. A. Assistant in Poultry Husbandry SOILS AND CROPS Alfred T. Wiancko, B. S. A., Chief Martin L. Fisher, M. S -’- Assistant Chief in Soils and Crops | Samuel D. Conner, M. S Associate Chemist in Soils and Crops i Clinton O. Cromer, B. S Associate in Crops | Sadocie C. Jones, M. S Associate in Soils ! Ernest N. Fergus, M. Sc -:- Assistant in Soils and Crops j STATE CHEMIST Edward G. Proulx, M. S.L.Acting State Chemist | Reuben O. Bitler, B. S. 2 .... Deputy State Chemist j Margaret Briggs, B. S.,... .Deputy State Chemist Paul B. Curtis, B. S . 2 Deputy State Chemist Omar W. Ford, A. B . 2 Deputy State Chemist | Herman J. Nimitz, B. S. 2 ..Deputy State Chemist J. Howard Roop, B. S. 2 .... Deputy State Chemist Samuel F. Thornton, B. S . 2 Deputy State Chemist Otis S. Roberts, B. S . 2 Chief Inspector State Chemist’s Department I Glen G. Carter, B. S . 2 Inspector State Chemist’s Department Benjamin F. Catherwood 2 Inspector State Chemist’s Department I William B. Tiedt * Inspector State Chemist’s Department VETERINARY SCIENCE Robert A. Craig, D. V. M., Chief David B. Clark, D. M. C. ..Associate Veterinarian Lawrence C. Kigin, D. V. M Associate Veterinarian j George N. Roberts, D. V. M., Associate Veterinarian Rex A. Whiting, D. V. M Associate in Animal Pathology | Carl H. Clink, B. S Ass’t in Serum Production j Leo P. Doyle, B. S Ass’t in Animal Pathology ■ Leslie R. George, B. S Assistant in Animal Pathology Fred L. Walkey, D. V. M Ass’t Veterinarian DETAILED BY U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Cereal and Forage Crop Insect Investigations ! John J. Davis, B. S.. Entomological Assistant in Charge John M. Aldrich, Ph. D., Entomological Assistant Herman J. Hart, B. S Scientific Assistant Wesley O. Hollister, B. S.,.. Scientific Assistant Dean A. Ricker, B. S Scientific Assistant Chester F. Turner, B. S Scientific Assistant Seed Testing Anna M. Lute, M. A Seed Analyst 1 In charge of Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control 2 Connected with Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control THE VALUE OF SKIM-MILK AND MEAT SCRAPS FOR WHITE PLYMOUTH ROCKS A. G. Philips SUMMARY PART I— PULLETS A Plymouth Rock pullet is an efficient transformer of raw mate- rial into a finished product. • The consumption of feed of the meat scraps pen was 97.63 pounds of feed per fowl at a cost of $1.69 ; the no-meat-food pen was 83.24 pounds at a cost of $1.37 and of the skim-milk pen 201.82 pounds at a cost of $1.79. Of the feed consumed in the latter pen, 115.74 pounds was milk. All birds tended to consume a similar amount of grains and mash regardless of whether they were good or poor layers. It was the addition of skim-milk or meat scraps to the ration that increased the efficiency of the grain. The cost of feeding- a Plymouth Rock pullet on a good ration averaged about $1.75 for the year 1916 but during 1917, this cost in- creased to nearly $2.50. It cost an average of $0,155 to produce one dozen eggs in the skim-milk pen, $0,152 in the meat scraps pen and $0,275 in the check pen. It cost less to feed a pullet when no skim-milk or meat scraps was fed, but it cost more to produce a dozen eggs. The amount of dry matter required to produce one pound of eggs in the skim-milk pen was 4.9 pounds ; in the meat scraps pen was 5.14 pounds, and in the no-meat-food pen was 9.57 pounds. The egg production averaged 140.2 eggs per pullet for the skim- milk pen, 135.9 eggs P er pullet for the meat scraps pen, and 61.2 eggs per pullet for the check pen. All birds tended to lay the most eggs in or about the month of April whether well or poorly fed ; whether good or poor layers. The profit over feed in the skim-milk pen was $1.59; in the meat scraps pen, $1.62; and in the no-meat-food pen, $0.05. The feeding value of skim-milk for Plymouth Rock pullets was $1.60 per hundred pounds and of meat scraps was $20.03 per hundred pounds. The meat scraps pen produced better fertility but not as good hatching power of eggs as the skim-milk pen. Birds ' receiving neither skim-milk nor meat scraps produced eggs of the best fertility. A Plymouth Rock pullet produces about 27 pounds of manure in a year at night. The method of feeding had no influence on the health or mor- tality of the flock. 4 PART II— HENS Under normal conditions, hens consume about as much food as pullets. Hens that were starved for animal protein as pullets, increased their consumption of everything as hens, when fed milk in abundance. It cost but slightly less to feed a hen than a pullet. When fowls had sufficient animal protein all their lives they normally laid less eggs as hens than as pullets. Fowls that did not receive sufficient animal protein as pullets laid poorly, but when given skim-milk as hens they laid as many, if not more, eggs than pullets normally did. A fowl’s egg capacity cannot be judged by the number of eggs she laid unless she received a normal ration. The no-meat-food pullets molted early and were in full new feathers by October. When skim-milk was added to their ration in November, they responded quickly by laying more winter eggs as hens than any fowls did as pullets. Early molting indicates poor laying, but it may not indicate poor laying capacity. Hens not fed milk as pullets produced more income and profit over feed as hens, than did milk-fed pullets. Hens seemed to produce better fertility than pullets, but showed little improvement in hatching power of eggs. PART I — PULLETS INTRODUCTION Feeding experiments with poultry at this institution began in 1910 and the first four years’ work was published in Bulletin No. 182, Novem- ber, 1915. Work of a similar nature has been continued and this pub- lication gives the results of some of the experiments. The object of this experiment was to obtain the feeding values of commercial meat scraps and sour skim-milk with White Plymouth Rock pullets. Similar work has been carried on with White Leghorns and it seemed necessary to know if like results would be found with a heavier breed. TIME The different experiments were conducted between the following dates : Experiment No. 1, December 1, 1914 to November 30, 1915 Experiment No. 2, November 3, 1915 to November 2, 1916 Experiment No. 3, November 3, 1916 to November 2, 1917 The work was repeated for three years in order to make the results more indicative and conclusive. HOUSING AND YARDING The pens were each 10 feet by 12 feet, built in pairs, with concrete floors, muslin and glass fronts, Purdue trap nests and were modern in every way. Each pen had a yard 130 feets by 150 feet in area planted to young fruit trees. An eight feet strip of sod was maintained around each lot; 5 four rows of corn were grown between the trees in the summer and a rye cover crop planted over the entire area in the fall. This made what was thought to be as near ideal farm conditions for poultry as it was possible to obtain on a new experimental farm. The lots were naturally devoid of trees, and the soil was made up of Sioux sandy loam. This was first class for poultry, but poor land on which to raise crops. The houses faced the south and the land gently sloped to the north. Fig. 2. A flock of pullets in the experiment and the type of open-front house used STOCK The stock in Experiment No. i was White Plymouth Rock pullets purchased from a farm in Indiana and in Experiments Nos. 2 and 3 was of the same variety hatched on the Purdue farm. There were 30 pullets in each flock and were as nearly alike in size, vigor and development as was possible to obtain them. Experiment No. 1 was not started until December 1, because the pullets were hatched a little late, and were not ready to lay in November. In the other two experiments, the chicks were artificially hatched and brooded in March, reared on good free range and were matured by November 1. In Experiment No. 1, cockerels were used in each pen and in Experiments Nos. 2 and 3, two cock birds were used. These males were changed from pen to pen every few days, so as to eliminate any influence on fertility or “hatchability” through the medium of the ration or any individual male. RATIONS AND FEEDS The rations used were practically the same as those used in the pre- ceding experiments with the Leghorns and seemed to be easily ob- tained throughout Indiana. No ration will ever be worked out that is 6 perfect and it was the plan of the Purdue Poultry Department to use such feeds as were grown in Indiana and mixed in the most practical way. The rations were as follows : Skim-milk Pens Meat Scraps Pen Check Pens Grain Grain Grain 10 pounds corn 10 pounds corn 10 pounds corn 10 pounds wheat 10 pounds wheat 10 pounds wheat 5 pounds oats 5 pounds oats 5 pounds oats Mash Mash Mash 5 pounds bran 5 pounds bran 5 pounds bran 5 pounds shorts 5 pounds shorts 5 pounds shorts and 3.5 pounds meat scraps 50 pounds skim-milk In making up the rations, the plan was to use the meat scraps ration as a basis and supply as much protein in the skim-milk as in the meat scraps ration. The meat scraps were obtained from a commercial packing house in large enough quantities to last for three years so that the same could be used throughout all experiments. The skim-milk was purchased from the Purdue Dairy Department weekly and was considered fairly uniform in composition. It was estimated from analyses made, that 50 pounds of skim-milk contained the same amount of protein as 3.5 pounds of the meat scraps used. Wherever possible, the grains were bought in large lots from nearby farms and the other feeds were obtained from local elevators. During the winter, the corn was increased to 15 pounds, the wheat reduced to five pounds and in the fall, one pound of oil meal was added. Grit, oyster shell and dry ground bone were always available, as was also the water, except in the skim-milk pen. When the birds were not on range, mangel-wurzels were used as green feed. The bran and shorts were fed together as a dry mash and the grains were mixed and fed together. The skim-milk was fed in an open pan and the meat scraps mixed with the mash. PRICES OF FEEDS The prices of the feeds as charged were the same as those paid for the feeds. They varied from month to month, although the feeds bought in quantity remained the same -for several months. The following state- ment shows prices for the feeds during the three experiments. Every effort was made to buy feed as economically as possible. Minimum and Maximum Prices of Feeds per One Hundred Pounds Feed Experiment No. 1 Experiment No. 2 Experiment No. 3 Corn $1.25-$1.44 $1.25-$1.71 $1.71— $3.75 Wheat 1.25- 2.16 1.60- 2.10 2.10- 3.55 Oats _ 0.94- 1.66 0.94- 1.37 1.37- 1.50 Bran 1.50 1.25- 1.50 1.50- 2.35 Shorts 1.60- 1.70 1.35- 1.70 1.70- 2.85 Oil meal 1.80 1.80-1.95 1.95- 2.85 Skim-milk 0.30 0.30 0.30- 0.50 Meat scraps 2.60 2.00 2.60 Grit — 0.53 0.54- 0.59 0.59- 0.66 Shell 0.53 0.54- 0.59 0.59- 0.66 Bone - 2.25- 3.50 2.25 2.25- 2.35 METHODS OF FEEDING AND CARE The mixed grains were placed in a bucket in each pen and the dry mash put into a hopper. The feeding was so managed that the grain and dry mash were both consumed in the same length of time, thus insur- ing an even balancing of the ration. There was little trouble in keeping the balance, although care had to be given to insure the same. The grain Fig. 3. Dry mash and grit should be fed in hoppers upon platforms above the floor in order to economically use the floor space fed in the early morning was scattered in a deep straw litter, and in the evening the birds were given all they would clean up. This meant about one-third of the grain in the morning and two-thirds in the evening, thus increasing the appetite for the mash throughout the day. The dry mash and skim-milk were always accessible and green feed was given when the birds could not obtain it in the yards. Free range over the large lots 8 was allowed except for a few cold weeks in winter and the birds were always contented. The curtains over the open fronts were closed at night in cold weather and used as outside awnings in the summer. The same man took care of all pens and every care was given to prevent lice, mites, etc., and to insure sanitation. WEIGHTS AND RECORDS A record was made of the feed when it was weighed into vessels and placed in the pens. At the end of each seven-day period, that which was not consumed was weighed back, thus permitting feed consumption to be recorded on the weekly basis. Trap nest records were kept of all the eggs for each year and were recorded in both weekly and monthly periods. The trap nests were examined three to five times daily, depending on the season and heaviness of egg production. At the end of each weekly period, the droppings that had collected on the dropping boards, were weighed. The birds were checked up at short intervals and weighed at the close of each month. Fertility and “hatchability” figures were kept of all eggs set during the hatching season. Table: I. — Average Consumption of All Feeds, per Bird, in Pounds Skim-milk pen Meat scraps pen Check pen Teed Experi- Experi- Experi- Experi- EkperE Experi- Experi- Experi- Experi- ment ment ment ment ment ment ment ment ment No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 1 No. 2 No. 9 No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Corn 26.96 32.31 34.13 27.51 33.41 37.58 26.77 30.51 33.50 Wheat 15.19 15.17 14.86 15.26 16.35 16.13 15.60 14.25 14.66 Oats 10.54 11.87 12.24 10.69 12.44 13.43 10.59 11.19 12.04 Bran 10.51 11.83 12.25 10.67 12.46 13.43 10.55 11.19 12.03 Shorts 10.51 11.83 12.25 10.67 12.46 13.43 10.55 11.19 12.03 Oil meal 0.42 0.42 0.49 0.45 0.48 0.50 0.48 0.36 0.48 Total 74.13 83.43 86.22 75.25 87.60 94.5 74.54 78.69 84,74 Skim-milk 105.21 119.09 122.93 Meat scraps 7.47 8.72 9.40 Grit 1.26 0.8 1.78 0.87 0.52 0.61 1.22 1.08 1.43 Oyster shell 2.45 2.39 2.17 2.28 2.12 1.89 1.60 1.46 1.51 Ground bone 1.08 0.8 1.78 0.68 0.52 0.61 1.04 1.08 1.43 Grand total _ 184.13 206.51 214.88 86,55 99.48 107.01 78.4 82.31 89.11 Table I is used largely to illustrate the variation in consumption within the same breed from year to year. The relative consumption of one pen with another within the same experiment was rather regular, the meat scraps pen always consuming the most of the chief feeds and the check pen always using the least. There was no definite relation between the amount of food consumed and the egg production. In practically every year, the check pen consumed as much grain and mash as the skim- milk pen. 9 Table la. — Average Consumption of All Feeds, per Bird, in Pounds Average of Three Years of Each Experiment Feed Skim-milk pen Meat scraps pen Check pen Corn _ - 31.13 32.83 30.26 Wheat _ _ _ 15.07 15.91 14.83 Oats — _ 11.55 12.18 11.27 Bran 11.53 12.18 11.25 Shorts _ _ __ 11.53 12.18 11.25 Oil meal __ 0.44 0.47 0.44 Total ___ __ 81.25 85.75 79.30 Skim-milk _ . 115.74 Meat scraps 8.53 Grit _ 1.28 0.66 1.24 Oyster shell _ _ 2.33 2.09 1.52 Ground bone 1.22 0.60 1.18 Grand total _ 201.82 97.63 83.24 The average of the three years’ feeding with each pen is shown in Table la. It is easier to compare pens when the averages are examined. There was a remarkable similarity in the amounts of grain and mash feed eaten in all three pens, which is of particular interest when the egg produc- tion is noted in Table IV. Plymouth Rocks will use about ioo pounds of feed in a year, where feed lots and manure piles are not available. A Plymouth Rock will consume over ioo pounds of skim-milk to take the place of 8.5 pounds of meat scraps. Although grit, shell and ground bone were always available, the actual amount eaten in one year was very small. No reason is known why there should have been so much variance be- tween the meat scraps pen and the other pens. Table II. — Cost of Feed per Bird, per Year, and Cost of Producing One Dozen Eggs Experiment No. Skim-milk pen Meat scraps pen Check pen Cost feed Cost one dozen eggs Cost feed Cost one dozen eggs Cost feed Cost one dozen eggs 1 $1.41 $0,123 $1.34 $0.14 $1.14 $0,261 2 1.52 0.138 1.46 0.131 1.12 0.227 3 2.46 0.206 2.29 0.186 1.86 0.337 Average $1.79 $0,155 $1.69 $0,152 $1.37 $0,275 Table II shows each year’s costs and the average of the three years. Feed costs steadily increased from one year to the next but they were rather consistent in each pen. In each experiment, the skim-milk pen cost slightly more than the meat scraps pen and a great deal more than the 10 check pen. Feed prices have risen a great deal since these experiments were conducted but the comparison of costs within the same year are indicative. The meat scraps pen was cheaper to feed than the skim-milk pen and but little more expensive than the check pen. It cost $0,155. $0,152 and $0,275 to produce a dozen eggs in the skim-milk, meat scraps and check pens respectively. Few people in Indiana sold eggs during the three years of the experiment at an average above $0,275 P er dozen and if they fed no-meat-food and the egg production was low, there was little chance for profit. A high total feed cost may reduce the cost per dozen eggs if the egg production is high, and in the case of these experiments it was a good investment to buy skim-milk and meat scraps. In com- paring the meat scraps and no-meat-food pens, it is found that an increase of $0.32 worth of feed per hen reduced the cost per dozen eggs from $0,275 to $0,152. Table III. — Average Number Pounds of Feed to Produce One Pound of Eggs Experiment No. Skim-milk pen Meat scraps pen Check pen 1 10.91 5.99 11.8 2 12.31 5.76 10.6 3 11.69 5.64 10.19 Average 11.63 5.79 10.86 Table Ilia. — Number Pounds Dry Matter 1 Required to Produce One Pound of Eggs Experiment No. Skim-milk pen Meat scraps pen Check pen 1 4.54 5.19 10.18 2 5.22 5.17 9.45 3 4.95 5.08 9.09 Average 4.9 5.14 9.57 1 Shell, grit and bone not included The hen is an economical transformer of raw material into a finished product and in Table III this is shown. The consumption did not vary much from year to year but stayed closely to the average. Due to the large amount of water in milk, it was hardly fair to compare one ration with another without reducing it to a dry basis and in Table Ilia, the amount of dry matter to produce one pound of eggs indicates similar efficiency between the skim-milk and meat scraps pens. So far as effi- ciency of production is concerned, there is no practical difference between skim-milk and meat scraps, providing the same amount of protein is con- sidered. II Table; IV. — Average Number of Eggs per Pullet, per Pen, per Year Experiment No. Skim-milk pen Meat scraps pen Check pen 1 138.7 119.2 54.3 2 135.9 137.8 61.4 3 146.2 150.7 67.9 Average 140.2 135.9 61.2 Table IV gives the figures that are most important in the experi- ment, the egg production per pullet. There was a slight variation from year to year making three trials necessary before a fair average could be shown. The skim-milk pen varied the least and the check pen varied but little more. The meat scraps pen produced 19.5 eggs less than the skim- milk pen in Experiment No. 1 and 1.8 and 4.5 eggs more in Experiments Nos. 2 and 3, the variation from Experiment No. 1 to No 3 being 31.5 eggs. Such variation might be expected, due to yearly climatic differences and individuality of the hens. The average of the three years is indicative and places the two protein-fed pens as very similar in egg producing power and far more efficient than the non-protein- fed pen. On the basis of egg production, the amount of skim-milk and meat scraps fed caused an increase in egg production of 79.0 and 74.7 eggs. Table; V. — Average Per cent. Egg Production per Month, per Pullet — Three Years Month Skim-milk pen Meat scraps pen Check pen Ex- peri- ment No.l 1 Ex- peri- ment No.2 2 Ex- peri- ment No.3 2 Aver- age 3 Ex- peri- ment No.l 1 Ex- peri- ment No.2 2 Ex- peri- ment No.3 2 Aver- age 3 Ex- peri- ment No.l 1 Ex- peri- ment No.2 2 Ex- peri- ment No.3 2 Aver- age 3 November 10.0 8.8 9.4 19.0 13.0 14.0 10.0 2.0 6.0 December 0.9 8.0 20.0 9.6 13.0 29.0 14.0 6.0 10.0 5.3 January 2.6 14.5 29.7 15.6 1.7 16.9 27.8 15.4 8.7 31.5 13.4 February 18.0 25.6 29.0 24.2 13.0 31.0 38.0 27.3 13.0 22 0 20.7 18.5 March 61.0 58.0 57.0 58.6 40.0 61.0 58.9 53.3 23.0 29.0 49.0 33.6 April 70.0 68.9 68.0 68.9 69.0 65.0 57.8 63.9 42.0 38.9 44.8 41.9 May 60.0 62.0 63.0 61.6 61.0 62.0 59.0 60.6 21.0 41.0 12.7 24,9 June 58.0 62.6 56.7 59.1 60.0 57.0 56.0 57.6 30.0 29.0 17.0 25.3 July 50.0 40.0 51.9 47.3 52.0 36.0 51.0 46.3 10.0 4.6 15.5 10.0 August 45.0 ; 41.0 37.0 41.0 43.0 31.0 38.0 37.3 11.0 0.1 8.5 6.5 September 38.0 37.0 34.0 36.3 23.0 34.0 45.0 34.0 6.8 3.5 4.0 4.7 October _ _ 39.0 20.0 24.0 27.6 25.0 22.9 22.8 23.5 8.4 1.3 7.0 5.5 November 17.0 36.0 I 8.0 20.13 6.0 10.0 15.0 10.3 7.7 7.0 2.8 1 Experiment No. 1 began December 1 2 Experiments Nos. 2 and 3 began November 3. Egg production is figured for 27 days and also for three days 3 Average of the three monthly per cents In Table V is found the average monthly egg production of each pen and the average of the years. 12 By percentage egg production is meant the per cent, of production based on one egg each day per bird as a maximum or ioo per cent. If a fowl lays an egg every other day, her egg production would be 50 per cent. It is by per cent, egg production that the ability of the birds to lay is measured. The birds of Experiment No. 1 were late in maturing and so the winter egg production was low in all pens. This shortage was made up somewhat during the spring and summer, but it is winter egg production that helps to insure profit and feeding alone can not make this production. It will be noted that each year there was a better winter egg production and the general tendency was for the total egg production to increase in a like manner. Such figures support the belief that winter egg production is directly indicative of yearly production ; that early hatched, well matured pullets are necessary for good egg pro- duction and that even the best ration is reduced in its efficiency if fed to poor stock. The meat scraps pen laid slightly better in winter than the skim-milk pen, but the differences were slight and to be expected. If birds do not measure up to egg production somewhat similar or better than the one discussed, something is wrong with the management. Many flocks have done better than these but the figures indicate results possible for the farmer, and which he should strive to obtain. Table VI. — Average Price in Cents, per Month, of Eggs Sold from the Purdue Farm Month Experiment No. 1 Experiment No. 2 Experiment No. 3 November - 45 45 Deeemher 43 42 55 January 42 38 48 February 31 32 42 March 20 23 28 April 20 20 32 May _ 20 20 34 June 20 21 30 July 22 23 33 August 24 26 37 September 27 38 55 Oetober 32 50 60 November 52 Table VI is given to show the average monthly price received for eggs from the Purdue farm during the three years of the experiment. In Experiment No. 2 the eggs brought an increased price over Experiment No. 1 and in the third experiment, egg values rose greatly. This in- crease was absolutely necessary if the feed situation was to be met, and up to the close of the experiments, these egg prices were in proportion to feed prices. Beginning in October and extending to March each year, Purdue eggs were sold in Connecticut to a distributer, bringing a net in- come greater than could be obtained through the ordinary market chan- nels in Indiana. During the spring and summer months, the eggs were sold in Indianapolis. Su^h prices as these cannot be realized by the farmer if he produces in less than case lots and sells to a gatherer or local i3 grocer. The Purdue eggs were shipped in lots of 30 dozen or more at a time, were strictly fresh, clean and well graded. The profits from good feeding may be made possible only through good marketing. Table VII. — Average Income and Profit Over Feed, per Pullet, per Year Experiment No. Skim-milk pen Meat scraps pen Check pen Average income Average profit Average income Average profit Average income Average profit 1 $2,769 $1,303 $2,232 $0,832 $1,832 $0,137 2 2.991 1.417 3.11 1.60 1.318 0.154 3 4.573 2.057 4.793 2.445 2.072 0.162 Average $3,444 $1,592 $3,378 $1,625 $1,479 $0,059 In Table VII, the final outcome of the whole experiment is shown by the figures of income and profit. In figuring the income, the prices received for the general sale of- eggs from the farm were taken as proper figures to use. Profit is- a much misused and misunderstood term. Profit should mean the difference between the income and all legitimate expense. With poultrymen, the tendency is to figure the difference between income and the feed bill as a profit. There are various reasons for not using profit in Table VII as it should be. In the first place, labor is a varying item and no data are available showing the average cost of caring for poultry on the farm. It would seem better to leave labor out and credit all profit as labor income. Too few data are available on the value of poultry manure, to warrant giving credit for it on the income side. These con- ditions made it necessary, in this publication, to ignore labor and value of manure, and consider only profit over cost of feed. The income was directly in proportion to the egg production, the greater the egg production, the larger the income and the heavier the profit. No comparison can be made of one year with another because of the great differences in egg and feed prices, but one pen can be compared with another. The average income and profit of the skim-milk and meat scraps pens were so nearly alike that the differences are negligible, but the financial accounts of the no-meat-food pens are worthy of observa- tion. The cost of protein feeds is considerable and some people deem it an unnecessary expenditure, but there is no argument but that it was un- profitable in these experiments not to provide milk and meat scraps. While their absence from the ration reduced the cost, it so cut down the income that there was practically no profit and in Experiment No. 1 there was an actual loss. It is profitable to feed skim-milk or meat scraps in a laying ration for Plymouth Rock pullets. 14 Table VIII. — Summary of Averages Skim-milk pen [ Meat scraps pen Check pen Total number pounds feed consumed per bird— Post of feed per bird 201.82 $1.79 0.155 97.63 $1.69 0.152 83.24 $1.37 0.275 fin, sf nf prndneiny nne dozen eggs Number pounds of dry matter to produce on^ pound of eggs 4.9 5.14 9.57 Eggs per pullet 140.2 135.9 61.2 Income per bird $3,444 1.592 $3,378 1.625 $1,479 0.059 Profit oyer feed per pil'd Table VIII summarizes the figures of the preceding tables and shows by bringing them together, still more plainly the contrast between the re- sults of pens fed a sufficient amount of protein and the pen lacking it. Figures from the experiment so far as the dollars are concerned cannot be closely applied at present because of the national feed problem, but the comparisons are of value any time. An addition of animal protein in- creases the appetite, consumption, feed bill and cost of production, but causes a larger egg yield and profit. Table IX. — Feeding Values of Protein Feeds per Hundred Pounds Experiment No. Skim-milk Meat scraps 1 $1.55 $15.10 2 1.31 18.80 3 1.94 26.20 Average $1.60 $20.03 In Table IX the figures indicate that the feeding value of skim-milk for laying Plymouth Rock pullets was $1.60 and of meat scraps was $20.03 P er hundred pounds. This means that for every $0.30 invested in skim-milk $1.60 was returned and for every $2.50 invested in meat scraps, $20.03 was returned. 1 This does not mean a person can pay $20.03 P er hundred pounds for meat scraps and still have a profit, for these feeding values if included in the cost would have allowed no profit. The figures show that it is often profitable to spend money, if done wisely. 1 For method of determining these figures see Purdue Bulletin No. 182 Table: X. — Per Cent. Fertility and Hatching Power of Eggs Experiment No. Fertility of eggs Skim-milk pen Meat scraps pen Check pen 1 74.0 81.0 81.0 2 76.0 80.7 82.9 3 80.7 87.1 88.8 Average 76.9 82.9 84.2 Experiment No. Hatching power of eggs Skim-milk pen Meat scraps pen Check pen 1 52.0 42.6 56.0 2 57.4 54.4 52.6 3 63.7 52.7 53.5 Average 57.7 49.9 54.0 The fertility and hatching power of eggs from the different pens are shown in Table X. Some people believe that meat scraps injure the fertility of eggs and that eggs from heavy layers do not hatch as well as eggs from poor layers. At no time was the fertility particularly good. The no-meat-food pen did a little better each year than the other two pens, and the meat scraps pen was better every year than the skim-milk pen. When hatching power is considered, close correlation between high fer- tility and hatching power is not shown. In every year, the skim-milk pen hatched the best and in two experiments, the meat scraps pen hatched the poorest. In the average for the three years the skim-milk pen led, fol- lowed by the check pen. From the figures shown, even though lower than would be expected on the farms of Indiana, it would seem that for hatch- ing purposes, milk was better than meat scraps. As before stated, all the birds were pullets, which might account for the low hatching power of the eggs. Table: XI. — Average Number Pounds of Manure Produced At Night Experiment No. Skim-milk pen Meat scraps pen Check pen 1 27.3 27.1 26.8 2 27.2 26.9 30.7 3 23.8 28.1 29.5 Average 26.1 27.3 29.0 The amounts of manure produced during the nights as shown in Table XI were secured by weighing the roost collections every week. These, of course, varied, due to being frozen or to damp or dry weather. They cannot be considered accurate but indicate how much a bird does i6 return in fertility. If the night droppings are two-fifths of the whole amount, then ioo birds will return to the soil about three and one-half tons of highly nitrogenous fertilizer per year. The value of this manure will vary considerably but if credited at $ 5.00 per ton it will help pay expenses. Table XII. — Mortality of Birds in Pens Experiment No. Skim-milk pen Meat scraps pen Check pen 1 5 10 6 2 8 3 10 3 1 4 2 Average 4.6 5.6 6.0 The figures in Table XII do not indicate that the rations fed had any influence on the health of the birds. It is quite a problem to keep fowls under experimental conditions, even at the best, and keep the average loss at 10 or 12 per cent, as most commercial poultrymen figure. No disease broke out in the flocks, but occasionally a bird died from repro- ductive troubles or intestinal complications when no other bird had been ill for weeks. In Experiment No. 3 , the birds were the best physically of any in the experiments and consequently the losses were low. Fig. 4. Birds-eye view of Purdue Poultry farm, showing lay-out of experimental houses and yards. Note natural environment made by fruit trees, grass plots and abundance of range PART II— HENS INTRODUCTION At the close of Experiments Nos. i and 2 described in Part I of this bulletin, the question arose as to whether or not the poor egg production in the no-meat-food pens had been due to the lack of animal protein or to poor laying powers of the birds concerned. In order to determine this point, the pullets in the no-meat-food or check pens finishing the first years were, as hens, put on to the skim-milk ration and the skim-milk-fed birds continued on their own ration for another year. The birds were housed, yarded, fed and handled the same as when they were pullets, and it was thought that any differences that might be produced must come from the presence or absence of skim-milk. Table I. — Average Consumption of All Feeds per Bird, in Pounds, as Hens and Pullets — Two Years Feed Skim-milk pen Skim-miljc pen Check pen Cheek pen hens pullets hens pullets / Corn 31.59 31.13 33.28 30.26 Wheat 12.74 15.07 14.57 14.83 Oats _ 11.33 11.55 11.96 11.27 Bran _ _ _ 11.32 11.53 11.96 11.25 Shorts 11.32 11.53 11.96 11.25 Oil meal 0.75 0.44 0.78 0.44 Total _ 79.05 81.25 84.51 79.30 Skim-milk 113.15 115.74 119.59 Grit _ 0.66 1.28 0.63 1.24 Oyster shell 2.12 2.33 1.52 2.53 Ground bone 0.66 1.22 0.63 1.18 Grand total _ 195.64 201.82 207.89 83.24 Table I shows the average consumption of feed by the same birds as pullets and as hens. It must be remembered that the check pen pullets re- ceived no milk but that as hens they obtained as much milk in the ration as the milk-fed pen. For the sake of distinguishing the pens, the “check pen” retained that title in both years. The difference in consumption of the chief feeds, between the check and skim-milk pullets is very small, and when the difference in egg pro- duction is recalled, it appears as if it was the relatively small amount of animal protein added that caused the egg production. Egg production is not always a question of amount consumed, as it is the kind of feed con- sumed. Heavy laying does require increased feed above normal but it must be of the right kind. The difference in feed consumed in the skim-milk pen both as hens and pullets is very slight. The check pen did consume slightly more of the chief feeds and an abundance of milk when given an opportunity. As will be noted in Table III, the check pen hens laid more than the pullets, This was due to the skim-milk. Animal protein stimulates appetite and since the ration was balanced, more of the grain was eaten. An abund- ance of grain supplemented by skim-milk will produce eggs. Table II. — Cost of Feed, per Bird, per Year, and Cost of Producing One Dozen Eggs Hens — Skim-milk pen Hens— Check pen Pullets— Skim-milk pen Experiment . No. Cost feed Cost one dozen eggs Cost feed Cost one dozen eggs Cost feed Cost one dozen eggs 1 $1.43 $0,178 $1.50 $0,149 $1.52 $0,138 2 2.28 0.237 2.39 0.199 2.46 0.208 Average $1.85 $0,207 $1.94 e- 0 e/ 2 - $1.99 $0,178 Table II gives the cost factors. The feed costs of pullets in a skim- milk pen, fed the same year as the hens in Experiments Nos. i and 2 are given to show that hens are about as expensive to feed as pullets, and be- cause they lay fewer eggs, it costs more to produce one dozen eggs. It costs a little more to feed the check pens as hens than it did the skim- milk pens, due probably to the slight increase in egg production. Table III.— Average Number of Eggs, per Hen and Pullet, per Pen, per Year Skim-milk pen Check pen Experiment No. Hens Pullets Hens Pullets 1 99.7 138.7 126.8 54.3 2 119.6 135.9 150.0 61.4 Average 109.6 137.3 138.4 57.8 Table III shows the real point of the hen test, the egg production. As pullets the check pens layed from 84 to 74 less eggs per bird than the skim-milk pen. The difference between one year and the next is very small. The skim-milk birds as hens laid 39 to 14 less eggs than they did as pullets. This is normal and to be expected. A production of 137 eggs is a good pullet average and 109 eggs is a good lay for a hen. The check pens did very poorly as pullets but when given an oppor- tunity to drink milk, they increased their own production 72 to 89 eggs and outlayed the pen that had been fed skim-milk for two years. I11 one case the check pen birds laid more eggs as hens than any other pen did as pullets. This indicates rather conclusively that the lack of skim-milk retards the egg production and that the ability to produce eggs may be present in a hen yet not manifest itself, due to improper feeding. Table IV.— Average Per Cent. Egg Production per Month, per Hen and Pullet Month Skim-milk pen Check pen Experiment No. 1 Experiment No. 2 Experiment No. 1 Experiment No. 2 Hens Pullets Hens Pullets Hens Pullets Hens Pullets November 11.5 10.0 15.8 10.0 December 11.0 0.9 1 10.0 8.0 31.0 0.0 35.0 6.0 January 10.0 2.6 ! 34.0 14.5 26.9 0.0 38.5 8.7 February 20.0 18.0 i 39.0 25.6 38.0 13.0 59.0 22.0 March 50.0 61.0 55.8 58.0 58.0 23.0 59.6 29.0 April 63.0 70.0 49.0 68.9 63.0 42.0 53.0 38.9 May 46.0 60.0 43.6 62.0 43.0 21.0 54.0 41.0 June 39.0 58.0 38.7 62.6 38.0 30.0 44.0 29.0 July 31.0 50.0 23.0 40.0 31.0 10.0 36.6 4.6 August 17.0 45.0 31.0 41.0 25.0 11.0 30.5 0.1 September 24.0 38.0 40.0 37.0 1 30.0 6.8 41.5 3.5 October 8.4 39.0 15.6 20.0 ! 140 8.4 22.7 1.3 November 4.0 | 17.0 8.0 36.0 8.0 7.7 15.0 0.0 Most poultrymen measure egg production in percentage, and Table IV gives the per cent, egg production from the two flocks as hens and pullets. A careful analysis and study of the figures show some rather unexpected and unusual things. In no case did the pullets do very well as fall and winter egg producers, and in Experiment No. i where the birds were late hatched, the production was very poor. In no pen did the pullets equal the hens in fall and winter production This is not to be expected. In Experiment No. 2, the pullets in both the skim-milk and check pens laid about the same until January, when any stored up protein food in the body was exhausted, and the check pen birds fell off in production. The November record at the bottom of the columns for Experiment No. 2 is hardly fair to consider because it is based on the first three days of the month only. The pullets in the check pens began molting in July which caused a big drop in production. These birds were well finished as to feather in November and December and responded quickly to the addition of milk in the ration, by giving a very good winter egg production. This produc- tion was in reality better than the milk-fed pullet lay. Most of the pul- lets in the milk-fed pens began molting in October and November, and they showed poor egg laying in November and December and part of January. This is normally to be expected of hens, but it was rather un- usual for the winter egg production to be better with the hens than it was with the same birds as pullets. Early molters usually take longer to molt than late molters and so little is gained by keeping the early molters if winter egg production is desired from hens. Early molting not only indicates poor laying but marks the innately poor producer. In this experiment with the check pen, early molting accompanied poor laying but did not necessarily indi- cate poor laying ability. Early molters that were poorly and improperly fed might be wisely chosen for winter egg production as hens, if proper feed is given, beginning in the fall. 20 Table V. — Average Income and Profit Over Feed, per Hen, per Year Skim-milk pen Check pen Skim-milk pen Experiment No. Hens Hens Pullets Average income Average profit Average income Average profit Average income Average profit 1 2 $2.13 3.79 $0.64 1.42 $2.95 4.92 $1.38 2.42 $2.99 4.57 $1.41 2.05 Average $2.96 $1.03 $3.93 $1.90 $3.78 $1.73 Table V shows the income and profit over feed of the pens under con- sideration. In these days, such figures are misleading unless used large- ly for comparison. Income and profit are shown for pullets fed the same ration the same years the hens were fed, and are of value, in that they show that the check pen birds as hens did as well or better than pullets at the same time on the same ration. The check pen birds produced $0.97 more income and $1.03 more profit than the milk-fed pen. They became efficient producers when given a chance. Table VI. — Per Cent. Fertility and Hatching Power of Eggs — Hens and Pullets Fertility of Eggs Experiment No. Skim-milk pen Check pen Hens Pullets Hens Pullets 1 2 88.0 92.2 74.0 76.0 80.0 96.4 81.0 82.9 Average 90.1 75 88.2 87.9 Hatching Power of Eggs Skim-milk pen Check pen Experiment No. Hens Pullets Hens Pullets 1 57.2 52.0 45.7 56.0 2 56.8 57.4 61.8 52.6 Average 57.0 54.7 53.7 54.3 In Table VI is found data on fertility and hatching power. In fer- tility the hens averaged better than the pullets to a marked degree, but the differences in “hatchability” were less marked. Differences between check and milk pens among the hens were slight. PURDUE UNIVERSITY Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 219 September, 1918 SWINE FEEDING FEEDING TRIALS WITH CORN BY-PRODUCTS, PALMO MIDDS, AND COMMERCIAL MIXED HOG FEEDS, 1917-1918 Part I. Corn Feed Meals vs. Ground Corn Part II. Hominy Feed vs. Ground Corn Part III. Corn Germ Meals Part IV. Palmo Midds Part V. Commercial Mixed Hog Feeds Published by the Station: LAFAYETTE, INDIANA U. S. A. PURDUE UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BOARD OP CONTROL Joseph D. Oliver, President, South Bend Fay S. Chandler Indianapolis Charles Downing ... .. Greenfield John A. Hillenbrand . Batesville Cyrus M. Hobbs Bridgeport Winthrop E. Stone, A. M., Ph. D. Warren T. McCray Kentland James W. Noel Indianapolis Andrew E. Reynolds Crawfordsville William V. Stuart LaFayette President of the University ADVISORY COMMITTEE (Under Legislative Act of 1909) John G. Brown, Monon D. B, Johnson, Mooresville.. State Live Stock Association State Dairy Association U. R. Fishel, Hope D. F. Maish, Frankfort State Poultry Fanciers'’ Association State Corn Growers' Association F. J. Heacock, Salem Indiana Horticultural Society ADMINISTRATION Charles G. Woodbury, M. S., Director Harry J. Reed Assistant to the Director Nellie Tracy Administrative Assistant Mary K. Bloom Bookkeeper AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION George I. Christie, B. S. A., Superintendent Thomas A. Coleman. .S tate County Agent Leader George M. Frier, B. S. A Associate in Short Courses and Exhibits Mabel L. HARLAN..Ass’t in Agricultural Extension ANIMAL HUSBANDRY John H. Skinner, B. S., Chief Claude M. Vestal, B. S Associate in Animal Husbandry George A. Branaman, B. S Assistant in Animal Husbandry Herbert E. McCartney, B. S. A Ass’t in Animal Husbandry Extension BOTANY Herbert S, Jackson, A. B., Chief George N. Hoffer, M. S Associate in Botany Luna E. Allison, B. S Assistant in Botany Edwin B. Mains, Ph. D Assistant in Botany DAIRY HUSBANDRY Ollie E. Reed, M. S., Chief Howard W. Gregory, B. S Associate in Dairy Manufactures George Spitzer, Ph. G., B. S Associate in Dairy Chemistry Turner H. Broughton, B. S Assistant in Creamery Inspection William F. Epple, Ph. G Assistant in Dairy Chemistry Hubert W. Fleisher, B. S. A Assistant in Creamery Inspection ENTOMOLOGY James Troop, M. S., Chief FARM MECHANICS William Aitkenhead, M. E., M. A Specialist in Farm Mechanics HORTICULTURE Laurenz Greene, M. S. A., Chief Joseph Oskamp, B. S Associate in Pomology Walter A. Huelson, B. S Assistant in Horticulture NUTRITION Ralph H. Carr, Ph. D Associate in Nutrition Chemistry POULTRY HUSBANDRY Allen G. Philips, B. S. A., Chief Dwight C. Kennard, Ph. C., B. S Assistant in Poultry Husbandry SOILS AND CROPS Alfred T. Wiancko, B. S. A., Chief Martin L. Fisher, M. S Assistant Chief in Soils and Crops Samuel D. Conner, M. S Associate Chemist in Soils and Crops Clinton O. Cromer, B. S Associate in Crops Sadocie C. Jones, M. S Associate in Soils Ernest N. Fergus, M. Sc Assistant in Soils and Crops STATE CHEMIST Edward G. Proulx, M. S . 1 State Chemist Reuben O. Bitler, B. S. 2 ... .Deputy State Chemist Margaret Briggs, B. S Deputy State Chemist Paul B. Curtis, B. S . 2 ..Deputy State Chemist Omar W. Ford, A. B . 2 Deputy State Chemist Herman J. Nimitz, B. S. 2 .. Deputy State Chemist J. Howard Roop, B. S . 2 Deputy State Chemist Samuel F. Thornton, B. S . 2 Deputy State Chemist Otis S. Roberts, B. S . 2 Chief Inspector State Chemist’s Department Glen G. Carter, B. S . 2 Inspector State Chemist’s Department Benjamin F. Catherwood 2 Inspector State Chemist’s Department William B. Tiedt Inspector State Chemist’s Department VETERINARY SCIENCE Robert A. Craig, D. V. M., Chief David B. Clark, D. M. C.. -Associate Veterinarian Lawrence C, Kigin, D. V. M Associate Veterinarian George N. Roberts, D. V. M Associate Veterinarian Rex A. Whiting, D. V. M Associate in Animal Pathology Frank I. Cason, B. S... Ass’t in Serum Production Leo P. Doyle, B. S Ass’t in Animal Pathology Leslie R. George, B. S Assistant in Animal Pathology Fred L. Walkey, D. V. M Ass’t Veterinarian DETAILED BY U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Cereal and Forage Crop Insect Investigations John J. Davis, B. S., Entomological Assistant in Charge John M. Aldrich, Ph.D., Entomological Assistant Herman J. Hart, B. S. Scientific Assistant Wesley O. Hollister, B. S... Scientific Assistant Dean A. Ricker, B. S Scientific Assistant Chester F. Turner, B. S Scientific Assistant Seed Testing Anna M. Lute, M. A Seed Analyst 1 In charge of Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control 2 Connected with Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control FEEDING TRIALS WITH CORN BY-PRODUCTS, PALMO MIDDS, AND COMMERCIAL MIXED HOG FEEDS, 1917-1918 J. H. Skinner C. G. Starr SUMMARY PART I CORN FEED MEALS vs. GROUND CORN The corn feed meals were considered as substitutes for corn. The corn feed meals, for the best results, should be supplemented with some protein feeds such as tankage, oil meal, skim-milk, soybeans, or other protein concentrates. The corn feed meals produced as rapid gains on hogs as ground corn. The corn feed meals produced pork as economically as ground corn. The corn feed meals may satisfactorily replace corn where obtain- able at prices equal to those for matured sound corn. PART II HOMINY FEED vs. GROUND CORN Hominy feed manufactured at the present time is not as efficient in fattening hogs as the hominy feed formerly produced. Hominy feed made somewhat smaller daily gains than ground corn. Hominy feed produced pork almost as economically as well matured ground corn. Hominy feed may be used in replacing corn in hog fattening rations where obtainable and at prices on equality with sound corn. PART III CORN GERM MEALS Starch corn germ meal, when fed dry, was not palatable to fattening hogs. Hominy corn germ meal was much more efficient when fed alone and dry, than starch corn germ meal. Hominy corn germ meal, when fed dry, is not as palatable to hogs as a ration of ground corn and tankage. A ration of ground corn and tankage was much more efficient than either of the corn germ meals, in rapidity of gains, consumption of feeds and economy of production. The addition of corn to the corn germ meals increased the consump- tion of feed, produced more rapid gains, and resulted in greater economy than corn germ meal fed alone. The addition of tankage to starch corn germ meal is not advisable nor profitable. As total substitutes for tankage in supplementing ground corn in hog fattening rations, the corn germ meals were not satisfactory. 4 As a partial substitute for tankage, starch corn germ meal was not as efficient in producing gains or economy of production as hominy corn germ meal. Hominy corn germ meal was apparently satisfactory as a partial substitute for tankage. Hogs consumed starch corn germ meal mixed with tankage, when fed dry, much better than when fed twice daily as a slop. In all rations thus far tested, starch corn germ meal is apparently not palatable to hogs. Hominy corn germ meal was apparently much more palatable than starch corn germ meal. PART IV PALMO MIDDS Hogs fed Palmo Midds in addition to the basal ration of ground corn and tankage, gained 15.7 per cent, more rapidly than hogs fed standard wheat middlings in addition to the basal ration. The hogs fed the ground corn and tankage, however, gained 4.9 per cent, more rapidly than the hogs fed Palmo Midds. The hog3 fed the ground corn and tankage and Palmo Midds con- sumed more feed than those receiving standard wheat middlings in addi- tion to the ground corn and tankage or those receiving the basal ration only. The hogs fed Palmo Midds in addition to the ground corn and tank- age required 9.5 per cent, more feed per 100 pounds of gain than the hogs fed standard middlings in addition to the basal ration and 13.2 per cent, more feed than the hogs fed ground corn and tankage alone. PART V COMMERCIAL MIXED HOG FEEDS The two commercial mixed hog feeds did not produce pork as rapidly or as economically as the ration consisting of ground corn and tankage. INTRODUCTION In previous years, corn has been the basis of rations used for the production of pork. Corn has usually been available on the average Corn Belt farm at lower prices than any substitute. However, recent changes in general economic conditions and demands made necessary by the war, have created a different situation. The scarcity and exceedingly high prices for corn during the spring and summer of 1917 caused a very great demand for corn substitutes. The very poor quality and feeding value of the 1917 corn crop in many counties created additional demands for something to feed hogs other than corn. It may be said that suddenly the hog growers were very much 5 more interested in corn substitutes than supplemental feeds to combine with corn. Unfortunately at the time of this sudden demand, little reliable in- formation concerning the relative feeding value of many corn substitutes for hogs was obtainable. The most of the experimental feeding in the Corn Belt had formerly been along lines of vital interest to the pork pro- ducers. These investigations were with supplemental feeds, different methods of feeding, the use of forage crops, etc. The increased use of corn for the manufacture of human food stuffs has, in recent years, greatly increased the tonnage of corn by-products, thus causing the manufacturers of corn flour, hominy, corn meal, starch, syrups, corn oil, etc., to seek markets for their by-products. The embargo on exportation of corn germ cake or meal to European countries threw upon the American market great quantities of corn germ meal. Previous to 1917, comparatively little corn germ meal had been used on American farms. The need for a market caused the manufac- turers to push the sales of this by-product very vigorously. Although little was known of the feeding value of corn germ meal, either by the salesmen or consumers, many extravagant claims were made for it. OBJECT It may be stated that this bulletin is a report of progress in the study of the relative feeding value and place of the different corn by-products, Palmo Midds, and commercial mixed hog feeds in pork production. The data and conclusions presented are not final, since additional work with these feeds is contemplated. The objects in view were to determine, if possible, the best methods of feeding these by-products and to determine the peculiarities of the feeds when fed to hogs. The second trial was a continuation of the more promising rations used in the first trial and a check upon others be- fore making definite conclusions. The third trial was a further continua- tion of the investigation to determine the place and value of the corn germ meals, and an effort to determine the relative feeding value of Palmo Midds and standard wheat middlings and the relative feeding value of two common commercial hog feeds as compared with a standard ration of ground corn and tankage. In this work the State Chemist’s Department has cooperated in every way possible with the Animal Husbandry Department in planning the trials and in analyzing all the feeds used. 6 PLAN In the first trial, the following rations were fed in self-feeders, the hogs being allowed to have free choice of all feeds offered. Lot i. Corn feed meal No. i plus tankage Lot 2. Corn feed meal No. 2 plus tankage Lot 3. Corn feed meal No. 3 plus tankage Lot 4. Corn germ meal (starch by-product) Lot 5. Corn germ meal (starch by-product) plus ground corn Lot 6. Corn germ meal (starch by-product) plus tankage Lot 7. Corn germ meal (hominy by-product) Lot 8. Hominy feed plus tankage v Lot 9. Ground corn plus tankage In the second trial, the following rations were again fed in self- feeders to the hogs. A mixture of one part corn germ meal and one part tankage plus ground corn Corn feed meal No. 2 plus tankage Corn feed meal No. 3 plus tankage Corn germ meal (starch by-product) Mixture of one part corn germ meal (starch by-product) and one part ground corn Mixture of one part corn germ meal (starch by-product) and three parts ground corn Corn germ meal (hominy by-product) Hominy meal plus tankage Ground corn plus tankage Mixture of one part ground corn and three parts corn germ meal (hominy by-product) In the third trial the hogs were fed the following rations in self- feeders, except in Lot 9, where the mixture of corn germ meal and tank- age was fed in the form of a slop twice daily. The hogs in the lots receiv- ing the mixture had free choice of the mixture and ground corn, and of the tankage and ground corn in Lot 6. Lot 1. Mixture of one part corn germ meal (starch by-product) and one part tankage plus ground corn Lot 2. Mixture of three parts corn germ meal (starch by-product) and one part tankage plus ground corn Lot 3. Mixture of three parts corn germ meal (hominy by-product) and one part tankage plus ground corn Lot 4. Mixture of three parts standard wheat middlings and one part tankage plus ground corn Lot 5. Mixture of three parts Palmo Midds and one part tankage plus ground corn ^ Lot 6. Tankage plus ground corn Lot 7. Commercial mixed hog feed No. 1 Lot 8. Commercial mixed hog feed No. 2 Lot 9. Mixture of three parts corn germ meal (starch by-product) and one part tankage slop plus ground corn Lot 1 Lot 2. Lot 3- Lot 4- Lot 5- Lot 6. Lot 7. Lot 8. J Lot 9- Lot 10. 7 YARDS, SHELTER AND WATER The hogs in the first trial were quartered in the lots used in winter for feeding cattle and lambs. These are dry lots with sheds over prac- tically one-half of them. The outside portion of the cattle pens is floored with concrete while the floor of the shed portion is of earth. The floors of the sheep feeding pens, both inside and out, are of earth. In these pens, the hogs kept comparatively cool during the hottest days of the feeding period. Water from the public water system was supplied twice daily in troughs which were kept clean. The hogs had access to the dif- ferent feeds in large self-feeders. The hogs in the second trial were fed in the experimental hog feed- ing lots which are 26 feet by 70 feet. Each lot is provided with a well- built house, sufficiently large to properly house from 7 to 10 hogs. The lots were free from grass and other vegetation. The hogs in this trial had free access to large self-feeders on concrete feeding floors in each lot and adso to small self-feeders placed inside the houses. Water was supplied as in the first trial. The hogs in the third trial were housed throughout the experiment in pens in the hyper-immune barn of the serum plant of the Veterinary Department. The pens have concrete floors, steel partitions and are 12 to 16 feet wide and 16 feet in length. The pens were regularly cleaned once daily. The feeds were offered in small self-feeders placed in each pen. A concrete watering trough furnished water at all times. WEIGHTS Each animal was weighed for 3 consecutive days at the begin- ning and end of the trial, the average of the 3 days’ weights being taken as the initial and final weights. Every 30 days during the progress of the trial, the animals were weighed individually. Every 10 days dur- ing the trial, each lot was weighed as a group. All weights were taken at 9 :oo a. m., without restrictions on feed or water. The hogs were identified by numbered ear tags. In all lots where the rations were fed in self-feeders, the feeds were weighed as placed in the feeders. Every 30 days, the feeders were emptied of contents, the remainders were weighed and the amount de- ducted from the total amount placed in the feeders during the month, in order to determine the amount consumed. In case of Tot 9 in the third trial, the mixture fed in the form of slop was weighed at each feeding, while the ground corn was fed in self-feeders the same as in the other lots. METHOD OF FEEDING The self-feeders used in the trials were sufficiently large to accommo- date the hogs at all times. The feeders were inspected at least twice daily and the feeds and feeding slides so regulated that ample feed was before the hogs at all times. Care was taken that as little feed as pos- sible was wasted but no attempt was made to so limit the hogs that they would be forced through hunger to consume all feed that might be rooted out of the feeder. It was found that in all cases where the rations were 8 palatable, the hogs wasted very little feed. In some cases, where the ration appeared to be distasteful, the hogs rooted out some of the feed. In such cases, the feeders were promptly adjusted to allow less feed in the feeding boxes. It was impossible to keep exact record of the feed so wasted. The feeders were refilled from time to time so as to keep feed constantly before the hogs. Care was taken that no feed was moistened by rain and that no feed was allowed to mold or spoil in the feeders. The slop fed to Lot 9 in the third trial was fed at 6 :oo a. m. and 4:30 p. m., in a wooden trough, which furnished ample room for all of the pigs in the lot to eat at the same time. The feed was mixed with water to make a slop that would pour readily from a bucket. In the first and second trials, the water was given early in the morn- ing and late in the afternoon. In the third trial, the water was given early in the morning in quantities sufficient to last until the next morning in clean concrete troughs. DESCRIPTION OF HOGS The hogs used in the first trial were purchased in Warren County, Indiana, and came from two farms. The majority were well-bred grade Duroc-Jersey pigs farrowed in the spring of 1917; the others were well- bred grade Poland Chinas of practically the same age. Both lots were in thrifty condition. Previous to purchase, the hogs had been on pasture, with a light grain ration. Upon arrival at the experimental lots, the hogs were vaccinated and fed a light ration of corn and middlings. Previous to placing on full ration, the hogs were given santonin and calomel for removal of intestinal worms. The hogs were accustomed to a full feed of shelled corn, middlings and tankage previous to starting on experimental feed. The hogs used in the second trial were also purchased in Warren County, from a half dozen farms and were of mixed breeding; all, how- ever, were thrifty, well grown shoats of the 1917 spring farrow. This lot of hogs was treated similarly to those in the first trial previous to being placed on experimental feed. The hogs in the third trial were purchased from the Purdue Veterin- ary Department and originally they were parts of two car loads of hogs bought in southern Indiana. The Veterinary Department used these hogs for the purpose of testing the potency of anti-hog cholera serum. When purchased by the Animal Husbandry Department, the hogs had fully re- covered from the effects of vaccination and had been on full feed of corn and tankage for several days. In quality and thrift, these hogs were fair but not as good as the hogs used in the first and second trials. The lots of hogs in all the trials were selected with the view of obtaining as much uniformity as possible in regard to age, weight, sex, breeding and thrift. FEEDS The different by-product feeds used in these trials, are doubtless not familiar to the great majority of Corn Belt pork producers. Much con- fusion and lack of understanding have been brought about by the care- less and indiscriminate use of the correct names of these feeds. Some- times the same name is applied to two different corn by-products which 9 are quite different in composition and feeding value; again, two- or more names have been used for the same feed, but sold by different firms. The farmer who is not familiar with commercial by-products should under- stand clearly that there is a difference in the different by-products, not only in name but in composition and feeding value. The Indiana Feeding Stuffs Control law requires that all commercial feeds offered for sale in the State must bear tags giving the registered name, the guaranteed an- alysis and ingredients of the feed. An inspection of these tags will give any prospective buyer valuable information. It has been thought best, for a clearer understanding, to give a somewhat concise statement as to the feeds used in the trials reported. Corn Feed Meal. — “Corn Feed Meal is the sifting obtained in the manufacture of cracked corn and table meal made from the whole grain.” 1 A more recent definition for corn feed meal is “Corn Feed Meal is a by-product obtained in the manufacture of cracked corn, with or with- out aspiration products added to the siftings, and is a by-product obtained in the manufacture of table meal from the whole grain by the non-de- germinating process.” Under recent ruling of the Federal Food Administration, corn feed meal No. I would be classified as yellow hominy feed from which part of the oil had been extracted; corn feed meal No. 2 would also be classed as hominy feed. In these trials, three different corn feed meals have been used. Corn feed meal No. 1 is a by-product manufactured as follows: in the prepara- tion of corn grain for grinding, the germs were removed mechanically, some oil pressed from them and the residue returned to the siftings ; this mixture is ground and sold as corn feed meal. The corn feed meal No. 2 was manufactured in the same manner, except that no oil was extracted from the germs. Corn feed meal No. 3 was the by-product or siftings resulting from the manufacture of cracked corn. The chemical analyses of these three corn feed meals are given in Table I. Hominy Feed or Meal. — -“Hominy Feed, Hominy Meal, or Hominy Chop, is a kiln-dried mixture of the mill run bran coating, the mill run germ, with or without a partial extraction of the oil and a part of the starchy portion of the white corn kernel obtained in the manufacture of hominy, hominy grits and corn meal by the degerminating process.” 1 This feed is more familiar to Indiana hog producers than other corn by- products, as it has been on the market for some years and has been suc- cessfully used by feeders. The definition of this feed has been changed from time to time in the past. Urgent demand and the shortage of fats and oils for food purposes have greatly increased the prices of these products and have caused the manufacturers of corn products to remove all the fats and oils possible from the corn. At the present time hominy mills are making hominy feeds of three different types. In one type, the mill-run corn germs, mill- run corn bran and soft meal are mixed together, ground and sold as 1 Definitions of feeding stuffs adopted by the Association of Feed Control Officials of the United States, 1915 The definition of this feed is changing from time to time as the processes of manu- facture change 10 hominy feed. In a second type, the corn germs are removed and the oil partially extracted, while the residue is returned to the other materials, then ground and sold as hominy feed. In the third type, corn germs are removed so far as possible. The small amount of corn germ remaining, the corn bran and the soft meal are then ground and sold as hominy feed. In general, this class of hominy feed usually contains more starch and less fat and protein than the other two. The hominy feed used in the work herein reported was of the third class in which most of the germ has been removed. Corn Germ Meae. — “Corn germ meal is a product in the manufac- ture of starch, glucose and other corn products and is the germ layer from which a part of the corn oil has been extracted.” 1 This is very frequently termed hominy hearts by salesmen. It should be clearly dis- tinguished from corn feed meals and hominy feed since it is an entirely different by-product. Considerable confusion has resulted from the use of different names such as corn oil cake, corn oil cake meal, hominy hearts, corn germ meal, and corn oil meal. All of these terms are for ex- actly the same feed. The official name is corn germ meal. Many feeders last year were somewhat puzzled by the difference found in corn germ meals. This was due largely to the fact that there are two general classes of corn germ meals, the by-products of two differ- ent manufacturing methods. In the manufacture of starch, glucose, and syrups, the corn kernels are first soaked for some time in a very weak sulphurous acid solution. The germs are then easily separated by agitators. The germs rise to the surface and are readily removed. These germs are then repeatedly washed, pressed to extract corn oil, dried and ground. The resulting substance is sold as corn germ meal. In the manufacture of corn flour, corn meal and hominy grits, the corn germs are removed from the kernels by a purely mechanical process. These germs are pressed for the oil content either at the factory at which they are removed or at a separate oil factory. As a general rule, more or less heat is used in the process of oil extraction in addition to pressure. The residue, after the oil is extracted, is ground and sold as corn germ meal, or may be used in the manufacture of hominy feed. In this bulletin for purposes of distinction, the corn germ meal used as a representative of the class of corn germ meals resulting as by- products from the manufacture of starch, glucose and syrups, is termed starch corn germ meal. The corn germ meal used as a representative of the second class is termed hominy corn germ meal. These definitions and distinctions have been kept clearly in mind in the discussion of the results. The reader should also bear this fact in mind. The analyses of the corn germ meals used in these trials are given in Table I. Parmo Midds. — In the process of preparing tin plate for the market, the excess of palm oil on the plate is removed by scouring with a mixture of wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings. After the maximum absorption of oil, the middlings and ground wheat screenings are so processed that no deleterious material should remain. This resulting by- product of the tin plate mills is sold under the name of “Palmo Midds,” which should not be confused with Palmo Mixed Feed. The Palmo Midds used in these feeding trials was obtained directly from a tin plate II mill. At the same time, a corresponding quantity of wheat middlings and screenings was secured from the mill, which were the same as those used in the preparation of Palmo Midds. The chemical analyses of the wheat middlings and Palmo Midds as determined by the State Chemist are given in Table I. COMMERCIAL MIXED HOG FEEDS For the purpose of obtaining authoritative information concerning the relative feeding value of some commercial mixed hog feeds, two rather popular hog feeds were used. Both of these feeds were pur- chased on the open market. For purposes of identification in this bulle- tin, these feeds are called commercial mixed hog feed No. i and com- mercial mixed hog feed No. 2. The former was labeled with official tags, ‘giving the manufacturer’s guaranteed analysis showing not less than 4.0 per cent, crude fat, 23 per cent, crude protein and not more than 12 per cent, crude fibre, and stating that the ingredients consisted of wheat mid- dlings, barley flour, flour middlings, Red dog flour, linseed oil meal, alfalfa meal and tankage. This feed was received in good condition and was stored in a dry place. The feed herein called commercial mixed hog feed No. 2 was bought with the guaranteed tag analysis of not less than 4.0 per cent, crude fat, 18 per cent, crude protein and not more than 14 per cent, crude fibre. The manufacturer guaranteed it to be compounded from alfalfa meal, corn feed meal, corn germ meal, corn distillers’ dried grains and solubles, lin- seed oil meal, blood flour, palm kernel meals, calcium carbonate, salt and molasses. It was received in good condition and stored in a dry place. The chemical analyses of the different feeds used during the trials appear in Table I. All of these. analyses were made in the Department of the State Chemist. Table I. — Composition of Feeds Peed Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. Crude fibre per cent. Crude ash per cent. Nitrogen free extract per cent. Corn feed meal No. 1 10.0 6.2 11.5 4.2 2.8 65.3 Corn feed meal No. 2 9.3 6.4 10.9 4.6 2.4 66.4 Corn feed meal No. 3 10.4 3.4 8.6 2.8 1.9 72.9 Hominy feed 9.1 7.6 11.2 5.0 2.7 64.4 Stareh corn germ meal 9.3 10.1 24.6 8.6 2.1 45.3 Hominy corn germ meal 4.6 6.3 18.5 7.1 7.3 56.2 Ground corn _ _ 11.5 4.1 9.4 2.0 1.5 71.5 Palmo Midds 5.4 10.1 16.2 7.4 5.6 55.3 Wheat, middlings 8.5 4.9 16.5 8.3 5.4 56.4 Commercial mixed hog feed No 1 8.4 6.0 25.0 9.0 7.4 44.2 Commercial mixed hog feed No. 2 11.8 4.4 19.7 4.4 2.0 57.7 The corn used in the first trial was of the 1916 crop and its analysis is given in Table I. In the second trial, old corn similar to that of the first trial, was fed for approximately two-thirds of the 65-day feeding 12 period. After this time, corn of the 1917 crop was used. The corn used in the third trial was of the 1917 crop. All of the corn from the 1917 crop was but fair in quality and rather high in moisture. No chemical analysis was made of this corn, but moisture determinations of corn similar to that of the 1917 crop, used in the second trial, gave moisture contents varying from 25 per cent, to 30 per cent. The moisture con- tent of the corn used in the third trial was, as a rule, 20 per cent, or slightly less. High grade 60 per cent, protein tankage was used throughout the trials. PRICES OF FEEDS During the time of these three feeding trials, from August, 1917 to June, 1918, prices of all feeds were very erratic. At one time, ground corn was purchased at a price equivalent to $2.20 per bushel and at an- other time it was purchased at a price equivalent to $1.15 per bushel. The cost of tankage varied from $80.00 to $105.00 per ton. The by-products were purchased at varying prices, determined largely by current prices for corn, the supply available and the freight charges. The two commercial feeds purchased varied considerably in price. All financial conclusions have been omitted in reporting these trials because of wide variations in feed prices. Unwarranted applications are frequently made where financial conclusions are given in presenting the results of feeding trials when prices of different feeds vary in different localities. The important factors in determining the value of a feeding stuff in such trials as herein reported are the daily feed consumption, the feed required per 100 pounds of gain, the rate of gains and the finish of the animals, and if these be clearly presented the reader may readily apply the results to his local conditions and prices. PART I CORN FEED MEALS vs. GROUND CORN In the first feeding trial, from August 10 to October 9, 1917, 10 pigs were placed in each lot. After receiving the preliminary treatment already described, these pigs were given free access to the different feeds in self-feeders. In all of the lots, the pigs ate the corn feed meal readily. In the case of corn feed meal No. 3, a portion of it was not finely ground, allowing the pigs an opportunity to root some cob and chaff and larger pieces of husks of corn kernels out of the feeding boxes. This waste was very small when weighed. When this corn feed meal was finely ground, the pigs ate without waste. Some difficulty was observed in the feeding of corn feed meal No. 2, due to the somewhat flaky nature of the feed. The physical condition of this corn feed meal caused the self-feeders to clog more easily than with the other corn feed meals or ground corn. Care was taken, however, that the pigs in this lot had feed at all times. Table II gives the result of the first trial. 13 Table II. — Corn Feed Meals vs. Ground Corn — August io to October 9, 1917 — 60 Days — 10 Hogs per Lot Ration Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 9 Corn feed meal No. 1 and tankage Com feed meal No. 2 and tankage Corn feed meal No. 3 and tankage Ground com and tankage • Average initial weight 99.6 lbs. 99.7 lbs. 99.2 lbs. 99.3 lbs. Average final weight 212.5 “ 215.7 “ 212.7 “ 207.3 “ Average daily gain 1.88 “ 1.93 “ 1.89 “ 1.80 “ Average daily feed corn feed meal or corn 7.63 “ 7.22 “ 7.63 “ 7.11 “ tankage 0.35 “ 0.535 “ 0.62 “ 0.41 “ Feed per 100 pounds gain corn feed meal or corn 405.4 “ 373.5 “ 403.5 “ 395.1 “ tankage 18.5 “ 27.7 “ 32.6 “ 22.7 “ Total feed 423.9 “ 401.2 “ 436.1 “ 417.8 “ It will be noted that the average daily gains in each lot were very similar. There was evidently no marked difference in any of the corn feed meals or ground corn shown by the rate of gain in the hogs. The hogs in Lot 1 consumed an average daily feed of 7.98 pounds of corn feed meal and tankage. In Lot 2, the average daily feed con- sumption was 7.755 pounds, in Lot 3, 8.25 pounds and in Lot 9, 7.52 pounds. Considering the size of the hogs, all lots consumed large quan- tities of feed, indicating that all rations were palatable. When the economy of production is considered, it will be noted that there are no striking differences in favor of any particular corn feed meal or ground corn. Such differences as do appear may be easily due to the individuality of the hogs in the different lots. It would per- haps be well to state that there were no unthrifty hogs in any of the lots. It will be noted, however, that apparently the corn feed meal possess- ing the higher percentage of protein required lesser amounts of tankage. The second trial was conducted from November 6, 1917 to January 10, 1918, a period of 65 days. Because of the necessity for allowing ample room for shelter, seven hogs only were placed in each lot. It was found impossible to obtain corn feed meal No. 1 for this trial. Owing to the supply of old corn being exhausted and the impossibility of grinding the new corn crop during the feeding period, corn feed meal No. 3 was obtained in quantity only sufficient to feed during the first 30 days of the feeding period. Corn feed meal No. 2 was fed throughout the period. The hogs were given preliminary treatment similar to that used in the first trials and were again given their feeds in self-feeders. In addi- tion to the large feeders in the open lots, small self-feeders were placed inside of the shelters so the hogs would have an opportunity to eat, no matter how bad the weather. It was observed that during the 65 days, which included many stormy, severe days, that the hogs ate practically altogether at the large feeders in the open. Table III gives the results of the second trial. 14 Table; III. — Corn Feed Meals vs. Ground Corn — November 6, 1917 to January 10, 1918 — 65 Days — Seven Hogs per Lot Ration Lot 2 Lot 3 1 Lot 9 / Corn feed meal No. 2 and tankage Corn feed meal No. 3 and tankage Ground corn and tankage Average initial weight 129.4 lbs. 130.4 lbs. 129.1 lbs. Average final weight 250.4 “ 196.4 “ 251.7 “ Average daily gain 1.86 “ 2.20 “ 1.89 “ Average daily feed corn feed meal or corn 8.78 “ 9.99 “ 9.09 “ tankage 0.41 “ 0.70 “ 0.50 “ Feed per 100 pounds gain corn feed meal or corn 471.5 “ 454.0 “ 482.0 “ tankage 22.0 “ 31.7 “ 26.8 “ Total feed 493.5 “ 485.7 “ 508.8 “ 1 This lot fed 30 days only It will be observed that the daily gains in Lots 2 and 9 are very similar. The average daily gain in Lot 3 was considerably greater than either, but it must be remembered that this is for 30 days only, while with the other two lots, the gain is the average for 65 days. The daily feed consumption was larger in all lots than in the first trial. A part of this increased consumption may be attributed to the larger size of the hogs in the second trial and probably the balance to the increased demands for food occasioned by the extremely cold weather. The amounts of feeds required per hundred pounds of gain in all three lots are so nearly equal that no decided advantage can be given to either of the corn feed meals or ground corn. In summing up the results, it may be stated that upon the basis of two trials, the corn feed mepls appear to be as palatable as ground corn. The hogs fed corn feed meal and tankage made as rapid gains as when fed ground corn and tankage. Pork was produced at as low a feed cost with corn feed meals and tankage as with sound mature ground corn and tankage. PART II HOMINY FEED vs. GROUND CORN From 1908 to 1911, this Station conducted seven feeding trials with hogs, in which hominy feed was fed in comparison with corn meal, three trials in which the hominy meal was supplemented with wheat shorts, and four trials where the hominy feed and corn meal were supple- mented with tankage. Basing the statements upon these trials, in Bulle- tin No. 158, “Hominy Feed for Fattening Hogs,” the authors say, “Hominy feed produces more rapid gains on hogs than does corn meal. Hominy feed produces gains on less grain than does corn meal.” By taking the data in Bulletin No. 158 as a whole, it has been estimated that hominy feed has been approximately 15 per cent, more efficient in pro- ducing pork than corn meal. i5 In the beginning of the feeding trials reported in this bulletin, it was thought best to conduct additional trials since it was known that in recent years, the manufacture of hominy feed had been changed in some ways and that in many factories, corn oil was being extracted from the , germs. In the preliminary study, it was noted that the crude food nutrients of the 1917 hominy feed revealed by the analysis reported by the State Chemist were different from those of the hominy feed sold in 1908 to 1911. The following comparisons may be of interest: Table: IV. — Comparison of Crude Food Nutrients in Hominy Feeds, 1910-11 and 1917 Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. Crude fiber per cent. Ash per cent. Nitrogen free extract per cent. 1910-11 9.0 8.2 10.4 3.8 2.5 66.1 1917 9.1 7.5 11.2 5.0 2.7 64.4 The analysis used for the hominy feed in 1910-11 is the average of 44 official samples reported by the State Chemist. The analysis of the 1917 hominy feed is that reported by the State Chemist for the hominy feed used in the trials reported in this bulletin. It may be noted that apparently there is closer milling of the corn grain at this time, that oil has been removed, and in general the feed contains less carbohydrates, slightly more protein and more crude fiber. In the first trial, 10 hogs were used in each lot. The hogs in one lot were allowed free choice of hominy feed and tankage and those in the other lot were allowed free choice of ground corn and tankage. Both lots apparently relished their feed and there was practically no waste. In the second trial, seven hogs were placed in each lot. These hogs received treatment similar to those in the preceding trial although some extremely cold weather was experienced during this trial. Table V shows the results of the two trials. Table V. — Hominy Feed and Tankage vs. Ground Corn and Tankage Ration Aug. 10-Oct. 9, 1917 / 60 days — 10 hogs peE \)6t Nov. 6, 1917-Jan. 10, 1918 6 5 days — 7 hogs per lot, Hominy feed and tankage Grouffd corn and tankage Hominy feed and tankage GrouncVccirn and tankage Average initial weight 99.2 lbs. 99.3 lbs. 130.0 lbs. 129.1 lbs. Average final weight 205.5 “ 207.3 “ 231.4 “ 251.7 “ Average daily gain 1.77 “ 1.80 “ 1.56 44 1.89 “ Average daily feed hominy feed or corn 7.19 “ 7.11 “ 7.61 44 9.09 M tankage 0.41 “ 0.41 “ 0.47 0.50 M Feed per 100 pounds gain hominy feed or corn 405.8 “ 395.1 “ 488.0 44 482.0 “ tankage 22.9 “ 22.7 “ 30.0 44 26.8 “ Total feed 428.7 “ 417.8 “ 518.0 44 508.8 “ i6 It will at once be noted that contrary to experimental feeding previously cited, the hogs receiving hominy feed and tankage did not make as rapid gains as hogs receiving ground corn and tankage. There is practically no difference in the first trial, but the hogs fed hominy feed in the second trial gained approximately 17 per cent, more slowly than the hogs fed ground corn. There is no difference in the average daily consumption of feed in the first trial but in the second, the hogs fed corn consumed daily per hog 1.51 pounds more of ground corn and tankage than was consumed by the hogs fed hominy feed. In the amount of feed required for each 100 pounds of gain, slight differences in favor of ground corn appear in both trials. These are, however, too slight to cause any decided difference for ground mature corn over hominy feed, in so far as economy of gains is concerned. From the results of these trials, therefore, and in view of the changed methods of manufacture now in practice, it can no longer be said that hominy feed is approximately 15 per cent, more efficient in producing pork than corn meal. It is doubful whether the hominy feed produced at the present time is any more efficient than corn. PART III CORN GERM MEALS Corn Gsrm Me:als AlonK. — Since a considerable number of hog growers were endeavoring to feed the corn germ meals as the sole con- centrate in the rations and some firms selling this product had been ad- vising such method, it was deemed desirable to feed the corn germ meals alone in comparison with a standard ration of ground corn and tankage. Fig:. 1. Cot 4 — fed Starch Corn Germ Meal alone 65 days, average daily gain per head, 0.03 pound. 1 7 In the first trial three lots of io hogs each were placed on rations of starch corn germ meal, hominy corn germ meal and ground corn and tankage. All feeds were fed dry in self-feeders. This work was re- peated in the second trial with seven hogs in each lot. Considerable difficulty was experienced in preventing waste of feed with the starch corn germ meal lots. The hogs were, apparently, searching for something more palatable and persisted in rooting feed out of the feeders. Less difficulty was found with the hominy corn germ meal in this respect. Practically no feed was wasted in the ground corn and tank- rig. 2. Lot 9 — fed Corn and Tankage 65 days — average daily gain per head, 1.89 pounds age lots. In the lots fed the hominy corn germ meal it was observed that the majority of the hogs were more laxative than in the other lots but no persistent diarrhoea was observed. In both trials, the hogs in all lots had access to salt and charcoal. Considerably larger quantities of the salt and charcoal were consumed by the hogs receiving the corn germ meals than by those receiving ground corn and tankage. Table VI shows the results of the two trials. i8 Table VI. — Corn Germ Meals Alone vs. Ground Corn and Tankage First trial Aug. 10-Oct. 9, 1917 — 60 days 10 hogs per lot Second trial Nov. 6 , 1917-Jan. 10, 1918 — 65 d^ys 7 hogs per lot \ / Ration Lot 4 Lot 7 Lo\A Lot 4 1 Lot 7 lAt 9 • Starch corn germ meal Hominy corn germ meal Ground corn and tankage Starch corn germ meal Hominy corn germ meal ' Ground corn and tankage Average initial weight 99.9 lbs. 99.2 lbs. 99.3 lbs. 132.5 lbs. 131.7 lbs. 129.1 lbs. Average final weight 116.8 “ 189.2 “ 207.3 “ 134.3 “ 211.9 “ 251.7 “ Average daily gain 0.28 “ 1.50 “ 1.80 “ 0.03 “ 1.23 “ 1.89 “ Average daily feed corn germ meal ground corn tankage 2.49 “ 6.29 “ 7.11 “ 0.41 “ 2.56 “ 6.54 “ 9.09 “ 0.50 “ Feed per 100 pounds gain corn germ meal ground corn tankage 884.6 “ 419.2 “ ■ 1 — 1 1 '- U 5 00 o §-2 5* U S Hstpi 02 jQ 3 10 02 cq ti fi § h » © Sd S 0 T — 1 02 02 rtn id CO , 1 WHO O SeoJs 0 ® -2 02 rH CSI 3 C3 « r, S3 a c « o ft g » a, <2 q ft q s- ft o a Ofl » C « m t 2 'S & a •»—» Qg ^ tlX) rH S G S ft * G 2 w i -1 ® g 553 «3 £2 Oft H o rfH rti o 10 10 no‘6 02 ai Cft cd ir- o s © bfl C3 © <1 B S bo >» © © _ *H fl jsS 03 © © bJC 03 r 7 bJQ C3 ft © ^ < < J 1 Six pigs per lot 24 It will be observed in the second trial that the hogs fed a mixture of starch corn germ meal and tankage as the supplement for ground corn gained more rapidly than the hogs fed tankage alone as the supplement. The daily consumption of feed is also in favor of the hogs in this lot. In economy of production, however, the ground corn and tankage ration produced pork with a considerable less expenditure of feed. Upon studying the results of the third trial, it will be noted that where the hogs were fed mixtures of starch corn germ meal and tankage, either dry or in slop, the rapidity of gains, the daily consumption of feeds and the economy of production are in favor of the hogs fed tank- age as the sole supplement. Apparently the more starch corn germ meal fed in the mixture, the less efficient was the mixture as a supplement when compared with tankage alone. The hominy corn germ meal proved to be an excellent partial sub- stitute for tankage. The hogs fed the mixture of three parts hominy corn germ meal and one part tankage as the supplement made slightly more rapid gains with an expenditure of less feed per ioo pounds of gain than hogs fed tankage as the sole supplement. In this connection, it is interesting to note that the hogs in Lot 3 consumed less feed daily than those in Lots 1, 2 and 6 but made as much or more gain at a less expenditure of feed than any of the lots. The hogs fed a mixture of three parts starch corn germ meal and one part tankage dry, in a self-feeder, as the supplement made more rapid gains, consumed much more feed daily but made gains slightly less economically than the hogs fed the same mixture in a slop twice daily as the supplement. The larger gains of the hogs in Lot 2 would ordinarily make them more profitable than the hogs in Lot 9. It will be observed that the hogs fed the mixture of starch corn germ meal and tankage, either in slop or dry, consumed practically the same amount of the mix- ture for each 100 pounds of gain. For some unknown reason, the hogs fed ground corn and tankage consumed an excessive amount of tankage but no bad effects from such a high consumption of tankage were observed. PART IV PALMO MIDDS Three lots of seven hogs each were fed in the third trial from March 27 to May 26, 1918, for the purpose of comparing the feeding value of Palmo Midds and standard wheat middlings, and also comparing the value of these two feeds as partial substitutes for tankage. Throughout the feeding period, no differences were observed in the health or thrift of the hogs in any of the lots. Both rations were fed dry in self-feeders, the Palmo Midds being mixed in the proportion of three parts to one part of tankage in one ration and the wheat middlings mixed in the pro- portion of three parts to one of tankage in the other, before they were placed in the feeders. In Table XI appear the results of this comparison. 25 Table XI. — Palmo Midds — March 27 to May 26, 1918 — 60 Day: Third Trial — 7 Hogs per Lot wi Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Ration Ground corn plus mixture 3 parts wheat middlings and 1 part tankage Ground corn plus mixture 3 parts Palmo Midds and 1 part tankage Ground corn plus tankage Average initial weight 95.0 lbs. 95.9 lbs. 95.6 lbs. Average final weight 190*1 “ 206.1 “ 211.4 “ Average daily gain 1.59 “ 1.84 “ 1.93 “ Average daily feed ground corn 5.36 “ 7.37 “ 7.05 “ wheat middlings 1.40 “ Palmo Midds 1.35 “ tankage 0.47 “ 0.45 “ 1.45 “ Peed per 100 pounds gain ground corn 338.0 “ 401.0 “ 365.0 “ wheat middlings 88.0 “ Palmo Midds 73.0 “ tankage 29.0 “ 24.0 “ 75.0 “ Total feed 455.0 “ 498.0 “ 440.0 “ It may be noted that the hogs fed Palmo Midds made greater gains than the hogs fed the standard middlings but not as much as the hogs re- ceiving tankage as sole supplement. While the consumption of the mix- ture of Palmo Midds and tankage by the hogs in Lot 5 was practically the same as the consumption of standard middlings and tankage in Lot 4, the average daily consumption of corn was 2.01 pounds more im Lot 5. This lot of hogs also consumed more corn daily than the hogs in Lot 6 fed tankage as sole supplement. To produce 100 pounds of gain in Lot 5 58 pounds more feed were required than in Lot 6 and 43 pounds more feed than in Lot 4. Because of this larger feed requirement per ioo pounds of gain, the hogs in Lot 5 would not ordinarily return as much profit as the hogs in Lot 6. However, because of the difference in rapidity of gains the hogs fed Palmo Midds should return slightly larger profit than the hogs fed standard middlings. Upon the basis of this work, Palmo Midds are, apparently, slightly superior to standard wheat middlings. PART V COMMERCIAL MIXED HOG FEEDS The demand by many farmers for information on mixed hog feeds and the inquiries constantly received for experimental data upon the relative feeding value of commercial mixed hog feeds as compared with rations such as corn and tankage, led to the feeding of two of the more commonly used commercial mixed hog feeds designated as commercial mixed hog feeds Nos. 1 and 2 for the purpose of identification in the third trial. The trial was started March 27 and extended to May 26, 1918 or a 26 period of 60 days. Three lots of seven hogs each were fed. The two commercial mixed hog feeds were fed alone, dry and in self-feeders, and the ground corn and tankage were fed dry in separate compartments of the self-feeder. At the beginning of the feeding period, the daily consumption of feeds as indicated by the necessary refilling of the feeders, was approxi- mately the same in all three lots. After the first io days, however, the hogs receiving the feed herein called commercial mixed hog feed No. i showed a decrease in the relative consumption of feed as compared with the other two lots. This decreased consumption . was observed during the remainder of the feeding period. After 20 days, the hogs fed ground corn and tankage consumed slightly more feed daily than the hogs re- ceiving the feed herein called commercial mixed hog feed No. 2. This difference in feed consumption was maintained to the end of the feeding period. However, the difference in these two lots was not as noticeable as with the hogs fed commercial mixed hog feed No. 1. In both of the lots fed the commercial mixed hog feeds, considerable laxativeness was observed. This was especially noticeable with the hogs fed commercial mixed hog feed No. 2. Table XII shows the results of the work with commercial mixed hog feeds. Table XII. — Commercial Mixed Hog Feeds vs. Ground Corn and Tank- Ration Lot 7 Lot 8 l pA Commercial mixed hog feed No. 1 Commercial mixed hog feed No. 2 Ground corn plus tankage Average initial weight 94.7 lbs. 95.7 lbs. 95.6 lbs. Average final weight 176.0 “ 195.3 “ 211.4 “ Average daily gain 1.36 “ 1.66 “ 1.93 “ Average daily feed ground corn 7.05 “ tankage 1.45 “ commercial feed 6.16 “ 8.00 “ Feed per 100 pounds gain ground corn 365.0 “ tankage 75.0 “ commercial feed 455.0 “ 482.0 “ Total feed 455.0 “ 482.0 “ 440.0 “ It will be observed that the hogs fed ground corn and tankage gained 42 per cent, more rapidly than the hogs fed commercial mixed hog feed No. 1 and 16.2 per cent, more rapidly than those fed commercial mixed hog feed No. 2. The daily consumption of feed was greater in the lot receiving ground corn and tankage. The hogs in Lot 6 consumed daily per head 0.5 pound more feed than those in Lot 8 and 2.34 pounds more than those in Lot 7. The feed required per 100 pounds of gain was 365 pounds of ground corn and 75 pounds of tankage, a total of 440 pounds in Lot 6; 482 pounds commercial mixed hog feed No. 2 in Lot 8 and 455 pounds of commercial mixed hog feed No. 1 in Lot 7. QulAoma. 0 BBIYEBSITY 5F fllDWS U3JUHY 30.1 ■>lb PURDUE UNIVERSITY ..JUL 131G Agricultural Experiment Station BULLETIN No. 220 September, 1918 CATTLE FEEDING XIV WINTER STEER FEEDING 1917-1918 Part I. Comparison of Rations with Different Amounts of Corn and No Corn for Fattening Two Year Old Steers Part II. Corn Silage vs. Corn and Soybean Silage for Fattening Two Year Old Steers Part III. Value of Cottonseed Meal in Rations Containing Corn Silage or Corn and Soybean Silage for Fattening Two Year Old Steers '4 Published by the Station: LAFAYETTE, INDIANA U. S. A. PURDUE UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BOARD OF CONTROL Joseph D. Olives, President, South Bend Fay S. Chandler, Indianapolis Charles Downing Greenfield John A. Hillenbrand Batesville Cyrus M. Hobbs Bridgeport Winthrop E. Stone, A. M., Ph. D. Warren T. McCray Kentland James W. Noel Indianapolis Andrew E. Reynolds Crawfordsville William V. Stuart LaFayette .President of the University ADVISORY COMMITTEE (Under Legislative Act of 1909) John G. Brown, Monon D. B. Johnson, Mooresville State Live Stock Association State Dairy Association U. R. Fishel, Hope D. F. Maish, Frankfort State Poultry Fanciers' Association State Corn Growers' Association F. J. Heacock, Salem Indiana Horticultural Society ADMINISTRATION Charles G. Woodbury, M. S., Director Harry J. Reed Assistant to the Director Nellie Tracy Administrative Assistant Mary K, Bloom . Bookkeeper AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION George I. Christie, B. S. A., Superintendent Thomas A. Coleman . State County Agent Leader George M. Frier, B. S. A Associate in Short Courses and Exhibits Mabel L. Harlan. .A ss’t in Agricultural Extension ANIMAL HUSBANDRY John H. Skinner, B. S., Chief Claude M. Vestal, B. S Associate in Animal Husbandry George A. Branaman, B. S Assistant in Animal Husbandry Herbert E. McCartney, B. S. A Ass’t in Animal Husbandry Extension BOTANY Herbert S. Jackson, A. B., Chief George N. Hoffer, M. S Associate in Botany Luna E. Allison, B. S, Assistant in Botany Edwin B. Mains, Ph. D Assistant in Botany DAIRY HUSBANDRY Ollie E. Reed, M. S., Chief Howard W. Gregory, B. S Associate in Dairy Manufactures George Spitzer, Ph. G.. B. S Associate in Dairy Chemistry Turner H. Broughton, B. S Assistant in Creamery Inspection William F. Epple, Ph. G Assistant in Dairy Chemistry Hubert W. Fleisher, B. S. A Assistant in Creamery Inspection ENTOMOLOGY James Troop, M. S.. Chief FARM MECHANICS William Aitkenhead, M. E., M. A Specialist in Farm Mechanics HORTICULTURE Laurenz Greene, M. S. A., Chief Joseph Oskamp, B. S., Associate in Pomology Walter A. Huelson, B. S Assistant in Horticulture NUTRITION Ralph H. Carr, Ph. D Associate in Nutrition Chemistry POULTRY HUSBANDRY Allen G. Philips, B. S. A., Chief Dwight C. Kennard, Ph. C., B. S Assistant in Poultry Husbandry SOILS AND CROPS Alfred T. Wiancko B. S. A., Chief Martin L. Fisher, M. S Assistant Chief in Soils and Crops Samuel D. Conner, M. S , Associate Chemist in Soils and Crops Clinton O. Cromer, B. S Associate in Crops Sadocie C. Jones. M. S Associate in Soils Ernest N. Fergus, M. Sc Assistant in Soils and Crops STATE CHEMIST Edward G. Proulx, M. S. 1 State Chemist Reuben O. Bitler, B. S. 2 ....Deputy State Chemist Margaret Briggs, B. S Deputy State Chemist Paul B. Curtis, B. S. 2 Deputy State Chemist Omar W. Ford, A. B. 2 Deputy State Chemist Herman J. Nimitz. B. S. 2 .. Deputy State Chemist J. Howard Roop, B. S. 2 ..~ Deput" State Chemist Samuel F. Thornton, B. S. 2 \ Deputy State Chemist Otis S. Roberts, B. S. 2 Chief Inspector State Chemist’s Department Glen G. Carter, B. S. 2 Inspector State Chemist’s Department Benjamn F. Catherwood 2 Inspector State Chemist’s Department Wlliam B. Tiedt Inspector State Chemist’s Department VETERINARY SCIENCE Robert A. Craig, D. V. M., Chief David B. Clark, D. M. C... Associate Veterinarian Lawrence C. Kigin, D. V. M Associate Veterinarian George N. Roberts, D. V. M Associate Veterinarian Rex A. Whiting, D. V. M Associate in Animal Pathology Frank I, Cason, B. S...Ass’t in Serum Production Leo P. Doyle, B. S Ass’t in Animal Pathology Leslie R. George, B. S Assistant in Animal Pathology Fred L. Walkey, D. V. M Ass’t Veterinarian DETAILED BY U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Cereal and Forage Crop Insect Investigations John J. Davis, B. S., Entomological Assistant in Charge John M. Aldrich, Ph. D., Entomological Assistant Herman J. Hart, B. S Scientific Assistant Wesley O. Hollister, B. S... Scientific Assistant Dean A. Ricker. B. S Scientific Assistant Chester F. Turner, B. S Scientific Assistant Seed Testing Anna M. Lute, M. A Seed Analyst 1 In charge of Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control 2 Connected with Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control WINTER STEER FEEDING 1917-1918 J. II. Skinner C. G. Starr SUMMARY PART I COMPARISON OF RATIONS WITH DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF CORN AND NO CORN FOR FATTENING TWO YEAR OLD STEERS The addition of a moderate amount of corn, 10.73 pounds daily per steer, to the basal ration of corn silage, clover hay and cottonseed meal, increased the average daily gain 0.74 pound per steer. In 120 days, this increased rate of gain due to the feeding of the corn, amounted to 88 pounds per steer. The addition of a small amount of corn, 5.42 pounds daily per steer, to the basal ration of corn silage, clover hay and cottonseed -meal, in- creased the average daily gains 0.21 pound or 24.6 pounds per steer for the entire feeding period. The addition of corn to the basal ration during the last 40 days of the feeding period, increased the average daily gain 0.11 pound or 12.7 pounds per steer for the entire feeding period. The addition of corn to the basal ration during the last 40 days of the feeding period, increased the average daily gain per steer during the last month of the feeding period 0.88 pound. Where no corn was fed in the ration, the increased average daily consumption of silage was 15.97 pounds per steer, more than the amount consumed by the steers in the lot receiving a medium feed of corn. The feeding of one half ration of corn only increased the silage con- sumption 7.30 pounds daily per steer. Where no corn was fed until the last 40 days the average daily con- sumption of silage was increased 9.07 pounds per steer. The cattle receiving the basal ration of corn silage, clover hay and cottonseed meal produced beef at a cost of $19.88 per hundred pounds. The necessary selling price to break even on these cattle, was $11.70 per hundred pounds. The cattle were valued at $14.55 i n the lot and re- turned a profit of $35-55, not including pork. The cattle receiving corn during the last 40 days in addition to the basal ration, made gains at a cost of $21.79 per hundred pounds. The necessary selling price for this lot was $12.11 per hundred pounds, while they were valued at the close of the experiment at $14.85. Each steer returned a profit of $34.62, not including pork. The cattle receiving a small amount of corn throughout the feeding period in addition to the basal ration produced gains at a cost of $22.12 per hundred. Their necessary selling price was $12.26 while they were valued at $14.85. The profit per steer not including pork was $32.88. 4 The cost per hundred pounds of gain with cattle receiving the larg- est amount of corn in addition to the basal ration was $20.43 J the neces- sary selling price was $12.36; the actual valuation was $15.35 and the profit per steer, not including pork, was $39.85. Valuing the pork produced at $17.50 per hundred pounds, the average steer receiving the basal ration returned a total profit of $37.35 ; the average steer receiving corn the last 40 days, returned a total profit of $37.79; the average steer receiving a small amount of corn continuously returned a total profit of $37.46; the average steer receiving the largest amount of corn returned a total profit of $47.24. PART II CORN SILAGE VS. CORN AND SOYBEAN SILAGE FOR FATTENING TWO YEAR OLD STEERS The average daily gain of the cattle fed corn and soybean silage in addition to corn, cottonseed meal and clover hay was 0.1 pound lower than cattle receiving straight corn silage in addition to the same basal ration. Cattle receiving corn and soybean silage in addition to corn and clover hay made 0.13 pound more rapid daily gains than cattle receiving corn silage in addition to corn and clover hay. There was practically no difference in the average daily feed con- sumption of the cattle receiving corn silage or corn and soybean silage. When cattle received cottonseed meal, slightly more feed was consumed by the cattle fed corn and soybean silage. Where no cottonseed meal was fed, the cattle fed corn silage consumed slightly more feed. The total profits per steer in the lots fed corn silage were $47.24 and $35.34 respectively. In the lots receiving corn and soybean silage, the average total profits were $42.77 and $33.73 respectively. On the basis of one year’s trial but slight difference was found in the relative feeding value, pound for pound of corn silage and corn and soy- bean silage. PART III VALUE OF COTTONSEED MEAL IN RATIONS CONTAINING CORN SILAGE OR CORN AND SOYBEAN SILAGE FOR FATTENING TWO YEAR OLD STEERS The addition of cottonseed meal to a ration of corn, corn silage and clover hay, produced an increased average daily gain of 0.61 pound. In the 120-day feeding period, this increase amounted to 72.6 pounds per steer. The addition of cottonseed meal to a ration of corn, corn and soy- bean silage and clover hay, produced an increased average daily gain of 0.38 pound or a total increase of 46.3 . pounds per steer. The addition of cottonseed meal increased the total feed consump- tion in both rations. At no time would the cattle not receiving cottonseed meal, consume the same amount of feed, either concentrates or roughage, as was consumed by the cattle receiving cottonseed meal. D When cottonseed meal was added to a ration of corn, corn silage and clover hay, the cost of gains per hundred pounds was decreased $3.31 or 3.3 cents per pound. The difference in the valuation of the cattle at the end of the feeding period was 70 cents per hundred pounds in favor of the cattle fed cottonseed meal. The decreased cost of gains and the increased selling price due to the addition of the cottonseed meal, caused a difference in total profit of $11.90 per steer in favor of the cattle fed cottonseed meal. When cottonseed meal was added to a ration of corn, corn and soy bean silage and clover hay, the cost of producing beef was reduced $0.65 per hundred pounds. The better finish of the cattle fed cottonseed meal added $0.90 per hundred pounds to the valuation. The total profit per steer in the lot receiving cottonseed meal in addition to corn, corn and soybean silage and clover hay was $9.04 more than in the lot receiving no cottonseed meal. INTRODUCTION The cattle feeding trials conducted during the winter of 1917-18 by the Purdue University Agricultural Experiment Station, were under exceptional economic conditions. The cattle were purchased at the highest price ever paid for feeding cattle by this institution. The corn over the major portion of the Corn Belt was of poor quality and also high priced. During the larger part of the feeding period, economic conditions occa- sioned by the war and its influences, apparently precluded any profit in feeding. However, during the last four or five weeks of the period, market conditions changed, prices for good cattle increased and as a result, more profit per steer was made than ever before in the history of 14 years of cattle feeding at this station. OBJECT The objects of the trials reported in this bulletin were: 1 — to obtain additional information concerning the relative value of rations containing different amounts of corn, corn fed during the last period of the trials only and, rations without corn ; 2 — the relative feeding value of corn silage and corn and soybean silage ; and 3 — the value of cottonseed meal in rations containing large amounts of corn silage or corn and soybean silage fed to fattening two year old steers. PLAN Seventy good two year old feeding steers were divided into seven lots of 10 each. The cattle were divided as evenly as possible in respect to weight, size, condition, quality and thrift. The following rations were fed : Lot. 1. Cottonseed meal, corn silage, and clover hay; shelled corn last 40 days. Lot 2. Cottonseed meal, corn silage and clover hay. Lot 3. Cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay, and one-half feed of shelled corn based on amount consumed in Lot 4. Lot 4. Cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay and shelled corn. Lot 5. Cottonseed meal, corn and soybean silage, clover hay and shelled corn. Lot 6. Corn and soybean silage, clover hay and shelled corn. Lot 7. Corn silage, clover hay and shelled corn. 6 The cottonseed meal was fed at the rate of 2.5 pounds of meal daily per 1000 pounds of live weight. The corn in Tot 3 was regulated by the amount fed in Tot 4, one-half of the amount consumed by Tot 4, being the daily ration of Tot 3. SHELTER, FEED LOTS AND WATER SUPPLY Each lot of 10 steers occupied similar quarters, which consisted of an uncovered concreted lot 20 by 28 feet and an open shed 16 by 28 feet on the west. The sheds were kept as well bedded as possible. Owing to the severe winter, with large amounts of ice and snow, the spring thaw caused the open lots to become very sloppy. At all times, however, the cattle had dry beds in the sheds. The cattle were fed under cover. Water was supplied in galvanized iron troughs adjacent to the open lots, care being taken to keep the water fresh in these troughs. No method of heating was used but the ice ac- cumulating in the troughs was removed regularly twice daily. The cattle had water before them at all times. WEIGHTS Each animal was weighed for three consecutive days at the begin- ning and end of the trial and every 30 days during the trial. The aver- ages of the three weights at the beginning and end of the feeding period were taken as the initial and final weights respectively. Each lot was also weighed as a group every 10 days. The weights were taken at 9 :oo a. m. without change in feed or water. The identity of each steer was known by a numbered brass tag on a strap fastened around the neck. The identity of the hogs was known by numbered aluminum ear tags. METHODS OF FEEDING The method of feeding in all lots was practically the same. In lots 3, 4 and 5, the corn with the cottonseed meal sprinkled over it was fed the first thing in the morning and evening at approximately 6 :oo a. m. and 4 130 p. m. The silage was placed in the troughs after the corn had been consumed. In Tots 6 and 7 the corn was fed first. In Tots 1 and 2, the cottonseed meal was sprinkled over the silage when fed. In Tots 3, 4 and 5, cottonseed meal was sprinkled over the shelled corn. The hay was fed once daily, being placed in the hay mangers in the morning. The amount of silage fed in all lots was governed by the appetites of the cattle. The intention was to furnish all that the cattle would con- sume within two hours after being placed in the troughs. The amount of hay was determined by the need of the cattle for dry roughage and their appetite for the hay. Only enough was fed so that the cattle would consume the hay without waste or leaving any appreciable amount. Salt was given to all lots at as frequent intervals as was required. 7 DESCRIPTION OF THE CATTLE The cattle in these trials were selected from a large drove which had been pastured for several months previous in Jasper County, Indiana. As selected, they were very uniform in weight, age, quality, condition and thrift. Practically all were of Shorthorn breeding. These cattle were received at the experimental feeding lots early in November. Until the beginning of the experiment they were main- tained on a light feed of corn silage and alfalfa hay. No attempt was made to make them gain, the intention being to maintain the cattle in thrifty condition. METHOD OF VALUING CATTLE In order that a fair valuation could be placed on the cattle at the be- ginning of the feeding period and to eliminate any effect upon the finan- cial statements due to fluctuations of markets, the cattle were valued on the basis of the Chicago market by Messrs. John T. Alexander and Mat Welch, of Chicago. To this valuation 15 cents per hundred pounds was added to cover cost of shipping from Chicago to LaFayette, making the initial valuation $10.15 per hundred pounds. At the close of the feeding period, the different lots of cattle were valued by Messrs. John T. Alexander and Fred Bowra, of Chicago. These values were again on the basis of the Chicago market. From these values, 75 cents per hundred pounds was deducted to cover the cost of shipping, selling and shrinkage in placing the cattle upon the Chicago market. All financial statements are based upon these initial and final valuations. QUALITY AND PRICES OF FEEDS The corn used in these trials was but slightly above the average qual- ity of corn in the vicinity of the Experiment Station. At all times there were considerable rotten and discolored kernels with a moisture content rarely below 25 per cent. Owing to the absence of any standard market for this corn, a fixed price of $1.12 per bushel is used in the financial statements. This was slightly higher than the prices paid for the or- dinary run of corn received by the LaFayette elevators during the feeding period. The cottonseed meal was of choice grade, guaranteed to contain 41 per cent, crude protein and cost $53.50 per ton f. o. b., LaFayette. The clover hay was of good quality and is figured in at $25.00 per ton. The corn silage and corn and soybean silage were made from corn and soybeans on the Purdue Farm. The corn was thought to be too green for the best silage although the quality of the silage proved to be excellent. The yield of the corn was approximately 30 bushels per acre. Both silages are valued at $7.50 per ton in the financial statements. HOGS At the beginning of the trials, due to a very great demand and an acute scarcity of good stock hogs, it was impossible to secure the number desired — 10 hogs per lot. Six hogs were placed in Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7; three hogs in Lot 3 ; and two hogs in Lots 1 and 2. Thirty days before the end of the trials, four more hogs were placed in Lot 1. The average 8 weight of the hogs was less than ioo pounds. Due to this light weight and the extreme winter, a few of the hogs did not gain as they^should. Extra corn was fed to the hogs in each lot according to appetites. In addition, three hogs in Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7 received a small quantity of a mixture of wheat shorts and tankage, once daily. METHOD OF STARTING CATTLE ON FEED At the beginning of the feeding period, the silage was increased as rapidly as the cattle would consume the added amount. The cottonseed meal was fed at the rate of one pound per steer daily and gradually in- creased, until at the end of 10 days, the cattle were consuming 2.5 pounds daily per 1,000 pounds of live weight. The shelled corn was fed at the rate of 2.0 pounds daily per steer in Lot 3 and 4.0 pounds in the other lots receiving corn. In 14 days, Lot 3 was receiving 5.0 pounds of corn daily per steer and Lots 4, 5, o, and 7 were receiving 10 pounds of corn daily per head. This amount of corn remained constant in Lots 4 and 5 while an attempt was made to increase the amount in Lots 6 and 7 without seri- ously decreasing the consumption of silage. Efforts to increase the aver- age daily consumption above 11 pounds in these two lots during the first 30 days, resulted in the cattle refusing to consume the desired amount of silage, therefore the amount of corn was held to 11 pounds daily per steer. At the beginning of the second month, the amount of corn in Lot 3 was raised to 6.0 pounds daily per steer, in Lots 4 and 5 to 12 pounds, and in Lots 6 and 7 to 13 pounds. No further increase in the amount of corn was made in Lots 3, 4, and 5. Any attempt to raise the amount of corn fed to Lots 6 and 7 to equal the amount of concentrates, both corn and cottonseed meal, in Lots 4 and 5, resulted in the cattle refusing con- siderable amounts of silage. At the beginning of the feeding period, the alfalfa hay was abruptly replaced by clover hay without any bad effect upon the cattle. PART I COMPARISON OF RATIONS WITH DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF CORN AND NO CORN FOR FATTENING TWO YEAR OLD STEERS The high prices for corn and the possible utilization by fattening cat- tle of large quantities of ordinary unmarketable farm roughages such as corn stalks and leaves, when made into silage occasioned the beginning of a new series of feeding trials last year. The object of this series was to obtain information as to the relative influence of considerable quan- tities of corn, small quantities of corn and no corn at all in the rations of fattening cattle. The increased demand for corn for human consumption and for pork production due to war influences and demands caused a still larger interest this year in the finishing of cattle for the market with little or no corn. The trials reported herein are the second of the series. The results of the first trials are reported in Bulletin No. 206. Eor two years previous to the trials reported, attempts were made to save corn by feeding no corn the first month and slightly increasing 9 amounts in the succeeding months of the feeding period. It not having proved profitable, this particular line of work was replaced in 1917-18 by a lot of cattle (Lot 1) to which no corn was fed until the last 40 days, when a large amount of corn was introduced. In addition, three other lots were fed. Lot 2 received no corn at any time, receiving only the ration of cottonseed meal, corn silage and clover hay. Lot 3 received a small amount of corn daily, one-half amount fed in Lot 4, while Lot 4 received, what is for convenience, called a medium ration of corn through- out the feeding period in addition to the basal ration. The ration of corn in Lot 4, although not large, is considered a full feed of corn. The average daily feed consumption by months and the average daily consumption for the entire period is shown in Table I. Table; I. — Average Amount of Feed Consumed Daily per Head by Fat- tening Steers. December 13, 1917 to April 12, 1918 (120 days) Ration Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay, shelled corn last 40 days cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay, no corn cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay, one-half feed shelled corn cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay, medium feed shelled corn First month shelled corn 4.25 lbs. 8.50 lbs. cottonseed meal 2.33 lbs. 2.33 lbs. 2.30 “ 2.35 “ corn silage 55.03 “ 55.03 “ 48.67 “ 41.77 “ clover hay . 4.63 “ 4.72 “ 4.85 tt 4.85 “ Second month shelled corn 5.36 “ 10.41 “ cottonseed meal 2.83 “ 2.83 “ 2.91 “ 2.92 “ corn silage 55.05 “ 56.58 “ 49.17 “ 41.02 “ clover hay 3.85 « 4.17 “ 4.93 “ 4.70 “ Third month shelled corn 2.81 “ 6.07 “ 12.00 “ cottonseed meal 2.95 “ 2.98 tt 3.02 “ 3.10 “ corn silage 50.20 “ 55.50 “ 45.48 tt 37.67 “ clover hay 3.58 “ 3.85 “ 4.20 tt 3,72 tt Fourth month shelled corn 13.79 “ 6.0 it 12.00 “ cottonseed meal 3.07 “ 3.07 “ 3.11 tt . 3.23 “ corn silage 29.15 <« 49.92 “ 39.06 tt 32.72 “ clover hay 3.92 “ 3.93 “ 4.44 “ 3.93 tt Average daily feed for entire period shelled corn 4.15 lbs. 5.42 lbs. 10.73 lbs. cottonseed meal 2.80 “ 2.80 lbs. 2.83 “ 2.90 “ corn silage 47.36 “ 54.26 “ 45.59 66 38.29 66 clover hay 4.00 4.17 4.63 66 4.30 In will be noted that until corn was introduced into the ration in Lot 1, the feed consumption of Lots 1 and 2 was about equal. The steers in Lot 2 apparently had slightly better appetites than those in Lot 1. IO After corn was introduced into the ration of Lot I, the average daily con- sumption of corn silage dropped very materially. During the last month, the average daily consumption of corn silage in Lot i was 20.77 pounds less than in Lot 2. It will also be observed that as the amount of corn increased in Lots 3 and 4, the consumption of the cheaper feed, corn silage, decreased materially. The largest daily consumption of feed in all lots occurred during the second month of the feeding period. The maximum daily consumption of silage was 58 pounds per steer in Lot 2. This consumption was maintained for a short period only. As the feeding period lengthened, it will be noted that the total daily consumption of feed decreased in all lots. The average daily gains of the different lots both by months and for the entire period are shown in Table II. Table) II. — Daily Gain per Steer by Months, December 13, 1917, to April 12, 1918 (120 days) Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Ration cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay, shelled corn last 40 days cottonseed meal clover hay, corn silage, no corn cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay, one-half feed shelled corn cottonseed meal, corn silage clover hay, shelled corn First month 1.57 lbs. 1 1.69 lbs. 1 1.44 lbs. 1 2.29 lbs. 1 Second month 1.90 66 2.47 66 3.14 66 3.32 “ Third month 1.42 64 1.18 66 1.57 66 1.75 “ Fourth month 2.19 66 1.31 66 1.31 “ 2.22 “ Total gain per steer 212.2 lbs. 199.5 lbs. 224.1 lbs. 287.5 lbs. Average daily gain for entire period 1.77 “ 1.66 66 1.87 66 2,40 “ 1 Cattle badly shrunk due to blizzard January 12, 1918 — day of weighing Due to a very severe blizzard with heavy snow fall and extreme cold occurring at the time of the first 30-day weighing, none of the lots show very good gains for the first month. These weights actually showed a loss over the group weights taken 10 days previously. It will be observed that the cattle receiving the largest amount of corn made the highest average daily gain and maintained their gains to the end of the feeding period. This lot of cattle averaged approximately three-quarters of a pound more gain per day for the entire 120-days feed- ing period than the cattle in Lot 2, or an increased rate of 44.6 per cent. The cattle receiving one-half feed of corn made an increased aver- age daily gain over Lot 2 of 0.21 pound or approximately 12.6 per cent, more rapid gains. In Lot 1 the addition of corn during the last 40 days of the feeding period increased the average daily gains 0.11 pound or 6.7 per cent. The effect of adding corn, upon the rate of gain during the II latter part of the feeding period may be noted in a comparison of the average daily gains of Lots i and 2 during the fourth month. Lot 1 made an average daily gain of 2.19 pounds, while Lot 2 made only 1.31 pounds gain daily per steer. The influence of different amounts of corn upon the cost of gains is shown in Table III. Table III. — Average Amount of Feed Consumed per Hundred Pounds of Gain and Cost per Hundred Pounds of Gain Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Ration cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay, shelled corn last 40 days cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay, no corn cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay, one-half feed shelled corn cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay, shelled corn Feed per 100 pounds gain shelled corn cottonseed meal corn silage clover hay 234 lbs. 158 2678 226 169 lbs. 3264 251 290 lbs. 152 2441 248 448 lbs. 121 1598 179 Cost per cwt. of gain $21.79 $19.88 $22.12 $20.43 Cost per cwt. of gain 1 24.72 21.52 25.32 24.27 1 Corn at $1.50 per bushel and corn silage at $8.50 per ton When the economy of producing ioo pounds of beef is considered, the ration with no corn is superior to all of the others. The gains on the cattle fed a medium ration of corn in Lot 4 were the next lowest in cost of production. Even when corn and corn silage are advanced in price, the ration containing a medium amount of corn remains more economical in relation to cost of gain than the rations fed Lots 1 and 3. In Table IV, is given the summary of the four lots. 12 Table; IV. — Summary of Part i Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 1 Lot 4 Ration cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay, shelled corn last 40 days cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay, no corn cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay, one-half feed shelled corn cottonseed meal, corn silage', clover hay, medium feed * shelled corn \j Initial value per cwt. $10.15 $10.15 $10.15 $10.15 Initial weight 10500 lbs. 10497 lbs. 9418 lbs. 10472 lbs. Final weight 12622 12492 11435 13347 Total gain 2122 1995 2017 2875 \ Average daily gain 1.77 “ 1.66 “ 1.87 “ 2.40 “ Total feed consumed shelled corn 4979 5856 12872 cottonseed meal 3355 3365 3062 3480 corn silage 56830 65110 49242 45950 clover hay 4795 5000 5005 5160 Daily feed per steer shelled corn 4.15 2 “ 5.42 “ 10.73 “ cottonseed meal 2.80 “ 2.80 “ 2.83 “ 2.90 “ corn silage 47.36 “ 54.26 “ 45.59 “ 38.29 “ clover hay 4.00 “ 4.17 “ 4.63 “ 4.30 “ Feed per pound gain shelled corn 2.34 “ 2.90 “ 4.48 “ cottonseed meal 1.58 “ 1.69 “ 1.52 “ 1.21 “ corn silage 26.78 “ 32.64 “ 24.41 “ 15.98 “ clover hay 2.26 “ 2.51 “ 2.48 “ 1.79 “ Cost of gain per cwt. $21.79 $19.88 $22.12 $20.43 Necessary selling price 12.11 11.70 12.26 12.36 Actual selling price in 15.35 lots without shrink 14.85 14.55 14.85 Profit per steer not including pork 34.62 35.55 32.88 39.85 • Pork produced 265 lbs. 198 lbs. 322 lbs. 651 lbs. Corn fed to hogs Shorts fed to hogs Tankage fed to hogs 753 831 758 1594 109 109 Profit per steer including pork $37.79 $37.35 $37.46 $47.24 1 Nine steers in lot 2 Average daily corn last 40 days approximately 14 pounds Based on the following prices for feeds: shelled corn, $1.12 per bushel (corn varied 25 to 30 per cent, in moisture content); cottonseed meal, $53.50 per ton; clover hay, $25.00 per ton; corn silage, $7.50 per ton Pork is valued at $17.50 per cwt. and cost of additional feed consumed by hogs is deducted before value of pork from droppings is accerdited to receipts from cattle *3 / It would have been necessary to value the cattle in Lot 2 receiving no corn at $11.70 per hundred pounds, or at a margin of $1.55 over cost price per hundred pounds to pay all costs of feed and original cost of cattle. The cattle in Lot 1 should have brought $12.11 or a margin of $1.96 to break even. Lot 3 required a price of $12.26 per hundred pounds, or a margin of $2.11 per hundred pounds to pay all costs. The necessary selling price for Lot 4 was $12.36 or a margin of $2.21 per hundred pounds. Actually a margin of $4.40 per hundred was received for the cattle in Lot 2, making a profit of $35.55 per steer, without pork. A margin of $4.70 per hundred pounds in Lot 1 returned an average profit without pork of $34.62. The same margin in Lot 3 returned an average profit of $32.88. In Lot 4, a margin of $5.20 returned an average profit without pork of $39.85. The cattle fed a medium amount of corn produced the largest amount of pork. The value of the pork produced behind the cattle increased the profits in Lot 1 to $37.79; in Lot 2, $37.35; in Lot 3, $37.46; in Lot 4, $47.24. Adding the value of pork, the cattle in Lot 4 fed approximately 11 pounds of shelled corn daily per head in addition to the basal ration, returned an increased profit of $9.89 over those receiving no corn. In Table V the prices of cottonseed meal and clover hay remain con- stant, while the prices of corn and silage are increased proportionately. No allowance is made for the value of pork. The influence of the price of corn upon the financial returns of the four rations is shown ;n Table V. Table V. — Necessary Selling Price with Corn at Varying Prices and Corn Silage at Corresponding Prices (Pork not included) Price per bushel corn Price per ton silage Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay, shelled corn last 40 days cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay, no corn cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay, one-half feed shelled corn cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay, shelled corn $ 0.50 $ 3.50 $ 10.77 $ 10.66 $ 10.83 $ 10.61 0.75 4.75 11.23 10.99 11.33 11.25 1.00 6.00 11.68 11.31 11.83 11.90 1.25 7.25 12.14 11.64 12.33 12.55 1.50 8.50 12.60 11.96 12.82 13.19 1.75 9.75 13.06 12.29 13.32 13.84 2.00 11.00 13.51 12.62 13.82 14.48 14 PART II CORN SILAGE VS. CORN AND SOYBEAN SILAGE FOR FATTENING TWO YEAR OLD STEERS The growing of soybeans in rows with the corn is coming to be a rather common practice in many communities in Indiana. Many men owning silos have found that an increased tonnage of silage per acre can be secured by using the corn and soybean combination for silage. In some cases, the soybeans have been grown separately and mixed with the corn at the time of filling the silo. There has been a considerable discus- sion as to the relative feeding value of this mixed silage as compared with straight corn silage. Whether or not sufficient crude protein could be placed in the silage by the addition of the soybeans, so that the ex- pensive commercial protein concentrates could profitably be eliminated from the rations for fattening cattle is an important question. If by growing soybeans and mixing them with corn, either by growing them to- gether in the row or by mixing at the silo at the time of filling, the con- tent of crude protein in the silage could be increased to a point sufficient to balance the rations for fattening cattle, a very large economy in the cost of producing beef could be established. The Station inaugurated a series of trials in 1917-18 to obtain information on this subject. The corn and soybeans were grown separately and the two crops were mixed at the cutter in the proportion of two parts by weight of green corn and one part green soybeans. The corn used was similar in yield and stage of maturity to that used for the straight corn silage. The soybeans were still green, no pods having turned brown but the beans were well formed in the pods and the leaves were turning yellow. Four lots of cattle were used in this trial. Tots 4 and 5 were fed a basal ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal and clover hay. Tot 4 received the straight corn silage in addition to the basal ration while Tot 5 received the corn and soybean silage in addition to the basal ration. This comparison should give information as to the relative value of the two silages when the rations were supplemented with a protein concen- trate. Tots 6 and 7 were fed a basal ration of shelled corn and clover hay. In addition to this basal ration, Tot 6 received corn and soybean silage and Tot 7 received straight corn silage. This comparison should give information as to the relative feeding value of the two silages when not supplemented with a protein concentrate. Practically no difference was observed in the appetites of the steers for the different kinds of silage. Each lot maintained its appetite through- out the feeding period. It was observed that during the trials the cattle in Tot 5, receiving corn and soybean silage, cottonseed meal, clover hay and shelled corn, were somewhat more laxative than the cattle in the other lots. At all times, however, during the feeding period, all lots of cattle were slightly more -laxative than was desirable. This loose- ness was probably due to the laxative effect of the two silages, made from rather immature corn. To check the tendency to looseness, the quantity of hay fed to all lots was somewhat higher than in former years. i5 During- the feeding period, it was observed that the corn and soybean silage would not keep fresh as long when exposed to the air as the straight corn silage. Table VI is given showing the feed consumption of the different lots by months and for the entire feeding period. Tabu; VI. — Average Amount of Feed Consumed Daily per Head by Fattening Steers by Months — December 13, 1917 to April 12, 1918 (120 days) Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 7 Lot 6 Ration cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay, shelled corn cottonseed meal, corn and soy- bean silage, clover hay, shelled corn corn silage, clover hay, shelled corn corn and soy- bean silage, clover hay, shelled corn First month shelled corn cottonseed meal 8.90 lbs. 2.35 “ 8.50 lbs. 2.33 “ 9.19 lbs. 9.19 lbs. corn silage 41.77 “ 41.43 “ 41.15 “ 41.15 “ clover hay 4.85 “ 5.12 “ 4.35 “ 4.57 “ Second month shelled corn 10.41 “ 10.41 “ 11.41 “ 11.41 “ cottonseed meal 2.92 “ 2.90 “ corn silage 41.02 “ 41.32 “ 38.90 “ 38.50 “ clover hay 4.70 “ 4.98 “ 4.90 “* 4.93 “ Third month shelled corn cottonseed meal 12.00 “ 3.10 “ 12.00 “ 3.12 “ 13.00 “ 13.00 “ corn silage 37.67 “ 37.80 “ 35.00 “ 33.90 “ clover hay 3.72 “ 3.95 “ 3.95 “ 3.95 “ Fourth month shelled corn cottonseed meal 12.00 “ 3.23 “ 12.00 “ 3.23 “ 13.00 “ 13.00 “ corn silage 32.72 “ 35.87 “ 33.03 “ 32.97 “ clover hay 3.93 “ 4.00 “ 3.87 “ 3.87 “ Average daily feed for entire period shelled corn cottonseed meal 10.73 lbs. 2.90 “ 10.73 lbs. 2.90 “ 11.65 lbs. 11.65 lbs. corn silage 38.29 “ 30.10 “ 37.02 “ 36.63 “ clover hay 4.30 “ 4.15 “ 4.27 “ 4.33 “ The amount of shelled corn fed daily to the lots was purposely fixed. The amount given daily to Lots 4 and 5 was the same. Lots 6 and 7 received daily the same amount of corn. The cottonseed meal was fed on the basis of 2.5 pounds per 1000 pounds of live weight, hence the daily average consumption varied as the live weight varied. The silages were fed according to the appetites of the animals. Table VII, gives the average daily gain by months and for the entire feeding period. i6 Table: VII. — Average Daily Gain by Months, December 13, 1917 to April 1 2, 1918 (120 days) Lot 4 Lot 5 | Lot 7 Lot 6 Ration cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay, shelled corn cottonseed —-meal, corn and soy- bean silage, clover hay, shelled corn corn silage, clover hay, shelled corn corn and soy- bean silage, clover hay, sheHed corn First month 2.29 lbs. 1 2.08 lbs. 1 0.72 lbs. 1 0.93 lbs. 1 Second month 3.32 “ 3.83 “ 2.98 “ 3.15 “ Third month 1.75 “ CO 1.65 “ 2.03 “ Fourth month 2.22 “ 1.94 “ 1.81 “ 1.56 “ Total gain per steer 287.5 lbs. 276.5 lbs. 214.9 lbs. 230.2 lbs. Average daily gain for entire period 2.40 “ 2.30 “ 1.79 “ 1.92 “ 1 Cattle badly shrunk due to blizzard January 12, 1918 — day of weighing As was true of all of the lots, the first month’s gain was seriously decreased by a blizzard occuring upon the 30-day weighing date. It will be observed that the gains of the cattle in Lot 4, receiving corn silage, were maintained somewhat better than by the cattle in Lot 5, receiving corn and soybean silage. Upon the other hand, Lot 6 receiving corn and soybean silage made superior gains until the last month, to Lot 7 receiv- ing corn silage. In average daily gains, the cattle fed corn silage in Lot 4 made approximately 4.3 per cent, more rapid gains than the cattle fed corn and soybean silage in Lot 5. In Lot 6, however, the average daily gain was 7.2 per cent, more rapid than in Lot 7. Table VIII is a statement of the feed required for 100 pounds of gain and the cost of gains. Table VIII. — Average Amount of Feed Consumed and Cost per Hundred Pounds of Gain Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 7 Lot 6 Ration cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay, shelled corn cottonseed meal, corn and soy- bean silage, clover hay, shelled corn corn silage, clover hay, shelled corn corn and soy- bean silage, clover hay, shelled corn Feed per 100 pounds gain shelled corn cottonseed meal corn silage clover hay 448 lbs. 121 1598 179 466 lbs. 126 1097 196 650 lbs. 2067 238 607 lbs. 1909 226 Cost per cwt. of gain $20.43 $21.48 $23.74 $22.13 Cost per cwt. of gain 1 24.27 25.49 29.19 27.20 1 Corn at $1.50 per bushel and corn silage at $8.50 per ton i7 As with the gains, the advantage in cost of gains between the cattle in Lots 4 and 5 is favorable to the corn silage while between Lots 6 and 7, the advantage is favorable to the cattle receiving corn and soybean silage. Table IX. — Summary of Part II Ration Lot 4 Lot 5 || Lot 7 Lot 6 cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay, shelled corn cottonseed meal, corn and soy- bean silage, clover hay, shelled corn corn silage, clover hay, shelled corn corn and soy- bean silage, clover hay, shelled corn Initial value per cwt. $10.15 $10.15 $10.15 $10.15 Initial weight 10472 lbs. 10442 lbs. 10438 lbs. 10420 lbs. Final weight 13347 13207 12587 12722 Total gain 2875 2765 2149 2302 Average daily gain 2.40 “ 2.30 “ 1.79 “ 1.92 “ Total feed consumed shelled corn 12872 12872 13979 13978.5 “ cottonseed meal 3480 3475 corn silage 45950 46925 j 44425 43955 “ clover hay 5160 5415 5120 5195 Daily feed per steer shelled corn 10.73 “ 10.73 “ 11.65 “ 11.65 “ cottonseed meal 2.90 “ 2.90 “ corn silage 38.29 “ 39.10 “ 37.02 “ 36.63 “ clover hay 4.30 “ 4.51 “ 4.27 “ 4.33 “ Feed per pound gain shelled corn 4.48 “ 4.66 “ 6.50 “ 6.07 “ cottonseed meal 1.21 “ 1.26 “ corn silage 15.98 “ 16.97 “ 20.67 “ 19.09 “ clover hay 1.79 “ 1.96 “ 2.38 “ 2.26 “ Cost of gain per cwt. -e/s to o Oi. CO $21.48 $23.74 $22.13 Necessary selling price 12.36 12.52 12.47 12.32 Actual selling price in lots without shrink 15.35 15.25 14.65 14.35 Profit per steer not including pork 39.85 36.02 27.44 25.86 Pork produced 651 lbs. 574 lbs. 683 lbs. 681 lbs. Corn fed to hogs 1594 1218 i 1598.5 “ 1598.5 “ Shorts fed to hogs 109 114 114 114 Tankage fed to hogs 109 114 114 114 Profit per steer including pork $47.24 $42.77 $35.34 $33.73 Feed prices: corn. $1.12 per bushel; cottonseed meal, $53.50 per ton; clover hay, $25.00 per ton, and silage, $7.50 per ton. Pork at $17.50 per cwt. Cost of extra feed fed to hogs deducted from value of pork before adding to returns of the cattle i8 It will be observed that the cattle in Lot 4 could have been sold for 16 cents per hundred pounds less than those in Lot 5 and the financial return would have been the same for each lot. The cattle in Lot 4 were valued at 10 cents per hundred more than those in Lot 5, making a larger profit per steer, without pork, of $3.83. While the cattle in Lot 7 required a selling price of 15 cents per hundred pounds more than those in Lot 6 to bring the same amount, they actually sold for 30 cents per hundred more, returning an average profit per steer without pork of $1.58 more than the steers in Lot 6. The value of the pork produced from the droppings of the cattle in the different lots does not cause any decided change in the relative profits of any of the four lots. PART III VALUE OF COTTONSEED MEAL IN RATIONS CONTAINING CORN SILAGE OR CORN AND SOYBEAN SILAGE FOR FATTENING TWO YEAR OLD STEERS Much work has been done in previous years by this station to de- termine the value of cottonseed meal as a source of protein for supple- menting rations for fattening steers. In conducting the trials reported in Part II, another comparison is available showing the value of cotton- seed meal in the rations of corn, silage and clover hay. Table X shows the average daily consumption of feeds by months and during the entire feeding period. 19 Table X. — Average Amount of Feed Consumed Daily per Head by Months — December 13, 1917 to April 12, 1918 (120 days) Lot 4 Lot 7 Lot 5 Lot 6 Ration cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay, shelled corn corn silage, clover hay, shelled corn cottonseed meal, corn and soy- bean silage, clover hay, shelled corn corn and soy- bean silage, clover hay, shelled corn First month shelled corn cottonseed meal 8.50 lbs. 2.35 “ 9.19 lbs. 8.50 lbs. 2.33 “ 9.19 lbs. corn silage 41.77 “ 41.15 “ 41.43 “ 41.15 “ clover hay 4.85 (4 4.35 “ 5.12 “ 4.75 “ Second month shelled corn cottonseed meal 10.41 2.92 44 11.41 “ 10.41 “ 2.90 “ 11.41 “ corn silage 41.02 44 • 38.90 “ 41.32 “ 38.50 “ clover hay 4.70 44 4.90 “ 4.98 “ 4.93 “ Third month shelled corn cottonseed meal 12.00 3.10 « 13.00 “ 12.00 “ 3.12 “ 13.00 “ corn silage 37.67 44 35.00 “ 37.80 “ 33.90 “ clover hay 3.72 3.95 “ 3.95 “ 3.95 “ Fourth month shelled corn cottonseed meal 12.00 3.25 44 13.00 “ 12.00 “ 3.23 “ 13.00 “ corn silage 32.72 “ 33.03 “ 35.87 “* 32.97 “ clover hay 3.93 44 3.87 “ 4.00 “ 3.87 “ Average daily feed for entire period shelled corn cottonseed meal 10.73 lbs. 2.90 “ 11.65 lbs. 10.73 lbs. 2.90 “ 11.65 lbs. corn silage 38.29 “ 37.02 “ 39.10 “ 36.63 “ clover hay 4.30 4.27 “ 4.15 “ 4.33 “ In these trials, Lots 4 and 7 and Lots 5 and 6 are comparable. Lot 4 received 2.5 pounds of cottonseed meal per 1000 pounds of live weight in addition to the basal ration of shelled corn, corn silage and clover hay. Lot 5 received the same amount of cottonseed meal in addition to the basal ration of shelled corn, corn and soybean silage and clover hay. The excellent effect of cottonseed meal upon feed consumption was apparent. The cattle in Lots 4 and 5 consumed more concentrates and more roughage daily per steer than those in Lots 7 and 6. Attempts were made to feed the same amount of concentrates in the form of corn to Lots 6 and 7 as was fed in the form of corn and cottonseed meal to Lots 4 and 5. Each time such an attempt was made, the cattle in Lots 6 and 7 seriously decreased their consumption of silage and hay. Even with the consumption of less total daily concentrates, the cattle in the lots not receiving cottonseed meal, refused to consume as much silage as the other cattle. Table XI gives the average daily gain by months and for the entire period. 20 Table: XI. — Average Daily Gain by Months — December 13, 1917 to April 12, 1918 (120 days) Lot 4 Lot 7 | Lot 5 Lot 6 Ration cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay, shelled corn corn silage, clover hay, shelled corn cottonseed meal, corn and soy- bean silage, clover hay, shelled corn corn and soy- bean silage, clover hay, shelled corn First month 2.29 lbs. 1 0.72 lbs. 1 2.08 lbs. 1 0.93 lbs. 1 Second month 3.32 “ 2.98 “ 3.83 “ 3.15 “ Third month 1.75 “ 1.65 “ 1.37 “ 2.03 “ Fourth month 2.22 “ 1.81 “ 1.94 “ 1.56 “ Total gain per steer 287,5 lbs. 214.9 lbs. 276.5 lbs. 230.2 lbs. Average daily gain for entire period 2.40 “ 1.79 “ 2.30 “ 1.92 “ 1 Cattle badly shrunk due to blizzard January 12, 1918 — day of weighing The addition of cottonseed meal increased the average daily gain in Lots 4 and 5, both by months and as an average for the entire period. As an average throughout the entire period, the cattle in Lot 4 gained 34 per cent, more rapidly than those in Lot 7. In Lot 5, the cattle made an increased average daily gain of 19.8 per cent, over that of the cattle in Lot 6. Table XII shows the feed requirements per hundred pounds of gain and the attending cost. Table: XII. — Average Amount of Feed Consumed and Cost per Hundred Pounds of Gain Lot 4 Lot 7 Lot 5 Lot 6 Ration cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay, shelled corn corn silage, clover hay, shelled corn cottonseed meal, corn and soy- bean silage, clover hay, shelled corn corn and soy- bean silage, clover hay, shelled corn Feed per 100 pounds gain shelled corn cottonseed meal corn silage clover hay 448 lbs. 121 1598 179 650 lbs. 2067 238 466 lbs. 126 1697 196 607 lbs. 1909 226 Cost per cwt. of gain $20.43 $23.74 $21.48 $22.13 Cost per cwt. of gain 1 24.27 29.19 , 25.49 27.20 1 Corn at $1.50 per bushel and corn silage at $8.50 per ton 21 Where no cottonseed meal was used in Lot 7, the cost of produc- tion of 100 pounds of beef was increased $3.31 or 3.3 cents per pound above Lot 4. In Lot 6, the increased cost over Lot 5 was 65 cents per hundred pounds of gain. Even at the high price of $53.50 per ton, cotton- seed meal effects a considerable saving in feeding two year old steers. The figures in Table XIII give the summary of the four lots. Table XIII. — Summary of Part III Ration Lot 4 Lot 7 j Lot 5 Lot 6 cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay, shelled corn corn silage, clover hay, shelled corn cottonseed meal, corn and soy- bean silage, clover hay, shelled corn corn and soy- bean silage, clover hay, shelled corn Initial value per cwt. $10.15 $10.15 $10.15 $10.15 Initial weight 10472 lbs. 10438 lbs. 10442 lbs. 10420 lbs. Final weight 13347 12587 13207 12722 44 Total gain 2875 2149 2765 2302 (4 Average daily gain 2.40 “ 1.79 “ 2.30 “ 1.92 “ Total feed consumed shelled corn 12872 13979 12872 13978.5 cottonseed meal 3480 3475 corn silage 45950 “ 44425 46926 43955 44 clover hay 5160 5120 5416 5195 44 Daily feed per steer shelled corn 10.73 “ 11.66 “ 10.73 “ 11.65 “ cottonseed meal 2.90 “ 2.90 “ corn silage 38.29 “ 37.02 “ 39.10 “ 36.63 clover hay 4.30 “ 4.27 “ 4.51 “ 4.33 Feed per pound gain shelled corn 4.48 “ 6.50 “ 4.66 “ 6.07 44 cottonseed meal 1.21 “ 1.26 “ corn silage 15.98 “ 20.67 “ 16.97 “ 19.09 44 clover hay 1.79 “ 2.38 “ 1.96 “ 2.26 44 Cost of gain per cwt. $20.43 $23.74 $21.48 $22.13 Necessary selling price 12.36 12.47 12.52 12.32 Actual selling price in lots without shrink 15.35 14.65 15.25 14.35 Profit per steer not including pork 39.85 27.44 36.02 25.86 Pork produced 651 lbs. 683 lbs. 574 lbs. 681 lbs. Corn fed to hogs 1594 1598.5 “ 1218 1598.5 << Shorts fed to hogs 109 114 114 114 “ Tankage fed to hogs 109 114 114 114 “ Profit per steer including pork $47.24 $35.34 ' $42.77 $33.73 22 There is a difference between the necessary selling price of the cat- tle in Lots 4 and 7 of n cents per hundred pounds in favor of Lot 4. There was an actual difference of 70 cents per hundred in the valuations of the two lots. This increased valuation for the cattle of Lot 4, together •with the superior and cheaper gains, caused an increase in profit per steer without pork in Lot 4 over Lot 7 of $12.41, due to the effect of add- ing cottonseed meal to the basal ration of corn, corn silage and clover hay. In Lot 5, the necessary selling price was 20 cents per hundred pounds more than in Lot 6. However, these cattle were valued at $15.25 or 90 cents per hundred pounds more than the cattle in Lot 6. The increase in the profit per steer without pork caused by the addition of cottonseed meal to corn, corn and soybean silage and clover hay, was $10.16. The hogs in Lots 4 and 5 did not gain quite as rapidly as those in Lots 6 and 7. These differences in production of pork caused no change in the relative total profits of Lots 4 and 7 but deducted $1.12 per steer from the increase in profits per steer in Lot 5 as compared with Lot 6. It may be stated that cottonseed meal when added to rations of corn, corn silage and clover hay or corn, corn and soybean silage and clover hay will 1 — increase feed consumption, both concentrates and roughage ; 2 — increase the rate of gain ; 3 — decrease the cost of production ; and 4 — through a better finish, increase the selling price of the cattle. The total result of the four advantages means increased profits in the feed lot. 23 FINANCIAL STATEMENT Lot i. — Ten Steers Fed Cottonseed Meal, Corn Silage, Clover Hay and Shelled Corn for the Last 40 Days, 1917-18 Dec. 13, To 10 steers, weight 10500 lbs. @ $10.15 per cwt.: $1065.75 Dec. 13-April 12, To 3355 lbs. cottonseed meal @ $53.50 per ton 89.75 Dec. 13-April 12, To 56830 lbs. corn silage @ $7.50 per ton..... 213.11 Dec. 13-April 12, To 4795 lbs. clover hay @ $25.00 per ton 59.94 Mar. 3-April 12, To 4979 lbs. shelled corn @ $1.12 per bu 99.58 Total expenditures $1528.13 April 12, By 10 steers, 12622 lbs. @ $14.85 per cwt 1874.37 Total profit without pork — 346.24 Profit per steer without pork 34.62 Dec. 13 to April 12, To 753 lbs. shelled corn @ $1.12 per bu ...$ 15.06 By 265 lbs. pork @ $17.50 per cwt..... 46.73 Value of pork produced from droppings $ 31.67 Total receipts including pork 1906.04 Total profits including pork 377.91 Profit per steer including pork 37.79 Price per bushel corn fed to cattle 5.37 Lot 2. — Ten Steers Fed Cottonseed Meal, Corn Silage and Clover Hay, 1917-18 Dec. 13, To 10 steers, weight 10497 lbs. @ $10.15 per cwt ..$1065.45 Dec. 13-April 12, To 3365 lbs. cottonseed meal @ $53.50 per ton 90.01 Dec. 13-April 12, To 65110 lbs. corn silage @ $7.50 per ton 244.16 Dec. 13-April 12, To 5000 lbs. clover hay @ $25.00 per ton 62.50 Total expenditures $1462.12 April 12, By 10 steers, weight 12492 lbs. @ $14.55 per cwt...... 1817.59 Total profit without pork . 355.47 Profit per steer without pork 35.55 Dec. 13-April 12, To 831 lbs. shelled corn @ $1.12 per bu $' 16.62 By 198 lbs. pork @ $17.50 per cwt 34.65 Value of pork produced from droppings ....$ 18.03 Total receipts including pork 1835.62 Total profit including pork 373.50 Profit per steer including pork 37.35 24 FINANCIAL STATEMENT— Continued Lot 3. — Nine Steers Fed Cottonseed Meal, Corn Silage, Clover Hay and One-half Feed of Shelled Corn, 1917-18 Dec. 13, To 9 steers, weight 9418 lbs. @ $10.15 per cwt $ 955.93 Dec. 13-April 12, To 5856 lbs. shelled corn @ $1.12 per bu 117.12 Dec. 13-April 12, To 3062 lbs. cottonseed meal @ $'53.50 per ton 81.91 Dec. 13-April 12, To 49242 lbs. corn silage @ $7.50 per ton 184.66 Dec. 13-April 12, To 5005 lbs. clover hay @ $25.00 per ton 62.56 Total expenditures ..$1402.18 April 12, By 9 steers, weight 11435 lbs. @ $14.85 per cwt 1698.10 Total profit without pork , 295.92 Profit per steer without pork 32.88 Dec. 13-April 12, To 758 lbs. shelled corn @ $1.12 per bu... $' 15.16 By 322 lbs. of pork @ $17.50 per cwt 56.35 Value of pork produced from droppings $ 41.19 Total receipts including pork 1739.29 Total profit including pork 337.11 Profit per steer including pork 37..46 Price received per bushel of corn fed cattle 4.344 Lot 4. — Ten Steers Fed Cottonseed Meal, Corn Silage, Clover Hay, and Shelled Corn, 1917-18 Dec. 13, To 10 steers, weight 10472 lbs. @ $10.15 per cwt $1062.91 Dec. 13-April 12, To 12872 lbs. shelled corn @ $1.12 per bu 257.44 Dec. 13-April 12, To 3480 lbs. cottonseed meal @ 53.50 per ton 93.09 Dec. 13-April 12, To 45950 lbs. corn silage @ $7.50 per ton 172.31 Dec. 13-April 12, To 5160 lbs. clover hay @ $25.00 per ton 64.50 Total expenditures $1650.25 April 12, By 10 steers, weight 13347 lbs. @ $16.35 per cwt 2048.76 Total profit without pork 398.51 Profit per steer without pork * 39.85 Dec. 13-April 12, To 1594 lbs. shelled corn @ $1.12 per bu $ 31.88 To 109 lbs. tankage @ $100.00 per ton 5.45 To 109 lbs. shorts @ $50.00 per ton 2.73 Total cost of extra feed for hogs 40.06 By 651 lbs. pork @ $17.50 per cwt... 113.93 Value of pork produced from droppings $ 73.87 Total receipts including pork 2122.63 Total profit including pork 472.38 Profit per steer including pork 47.24 Price received per bushel of corn fed cattle 3.175 25 \ FINANCIAL STATEMENT— Continued Lot 5. — Ten Steers Fed Cottonseed Meal, Corn and Soybean Silage, Clover Hay and Shelled Corn, 1917-18 Dec. 13, To 10 steers, weight 10442 lbs. @ $10.15 per cwt $1059.86 Dec. 13-April 12, To 12872 lbs. shelled corn @ $1.12 per bu 257.44 Dec. 13-April 12, To 3475 lbs. cottonseed meal @ $53.50 per ton 92.96 Dec. 13-April 12, To 46925 lbs. corn and soybean silage @ $7.50 per ton 175.97 Dec. 13-April 12, To 5415 lbs. clover hay @ $25.00 per ton 67.69 Total expenditures $1653.92 April 12, By 10 steers, weight 13207 lbs. @ $15.25 per cwt ----- 2014.07 Total profit without pork 360.15 Profit per steer without pork 36.02 Dec. 13-April 12, To 1218 lbs. shelled corn @ $1.12 per bu $ 24.36 To 114 lbs. tankage @ $100.00 per ton 5.70 To 114 lbs. shorts @ $50.00 per ton 2.85 Total cost of extra feed for hogs 32.91 By 574 lbs. pork @ $17.50 per cwt 100.45 Value of pork produced from droppings $ 67.54 Total receipts including pork — 2081.61 Total profits including pork 427.69 Profit per steer including pork 42.77 Price received per bushel of corn fed cattle....- 2.981 Lot 6. — Ten Steers Fed Corn and Soybean Silage, Clover Hay and Shelled Corn, 1917-18 Dec. 13, To 10 steers, weight 10420 lbs. @ $10.15 per cwt $1057.63 Dec. 13-April 12, To 13978.5 lbs. shelled corn @ $1.12 per -bu 279.57 Dec. 13-April 12, To 43955 lbs. corn and soybean silage @ $7.50 per ton 164.83 Dec. 13-April 12, To 5195 lbs. clover hay @ $25.00 per ton 64.94 Total expenditures $1566.97 April 12, By 10 steers, weight 12722 lbs. @ $14.35 per cwt 1825.61 Total profit without pork 258.64 Profit per steer without pork 25.86 Dec. 13-April 12, To 1598.5 lbs. shelled corn @ $1.12 per bu _..$ 31.97 To 114 lbs. tankage @ $100.00 per ton 5.70 To 114 lbs. shorts @ $50.00 per ton 2.85 Total cost of extra feed for hogs 40.52 By 681 lbs. pork @ $17.50 per cwt 119.18 Value of pork produced from droppings $ 78.66 Total receipts including pork 1904.27 Total profit including pork 337.30 Profit per steer including pork 33.73 Price received per bushel of corn fed to cattle 2.471 26 FINANCIAL STATEMENT— Continued Lot 7. — Ten Steers Fed Corn Silage, Clover Hay, and Shelled Corn, 1917-18 Dec. 13, To 10 steers, weight 10438 lbs. @ $10.15 per cwt $1059.46 Dec. 13-April 12, To 13979 lbs. shelled corn @ $1.12 per hu... 279.58 Dec. 13-April 12, To 44425 lbs. corn silage @ $7.50 per ton 166.69 Dec. 13-April 12, To 5120 lbs. clover hay @ $25.00 per ton... 64.00 Total expenditures $1569.63 April 12, By 10 steers, weight 12587 lbs. @ $14.65 per cwt 1844.00 Total profit without pork .. 274.37 Profit per steer without pork 27.44 Dec. 13-April 12, To 1598.5 lbs. shelled corn @ $1.12 per bu .$ 31.97 To 114 lbs. tankage @ $100.00 per ton 5.70 To 114 lbs. shorts @ $50.00 per ton 2.85 Total cost of extra feed for hogs 40.52 By 683 pounds of pork @ $17.50 per cwt $119.53 Value of pork produced from droppings $ 79.01 Total receipts including pork $1923.01 Total profit including pork 353.38 Profit per steer including pork 35.34 Price received per bushel of corn fed to cattle 2.535 T^Zb ujiyersitt cf minors uhmry PURDUE UNIVERSITY Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 221 September, 1918 SHEEP FEEDING VIII FATTENING WESTERN LAMBS 1917-1918 Part I. Part II. Part III. Part IV. Part V. Corn Silage Alone vs. Corn Silage and Varying Amounts of Dry Roughage Comparison of Protein Supplements Hominy Feed vs. Shelled Corn Partial vs. Continuous Grain Feeding- Influence of Shearing PnbMed by tbe Station: LAFAYETTE, INDIANA U. S. A. PURDUE UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BOARD OP CONTROL Joseph D. Oliver, President, South Bend Fay S. Chandler, Indianapolis Charles Downing Greenfield John A. Hillenbrand Batesville Cyrus M. Hobbs Bridgeport Winthrop E. Stone, A. M., Ph. D. Warren T. McCray Kentland James W. Noel Indianapolis Andrew E. Reynolds Crawfordsville William V. Stuart LaFayette .President of the University ADVISORY COMMITTEE (Under Legislative Act of 1909) John G. Brown, Monon D. B. Johnson, Mooresville . . State Live Stock Association State Dairy Association U. R. Fishel, Hope D. F. Maish, Frankfort State Poultry Fanciers-’ Association State Corn Growers-’ Association F. J. Heacock, Salem Indiana Horticultural Society ADMINISTRATION Charles G. Woodbury, M. S., Director Harry J. Reed Assistant to the Director Nellie Tracy Administrative Assistant Mary K. Bloom Bookkeeper AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION George I. Christie, B. S. A., Superintendent Thomas A. Coleman .State County Agent Leader George M. Frier, B. S. A Associate in Short Courses and Exhibits Mabel L. Harlan. .A ss't in Agricultural Extension ANIMAL HUSBANDRY John H. Skinner, B. S., Chief Claude M. Vestal, B. S Associate in Animal Husbandry George A. Branaman, B. S Assistant in Animal Husbandry Herbert E. McCartney, B. S. A Ass't in Animal Husbandry Extension BOTANY Herbert S. Jackson, A. B., Chief George N. Hoffer, M. S Associate in Botany Luna E. Allison, B. S Assistant in Botany Edwin B. Mains, Ph. D Assistant in Botany DAIRY HUSBANDRY Ollie E. Reed, M. S., Chief Howard W. Gregory, B. S Associate in Dairy Manufactures George Spitzer, Ph. G.. B. S Associate in Dairy Chemistry Turner H. Broughton, B. S Assistant in Creamery Inspection William F. Epple, Ph. G Assistant in Dairy Chemistry Hubert W. Fleisher, B. S. A Assistant in Creamery Inspection ENTOMOLOGY James Troop, M. S., Chief FARM MECHANICS William Aitkenhead, M. E., M. A Specialist in Farm Mechanics HORTICULTURE Laurenz Greene, M. S. A., Chief Joseph Oskamp, B. S., Associate in Pomology Walter A. Huelson, B. S Assistant in Horticulture NUTRITION Ralph H. Carr, Ph. D Associate in Nutrition Chemistry POULTRY HUSBANDRY Allen G. Philips, B. S. A., Chief Dwight C. Kennard, Ph. C., B. S Assistant in Poultry Husbandry SOILS AND CROPS Alfred T. Wiancko B. S. A., Chief Martin L. Fisher, M. S Assistant Chief in Soils and Crops Samuel D. Conner, M. S Associate Chemist in Soils and Crops Clinton O. Cromer, B. S Associate in Crops Sadocie C. Jones. M. S ..Associate in Soils - ? Ernest N. Fergus, M. Sc Assistant in Soils and Crops STATE CHEMIST Edward G. Proulx, M. S. 1 State Chemist Reuben O. Hitler, B. S. 2 .... Deputy State Chemist Margaret Briggs, B. S Deputy State Chemist Paul B. Curtis, B. S. 2 Deputy State Chemist Omar W. Ford, A. B. 2 Deputy- State Chemist Herman J. Nimitz. B. S. 2 .. Deputy State Chemist J. Howard Roop, B. S. 2 ... .Deput;- State Chemist Samuel F. Thornton, B. S. 2 .... Deputy State Chemist Otis S. Roberts, B. S. 2 Chief Inspector State Chemist's Department Glen G. Carter, B. S. 2 Inspector State Chemist’s Department Benjamn Fr Catherwood 2 Inspector State Chemist’s Department Wlliam B. Tiedt Inspector State Chemist’s Department VETERINARY SCIENCE Robert A. Craig, D. V. M., Chief David B. Clark, D. M. C... Associate Veterinarian Lawrence C. Kigin, D. V. M Associate Veterinarian George N. Roberts, D. V. M Associate Veterinarian Rex A. Whiting, D. V. M Associate in Animal Pathology Frank I, Cason, B. S... Ass’t in Serum Production Leo P. Doyle, B. S Ass’t in Animal Pathology Leslie R. George, B. S Assistant in Animal Pathology Fred L. Walkey, D. V. M Ass’t Veterinarian DETAILED BY U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Cereal and Forage Crop Insect Investigations John J. Davis, B. S.. Entomological Assistant in Charge John M. Aldrich, Ph. D., Entomological Assistant Herman J. Hart, B. S Scientific Assistant Wesley O. Hollister, B. S... Scientific Assistant Dean .A. Ricker. B. S Scientific Assistant Chester F. Turner, B. S Scientific Assistant Seed Testing Anna M. Lute, M. A Seed Analyst 1 In charge of Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control 2 Connected with Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control FATTENING WESTERN LAMBS 1917-1918 J. H. Skinner C. G. Starr SUMMARY PART I CORN SILAGE ALONE VS. CORN SILAGE AND VARYING AMOUNTS OF DRY ROUGHAGE Lambs receiving corn silage alone as roughage did not consume as much dry matter as lambs receiving clover hay in addition to corn silage as roughage. Lambs fed corn silage, and clover hay nights and mornings gained 22 per cent, more rapidly than lambs fed silage alone as roughage and 8.0 per cent, more rapidly than lambs fed corn silage* and clover hay every fifth day. Lambs fed clover hay every fifth day in addition to corn silage gained 13 per cent, more rapidly than lambs fed corn silage alone as roughage. Lambs fed corn silage alone as roughage required an expenditure for feed of $14.38 per hundred pounds of gain, those fed clover hay once every fifth day in addition to corn silage required an expenditure of $13.19 and those receiving clover hay nights and mornings in addition to corn silage, required an expenditure of $13.18 per hundred pounds of gain. The lambs fed silage alone were valued at $16.90 per hundred pounds and returned a loss of 40 cents per lamb. The lambs receiving clover hay once every fifth day in addition to corn silage, were valued at $16.85 and returned a loss of 10 cents per head. The lambs receiving clover hay nights and mornings in addition to corn silage as roughage, were valued at $17.00 per hundred pounds and returned a profit of 10 cents per lamb. PART II COMPARISON OF PROTEIN SUPPLEMENTS There was practically no difference in the average gain per lamb in any of the lots receiving different protein concentrates as supplements. The lambs fed linseed oil meal consumed an average daily feed of 3.26 pounds, the lambs receiving cottonseed meal, 3.28 pounds and the lambs fed ground soybeans, 3.29 pounds per lamb. The lambs receiving linseed oil meal required 389 pounds of concen- trates and 764 pounds of roughage per hundred pounds of gain, costing $13.22. The lambs fed cottonseed meal required for the same amount of gain, 393 pounds of concentrates and 776 pounds of roughage at a cost of $13.18. The lambs fed ground soybeans required 393 pounds of con- centrates and 781 pounds of roughage per hundred pounds of gain at a cost of $13.41. The lambs fed linseed oil meal were valued at $17.25 per hundred pounds and returned a net profit of 29 cents per head, the lambs receiving cottonseed meal were valued at $17.00 and returned a net profit of 10 cents; the lambs fed ground soybeans were valued at $17.00 and returned a net profit of three cents per lamb. 4 PART III HOMINY FEED VS. SHELLED CORN Each lot of- lambs gained exactly the same amount in weight. The daily consumption of concentrates and corn silage was slightly lower with lambs fed hominy feed. For ioo pounds of increase in live weight, 388 pounds of concen- trates and 747 pounds of roughage, costing $12.99, were required with lambs fed hominy feed. For the same gain with the lambs fed shelled corn, 393 pounds of concentrates and 776 pounds of roughage, costing $13.18, were required. The lambs receiving hominy feed were valued at $17.10 and returned a net profit per head of 23 cents. The lambs fed shelled corn were val- ued at $17.00 and returned a net profit of 10 cents per head. PART IV PARTIAL VS. CONTINUOUS GRAIN FEEDING The lambs fed without corn for the first 40 days made a total gain approximately the same as lambs fed grain from the beginning of the feeding period. The lambs receiving a partial feed of corn consumed 15 per cent, more of the comparatively cheaper feeds as corn silage and clover hay than those receiving corn throughout the feeding period. As an average for the 90-day feeding period, the lambs fed a partial feed of corn consumed a daily feed per lamb of 3.42 pounds. The lambs fed corn continuously consumed an average feed of 3.28 pounds per day. For the production of 100 pounds of mutton, the lambs receiving a partial feed of corn required 326 pounds of concentrates and 903 pounds of roughage, costing $12.81 ; for the lambs fed corn continuously, 393 pounds of concentrates and 776 pounds of roughage costing $13.18 were required. The lambs fed corn during a part of the feeding period were valued at $16.85 per hundred pounds and returned an a*verage profit of six cents per head. The lambs receiving corn continuously were valued at $17.00 per hundred pounds and returned a net profit of 10 cents per head. PART V INFLUENCE OF SHEARING The shorn lambs gained only 0.182 pounds daily per lamb during the month in which they were shorn, while the wooled lambs gained 0.301 pounds daily per lamb during the same period. As an average of the entire feeding period of 90 days, the shorn lambs gained approximately only 85 per cent, as rapidly as the wooled lambs. The average clip per lamb was 3.14 pounds of short stapled wool and sold for 50 cents per pound. The feed required per hundred pounds of gain in the shorn lot was 464 pounds of concentrates and 897 pounds of roughage at a cost of 5 $15.52; in the wooled lot, 393 pounds of concentrates and 776 pounds of roughage, costing $13.18 were required per hundred pounds of gain. The shorn lambs were valued at $14.75 P er hundred pounds with a loss of $1.19 per lamb. The wooled lambs were valued at $17.00 per hun- dred pounds and returned a profit of 10 cents per head. INTRODUCTION The feeders of -western lambs and sheep in the corn belt states suf- fered a series of misfortunes during the winter of 1917-18. The profits received from feeding sheep the last few years induced many new men to change from cattle feeding to sheep feeding. The profits realized by sheepmen who fed during the winter of 1916-17, buying their feeders at the highest prices on record up to that time, especially had a very great influence upon the increased demand for feeding sheep and lambs in the fall of 1917. The increased demand occasioned a continuous rise in prices until at different livestock markets for feeding sheep and lambs, the prices paid were the highest on record. After the feeder had purchased his stock, he found that the prices of feeds were also the highest that have ever been demanded or paid. The bulk of the corn used in feeding was high in moisture content and con- sequently lower in feeding value than in average years. The prices of protein concentrates and hay had been advanced to extremely high levels. With the extremely high prices of feeds, the cost of producing mutton was the highest that had ever been encountered in the Corn Belt. Sheep feeders found a very unsatisfactory market when the lambs or sheep were ready to sell. The buyers discriminated very sharply against lambs that came to market weighing over 80 pounds. The de- mand for mutton was not keen and many feeders were forced to accept prices that were often a dollar or more per hundred pounds less than the purchase price. These conditions were encountered by this station in feeding and marketing lambs fed in 1917-18. For the first time since lambs have been fed at this station they were fed with a lack of margin and at an exces- sive cost of production. Under these conditions, no financial profit could be expected in the lamb feeding experimental work herein reported. OBJECT The object of the experimental lamb feeding trials at the Purdue University Agricultural Experiment Station conducted during the fall and winter of 1917-18 was to obtain additional information on the com- parative feeding value of different concentrated feeds and the different systems of feeding and management. The detailed objects were as fol- lows : 1 — a comparison of the value of corn silage as sole roughage and in combination with clover hay, the hay either fed once every fifth day or fed twice daily; 2 — a comparison of cottonseed meal, linseed oil meal and ground soybeans as protein concentrates for supplements ; 3 — a com- parison of the relative feeding value of hominy feed and shelled corn ; 4 — a comparison of a system of feeding in which no corn was fed in the first part of the feeding period, and one in which corn was fed from the 6 beginning of the feeding period; 5 — a comparison of a system in which the lambs were clipped shortly before marketing, and one in which the lambs were not clipped. PLAN The plan of the work was to secure strong, vigorous western feeding lambs in sufficient numbers to allow the discarding of any cull lambs in order to have a flock as nearly uniform as possible. The flock was divided into eight lots of 25 lambs each. All eight lots were as nearly uniform as possible as to size, condition, quality, thrift, sex and breeding. The following rations were fed : Tot 1. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal and corn silage. Lot 2. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage and clover hay. (lambs shorn two weeks before they went to market.) . Lot 3. Hominy feed, cottonseed meal, corn silage and clover hay. Lot 4. Cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay, shelled corn (fed last 50 days). Lot 5. Shelled corn, linseed oil meal, corn silage and clover hay. Lot 6. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage and one feed of clover hay every fifth day. Lot 7. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage and clover hay. Lot 8. Shelled corn, ground soybeans, corn silage and clover hay. In Lot 4, the cottonseed meal was fixed at 0.25 pound per lamb daily. In other lots, the protein concentrate was fed in the proportion of one part to seven parts of corn or hominy meal. SHELTER, FEEDING YARDS AND WATER SUPPLY The lambs were all housed in a shed, open to the south. This shed is a part of the experimental feeding plant at this station. Each lot of 25 lambs occupied a shed 14 by 16 feet open on the south side and an un- covered lot 14 by 14 feet. No pavement of any kind was used in the shed or lot. A few times during the feeding period, the blowing in of large quantities of snow necessitated the bedding of the covered lots with wheat straw but no bedding was used in the open lots. Water was supplied to each lot of lambs from the city water service regularly twice daily mornings and nights in galvanized iron tubs, which were emptied and cleaned at least once daily. During the extremely cold weather, the tubs were emptied shortly after each feeding to prevent the water freezing in them. WEIGHTS Individual weights were taken of each lamb for three consecutive days at the beginning and end of the trial and also every thirtieth day during the trial. The average of the three consecutive weights at the beginning and end of the trial was used as the initial and final weights. In addition, the lots were weighed in groups every tenth day during the feeding period. The identity of each lamb was known by a numbered aluminum tag fastened in the ear. All weights were taken after the lambs had finished eating in the morning. 7 METHOD OF FEEDING All grain and concentrates with the exception of the cottonseed meal in Lot 4, were fed in narrow flat-bottomed grain troughs. The grain was fed at approximately 6 :oo a. m. and 4 :3c p. m. After the lambs had con- sumed the concentrates, the corn silage was fed ; shortly after, the lots receiving hay were fed hay placed in hay racks. The cottonseed meal, ground soybeans and linseed oil meal with the exception of Lot 4, were mixed thoroughly with the grain. In Lot 4, the cottonseed was mixed with the silage, since for a considerable time, this lot received no grain. When starting the lambs on grain, oats were used to accustom the lambs to a grain ration. At the beginning of the feeding period, consid- erable difficulty was experienced in securing shelled corn of the 1917 / crop and more oats were used in this trial than in former trials. After the lambs were eating oats, shelled corn was added gradually. All oats were withdrawn after a short time and the protein concentrates were also gradually introduced. In three weeks, the lambs were consuming the desired amount of grain. Throughout the feeding, corn silage was fed in such amounts as was readily consumed within a reasonable time. The amount of hay fed was governed by the appetites of the lambs. Any feed refused by the lambs was weighed and such amount was deducted from the amount fed. In cases where the feed was refused, the amount was reduced at the next feed. DESCRIPTION OF LAMBS The lambs used in this trial were choice light weight lambs, pur- chased on the Chicago live stock market, October 17, 1917. Two hun- dred and twenty-five lambs were purchased. They were largely of Hampshire-Merino crosses and were bred and grown in Idaho. When purchased, the flock was fairly uniform in size and condition. Owing to general weather conditions and comparative safety from scab exposure, the lambs were not dipped. On October 27, eight lots of 25 lambs each, were selected for experimental feeding. The total cost, including buying and shipping charges, of the lambs when placed on experimental rations was $18.55 P er hundred pounds. METHOD OF VALUING THE LAMBS The initial cost of the lambs at the beginning of the trial ($18.55) was taken as the initial value. Final values were placed upon the differ- ent lots at the close of the experiment by Chas. H. Shurte, of the Knollin Commission Company, Chicago, 111 . The final values as reported in this bulletin are on the basis of the Chicago prices fixed by Mr. Shurte, less 75 cents per hundred to cover cost of shipping. All financial statements are based upon these prices. FEEDS AND PRICES The rations fed were composed of various combinations of shelled corn, hominy meal, cottonseed meal, linseed oil meal, ground soybeans, corn silage and clover hay. 8 The oats used in getting the lambs on feed were of excellent quality and of the 1917 crop; also the corn used was of the 1917 crop; the cot- tonseed meal used was choice and of the 41 per cent, protein grade. The linseed oil meal was also choice and was guaranteed 34 per cent, pro- tein. The soybeans were coarsely ground and of excellent quality grown on the University Farm in 1917. The hominy feed used was the by-product of the 1916 crop of corn and was an excellent grade of feed. The corn silage was made from a field thaf would yield ap- proximately 30 bushels of corn per acre and put into the silo somewhat green, owing to danger of frosts. When fed, it was of good appearance, quality and odor. No difficulty was experienced in the lambs consuming the silage. The clover hay was choice; a portion of it contained a small amount of timothy but was consumed eagerly by the lambs. Owing to a lack of market for corn of the 1917 crop in LaFayette for a considerable portion of the feeding period, and to a very wide range in prices paid when a market was opened, the price for corn fed in the trial could not be based upon the average market price as formerly had been the custom. The fixed price of $1.12 per bushel has been used in making financial statements. It is thought that this price is reasonable for the period of time from October 28 to January 26. The oats were valued at 70 cents per bushel and the cottonseed meal used cost $53.50 per ton delivered at LaFayette. Linseed oil meal was purchased at $60.00 per ton and the same price was placed upon ground soybeans and hominy feed. The corn silage was valued at $7.50 per ton and the clover hay at $25.00 per ton. All financial statements are based upon the prin- ciple that the value of the manure produced during the trial offsets the labor of feeding and cost of bedding. PART I CORN SILAGE ALONE VS. CORN SILAGE AND VARYING AMOUNTS OF DRY ROUGHAGE Previous trials at this station have shown that lambs receiving no other roughage than corn silage have not fed as well as those receiving dry roughage in addition to the corn silage. The lambs have sooner or later developed unsteady appetites and have refused to consume normal quantities of feed. In these previous trials, it has been demonstrated that when the lambs went off feed, a feed of clover hay has caused a change for the better in the appetites. It was felt that if by the addition of an occasional feed of clover hay, the appetites of the lambs could be maintained, a very economical rate of gain could be established. In Bul- letin No. 202, “Sheep Feeding, VII — Fattening Western Lambs,” the results of the first trial in feeding one feed of clover hay every fifth day as compared with no hay, and a continuous hay ration, are discussed. The results of the second trial are given in this bulletin. Three lots of 25 lambs were fed a basal concentrated ration of seven parts of shelled corn and one part of cottonseed meal. Lot 1 received corn silage as the sole roughage. Lot 6 received the same ration except that once every fifth day a feed of clover hay was substituted for a feed of corn silage. Lot 7 received corn silage and clover hay daily, morning and night. 9 Owing to inability to place the lambs immediately upon a sole silage ration, a small amount of .clover hay was fed to Lots i and 6 for a short time after the experimental feeding was begun. All hay was withdrawn from Lot i by the twenty-first day of the feeding period when the lambs were on full feed. The hay fed to the lambs in Lot 6 every fifth day was governed by their appetites, the amount varying from 18 to 25 pounds. The corn silage was fed in all lots according to the appetites of the lambs. The maximum consumption of silage daily per lot in Lot 1 was 60 pounds, in Lot 6, 62 pounds, and 44 pounds in Lot 7. After the first 20 days, the amount of corn fed daily per lot was 24 pounds until the end of the second month of the feeding period, at which time, the amount of shelled corn was advanced to 28 pounds daily. Two weeks before the close of the feeding trial the corn was again advanced to 32 pounds daily per lot. The lambs in all lots consumed these amounts of corn readily. As the amount of corn was increased, the amount of cottonseed meal was also increased in the proportion of one part to seven parts of corn. The amount of hay fed to Lot 7 averaged approximately 16 pounds per lot daily. Table I. — Corn Silage vs. Corn Silage and Dry Roughage for Fattening Lambs — October 28, 1917, to January 26, 1918 Lot 1 Lot 1 5 Lot 7 Ration shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage. shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage, (clover hay every fifth day) shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay Average initial weight 56.0 lbs. 56.0 lbs. 55.9 lbs. Average final weight 76.8 “ 79.4 44 81.2 “ Average gain per lamb 20.8 “ 23.4 “ 25.3 “ Average daily gain 0.231 “ 0.26 “ 0.281 “ Average daily feed per lamb concentrates 1.10 “ 1.10 « 1.10 “ clover hay 0.20 “ 0.32 “ 0.64 “ corn silage 1.98 “ 1.86 “ 1.54 “ Feed per 100 pounds gain concentrates 478.0 “ 425.0 (4 393.0 “ clover hay 86.0 “ 124.0 44 228.0 “ corn silage 859.0 “ 715.0 44 548.0 “ Cost per 100 pounds gain $14.38 $13.19 $13.18 Selling value of lambs in feed lots 16.90 16.85 17.00 Profit or loss per lamb -0.40 -0.10 +0.10 — indicates loss + indicates profit It will be noted in Table I that the lambs in all three lots consumed 3.28 pounds as an average daily feed. When the dry matter content of the feeds is considered, however, it is apparent that the lambs in the lots receiving dry roughage consumed more food nutrients daily than the IO lambs not receiving clover hay. During the last period of the 90-day trial, the lambs in Lot 1 began to decrease their consumption of corn silage slightly. The consumption of concentrates was the same in all lots. The lambs receiving silage alone as roughage made an average gain of 20.8 pounds per lamb, the lambs receiving clover hay every fifth day in addition to corn silage made an average gain of 23.4 pounds; the lambs receiving clover hay morning and night in addition to corn silage made an average gain of 25.3 pounds. The average daily gain per lamb in Lot i, was 0.231 pound; in Lot 6, 0.26 pound; and in Lot 7, 0.281 pound. The total amount of feed required per pound of gain was pro- portional to the average daily gain, the most rapid gain requiring the least amount of feed. The concentrate requirement for 100 pounds of gain in Lot 7 was 393 pounds, in Lot 6, 425 pounds, and in Lot 1, 478 pounds. The feeding of the maximum amount of corn silage in Lot 1 as compared with lesser amounts in Lots 6 and 7, did not apparently re- sult in any reduction in either the amount of corn or cottonseed meal required for 100 pounds of gain. The roughage required per 100 pounds of gain in Lot 7 was 776 pounds, in Lot 6, 839 pounds and in Lot 1, 945 pounds. At the prevailing prices of feeds, the cost per hundred pounds of gain in Lot 1 was $14.38, in Lot 6, $13.19, and in Lot 7, $13.18. The lambs in Lot 1 were valued at $16.90, in Lot 6 at $16.85, and $17.00 in Lot 7 per hundred pounds. The lambs receiving corn silage alone showed a loss of 40 cents per lamb. The lambs receiving one feed of clover hay every fifth day showed a loss of 10 cents per head. The lambs receiving clover hay mornings and nights in addition to corn silage made a profit of 10 cents per head. PART II COMPARISON OF PROTEIN SUPPLEMENTS For two years previous to this trial at this station, ground soybeans have been compared with cottonseed meal as protein supplement in lamb feeding rations. The trial reported herein is the third of the series. The two previous trials apparently show that while the lambs fed ground soy- beans ate with good appetites and made good gains, the rate and econ- omy of gains were never superior to the lots receiving cottonseed meal as their supplement. Owing to the prices current for soybeans, when of good quality, it has never been a good farm practice to feed ground soy- beans rather than cottonseed meal. This year, linseed oil meal has been included in the comparisons. The three lots of lambs were fed alike except that Lot 5 received linseed oil meal, Lot 7 cottonseed meal and Lot 8 received ground soy- beans. The supplement in each lot was fed in the proportion of one part to seven parts of corn. There were 25 lambs in Lots 7 and 8 and 24 lambs in Lot 5, since one lamb was removed on account of unthrifti- ness. No difference was observed in the appetites of the lambs in each lot for grain and hay, but the lambs in Lot 5 consumed slightly less silage daily. II Table) II. — Comparison of Protein Concentrates as Supplements for Fattening Lambs — October 28, 1917, to January 26, 1918 Lot 5 Lot 7 Lot 8 Ration shelled corn, linseed oil meal, corn silage, clover hay shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn'silage, clover hay shelled corn, ground soybeans, corn silage, clover hay Average initial weight 56.3 lbs. 55.9 lbs. 56.2 lbs. Average final weight 81.8 “ 81.2 “ 81.4 “ Average gain per lamb 25.5 “ 25.3 “ 25.2 “ Average daily gain 0.283 “ 0.281 “ 0.280 “ Average daily feed per lamb concentrates clover hay corn silage 1.10 “ 0.64 “ 1.52 “ 1.10 “ 0.64 “ 1.54 “ 1.10 “ 0.64 “ 1.55 “ Feed per 100 pounds gain concentrates clover hay corn silage 389.0 “ 226.0 “ 538.0 “ 393.0 “ 228.0 “ 548.0 “ 393.0 “ 229.0 “ 552.0 “ Cost per 100 pounds gain $13.22 $13.18 $13.41 Selling value of lambs in feed lots 17.25 17.00 17.00 Profit per lamb 0.29 0.10 0.03 In Table II, it will be noted that the lambs in Lot 5 made an average gain per lamb of 25.5 pounds; in Lot 7 the average gain during the 90 days was 25.3 pounds ; in Lot 8, the gain per lamb was 25.2 pounds. The average daily gain was 0.283 pound in Lot 5, 0.281 pound in Lot 7, and 0.280 pound in Lot 8. The lambs in Lot 5 ate a daily ration of 3.26 pounds per head; in Lot 7, the average daily ration was 3.28 pounds, and in Lot 8, 3.29 pounds. The lambs fed linseed oil meal required 389 pounds of concentrates and 764 pounds of roughage for the production of 100 pounds of mutton. The lambs fed cottonseed meal required 393 pounds of concentrates and 776 pounds of roughage for 100 pounds of gain. The lambs fed ground soybeans required a total of 393 pounds of concentrates and 781 pounds of roughage for the production of 100 pounds of mutton. The linseed oil meal, on the basis of this trial, apparently effected a saving of four pounds of concentrates and 12 pounds of roughage in comparison with cottonseed meal and four pounds of concentrates and 17 pounds of roughage in comparison with ground soybeans. It will be noted that the lambs fed linseed oil meal were valued at 25 cents per hundred pounds more than the other two lots. At the prevailing prices of feeds, the cost per hundred pounds of gain in Lot 5 was $13.22; in Lot 7, $13.18; in Lot 8, $13.41. The aver- age lamb in Lot 5 returned a -profit of 29 cents; the average profit per lamb in Lot 7 was 10 cents, and that in Lot 8 was three cents. Unless cull soybeans can be used, it will not be profitable at present prices of protein concentrates, to use ground soybeans as supplement in fattening lambs. 12 PART III HOMINY FEED VS. SHELLED CORN The demand for substitutes for corn to use in fattening animals has become very important. The high prices and scarcity of corn during the summer of 1917 and the scarcity of good feeding corn in many counties in the State during the winter of 1917-18 caused serious difficulties in securing satisfactory corn for fattening live stock. As one of the im- portant by-products from the rapidly increasing manufacture of human foods from corn, hominy feed offers a rather large source of feed. In composition, hominy feed is somewhat similar to corn. For hogs, it has been demonstrated to be an efficient corn substitute. For information as to the relative feeding value of hominy feed and shelled corn for lambs, two lots were fed identical rations of cottonseed meal, silage and clover hay, except that hominy feed was fed in Lot 3 and shelled corn in Lot 7. The lambs in both lots were gradually brought on feed until each lot of 25 lambs was consuming daily 24 pounds of hominy feed and corn re- spectively. At the beginning of the third month, the ration was increased to 28 pounds. Two weeks prior to the close of the feeding trial, the amount was again advanced. It was found that the lambs in Lot 3, receiving hominy feed, would not consume over 30 pounds of hominy feed daily. The lambs fed shelled corn readily consumed 32 pounds of corn. No attempt was made to increase the corn in Lot 7 above 32 pounds. It was observed that the lambs fed hominy feed uniformly required from 20 to 40 minutes longer to consume the feed. There was no indication of the hominy feed being distasteful to the lambs at any time. Table: III. — Hominy Feed vs. Shelled Corn for Fattening Lambs — October 28, 1917, to January 26, 1918 Lot 3 Lot 7 Ration hominy feed, cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay Average initial weight 56.0 lbs. 55.9 lbs. Average final weight 81.3 “ 81.2 “ Gain per lamb 25.3 “ 25.3 “ Average daily gain 0.281 “ 0.281 “ Average daily feed per lamb concentrates 1.09 “ 1.10 “ clover hay 0.61 “ 0.64 “ corn silage 1.46 “ 1.54 “ Feed per 100 pounds gain concentrates 388.0 “ - 393.0 “ clover hay 227.0 228.0 “ corn silage 520.0 “ 548.0 “ Cost per 100 pounds gain $12.99 $13.18 Selling value of lambs in feed lots 17.10 17.00 Profit per lamb 0.23 0.10 13 It will be noted that the total gain per lamb in the two lots was ex- actly the same, 25.3 pounds. The lambs fed hominy feed ate on an aver- age, a daily feed of 3.19 pounds while the lambs fed shelled corn con- sumed 3.28 pounds daily per lamb. The identical gains in live weight of the lambs fed hominy feed at a less daily feed consumption as compared with the shelled corn lot, made the production of mutton slightly more economical. The concentrates required per 100 pounds of gain in Tot 3 were 388 pounds. The required amount of roughage was 747 pounds. The lambs fed shelled corn required 393 pounds of concentrates and 776 pounds of roughage. The lambs fed hominy feed during this first trial required five pounds of concentrates and 29 pounds of roughage per 100 pounds of gain less than the shelled corn lambs. The selling price of the lot fed hominy feed was $17.10 or 10 cents more per hundred pounds than the lambs receiving shelled corn. The profit per lamb in Lot 3 was 23 cents ; the profit per lamb in Lot 7 was 10 cents. PART IV PARTIAL VS. CONTINUOUS GRAIN FEEDING Due to the increased cost of production, it has been found desirable to fatten animals destined for the block, as far as consistent with gains and profit, with a minimum expenditure of concentrates or grain. Such a practice has become especially desirable during the present war emer- gency. If lambs could be fed during the first portion of the feeding per- iod upon such roughages of the farm as corn silage and clover hay, sup- plemented by a protein concentrate, a valuable amount of grain needed for human consumption or for the production of pork might be con- served. The question as to whether grain could be profitably withheld for the first part of the fattening period in the case of western lambs is a debatable one. To obtain information upon this question, the Purdue University Agricultural Experiment Station fed two lots of lambs dur- ing the winter of 1917-18. Two lots of 25 lambs each were fed. The lambs in Lot 4 did not receive any grain for the first 40 days. Their daily ration during this period was 0.25 pound of cottonseed meal and all the corn silage and clover hay they desired. Lot 7 was fed grain from the beginning with cottonseed meal in the proportions of one part to seven parts of corn. In addition, the lambs in Lot 7 received the amounts of corn silage and clover hay that they would consume without waste. At the end of 40 days, shelled corn was introduced in the ration of Lot 4. The amount was rapidly increased until the lambs were receiving 32 pounds of corn daily. Two weeks before the close of the feeding per- iod, the amount was increased to 36 pounds daily. The amount of silage and hay consumed by Lot 4 varied according to the amount of grain fed. During the 40-day no-corn period, the maximum daily consumption per lot of corn silage was 60 pounds, and that of clover hay was 24 pounds. When corn was introduced, the daily consumption of roughage materially decreased. At the close of the feeding trial, the daily roughage con- sumption was 40 pounds of silage and 14 pounds of hay per lot. 14 Tabus IV. — Partial vs. Continuous Feed of Grain for Fattening Lambs — Average Daily Feed and Average Daily Gain by Months — October 28, 1917, to January 26, 1918 Average daily feed Partial feed 1 Continuous feed 2 First month concentrates 0.18 0.825 clover hay 0.98 0.80 corn silage 1.35 1.15 Second month concentrates 0.86 1.12 clover hay 0.71 0.56 corn silage 2.28 1.71 Third month concentrates 1.69 1.36 clover hay 0.56 0.56 corn silage 1.66 1.76 Average daily gain First month 0.253 0.331 Second month 0.228 0.211 Third month 0.353 0.301 1 Ration — no corn first 40 days, shelled corn 50 days, cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay 2 Ration — shelled corn (continuous) cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay Upon studying Table IV, it will be noted that the average daily feed per lamb in Lot 4 the first month was 2.51 pounds, for the second month 3.85 pounds, and for the third month 3.91 pounds. The average daily feed consumption per lamb in Lot 7 for the first month was 2.775 pounds, for the second month 3.39 pounds, and 3.68 pounds for the third month. Apparently the lambs fed grain from the beginning of the ex- periment went on feed faster than those not receiving grain. However, in the two succeeding months the daily consumption per lamb in Lot 4 was superior to that of the lambs in Lot 7. Upon noting the average daily gain per lamb per month the influence of the superior feed consumption is apparent. The lambs fed corn con- tinuously outgained the lambs fed no corn the first month, when the feed consumption was in their favor. When the daily feed consumption was greater in Lot 4 than in Lot 7, the advantage in daily gains changed to the lot of lambs fed a partial feed of corn. i5 Table V. — Partial vs. Continuous Feed of Grain for Fattening Lambs — October 28 , 1917, to January 26 , 1918 Lot 4 Lot 7 Ration no corn first 40 days, shelled corn 50 days, cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay shelled corn (continuous) cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay Average initial weight 56.0 lbs. 55.9 lbs. Average final weight 81.0 “ 81.2 “ Average gain per lamb 25.0 “ 25.3 “ Average daily gain 0.278 “ 0.281 “ Average daily feed per lamb concentrates 0.91 “ 1.10 “ clover hay 0.75 “ 0.64 “ corn silage 1.76 “ 1.54 “ Feed per 100 pounds gain concentrates 326.0 “ 393.0 “ clover hay 269.0 “ 228.0 “ corn silage 634.0 “ 548.0 “ Cost per IOO pounds gain $12.81 $13.18 Selling value of lambs in feed lots 16.85 17.00 Profit per lamb 0.06 “ 0.10 “ The average daily feed consumption of the lambs fed a partial feed of corn throughout the entire 90 days was 3.42 pounds, while that of the lambs fed grain from the start was 3.28 pounds. The average daily gain per lamb in Lot 4 was slightly less than that of Lot 7, being 0.278 pound as opposed to 0.281 pound. The total gain per lamb in Lot 7 was 25.3 pounds and in Lot 4 was 25 pounds. The feed requirement per hundred pounds of gain in Lot 4 was 326 pounds of concentrates and 903 pounds of roughage. In Lot 7, the lambs required 393 pounds of concentrates and 776 pounds of roughage for each 100 pounds of gain. The cost per hun- dred pounds gain in Lot 4 was $12.81 and in Lot 7 $13.18. The lambs in Lot 4 were valued at $16.85 P er hundred pounds, the lambs in Lot 7 were valued at $17.00. The profit per lamb in Lot 4 was six cents, while the profit per lamb in Lot 7 was 10 cents. i6 PART V INFLUENCE OF SHEARING The practice of shearing fattening western lambs at different times in the fattening period has been adopted by a considerable number of lamb feeders. For many years, the practice of shearing lambs in March and April has been rather common. The lambs so managed, have been destined for April or May markets. More recently, the practice of clip- ping the lambs in the fall just previous to starting them on feed, has been used. Owing to the high prices of wool and the supposed stimulating effect -of clipping, some feeders think that clipping lambs a short time prior to marketing is profitable. Last year (the winter of 1916-17), this station clipped two lots of lambs just previous to placing on feed. It was found in this trial that the clipped lambs did not gain as rapidly, made less economical gains and did not return as much profit as the wooled lambs. In this bulletin is reported a trial in which one lot of lambs was shorn two weeks previous to marketing. Two lots of 25 lambs each were fed exactly the same ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage and clover hay. Upon January 11, 1918, the lambs of Lot 2 were shorn. Prior to the shearing, both lots of lambs were sheltered in the same shed. After clipping, the lambs in Lot 2 were housed at night in a barn on ac- count of severely cold weather, but were allowed to run in the open shed and lot during the day. Previous to the shearing, both lots of lambs were receiving 28 pounds of shelled corn daily per lot. After shearing, the corn was increased to 32 pounds per lot. The shorn lambs consumed this amount fairly readily but would not consume the same amount of corn silage as before the in- crease in grain. As a result, the average daily feed per lamb in Lot 2 was decreased. The wooled lambs in Lot 7 consumed the increased amount of grain without any decrease in their consumption of roughage. The amount of wool shorn from the lambs in Lot 2 was 3.14 pounds per lamb. The wool was of short staple and was sold for 50 cents per pound. Table; VI. — Influence of Shearing on Fattening Lambs — Average Gains by Months, February 28, 1917, to January 26, 1918 Lot 2 Lot 7 clipped lambs shorn Jan. 1 1, 1918 wooled lambs First month Oct. 28 to Nov. 27 0.28 0.331 Second month Nov. 27 to Dec. 27 0.251 0.211 Third month Dec. 27 to Jan. 26 0.182 0.301 1 7 It will be observed in Table VI that the two lots of lambs prior to the shearing of Lot 2, gained somewhat the same and that Lot 2 had made a very good average daily gain during the month preceding the one in which the lambs were shorn. During the third month, the average daily gain per lamb in Lot 2 dropped to the low gain of 0.182 pound while the lambs in Lot 7 averaged a daily gain of 0.301 pound. Apparently the shearing of the lambs caused a very large decrease in gains. Table VII. — Influence of Shearing on Fattening Lambs — October 28, 1917, to January 26, 1918 Lot 2 1 Lot 7 1 Clipped lambs shorn Jan. 11, 1 b 1 8, two weeks before close of trial wooled lambs Average initial weight 56.2 lbs. 55.9 lbs. Average final weight 77.5 2 “ 81.2 “ Average gain per lamb 21.3 2 “ 25.3 “ Average daily gain 0.238 “ 0.281 “ Average daily feed per lamb concentrates 1.10 “ 1.10 “ clover hay 0.64 “ 0.64 “ corn silage 1.49 “ 1.54 “ Feed per 100 pounds gain concentrates 464.0 “ 393.0 “ clover hay 270.0 “ 228.0 “ corn silage 627.0 “ 548.0 “ Cost per IOO pounds gain $15.52 $13.18 Selling value of lambs in feed lots 14.75 17.00 Profit or loss per lamb -1.19 2 +0.10 1 Ration — shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay and corn silage 2 Includes 3.14 pounds wool at 50 cents per pound The average daily amount of feed consumed by the lambs in Lot 2 throughout the 90-day feeding period was 3.23 pounds while the lambs of Lot 7 consumed daily 3.28 pounds per lamb. The average daily gain per lamb in the shorn lot was 0.238 pound, while the lambs in the un- shorn lot gained 0.281 pound each. It required 464 pounds of concen- trates and 897 pounds of roughage to produce 100 pounds of increase in live weight in Lot 2. The lambs in Lot 7 required only 393 pounds of concentrates and 776 pounds of roughage for the same amount of gain. At the prevailing prices of feeds, the gains in the shorn lot cost $15.52 per hundred pounds ; the cost per hundred pounds of gain in the wooled lot was $13.18. The clipped lambs were valued at $14.75 P er hundred pounds; their wool sold for 50 cents per pound and the lot returned a loss of $1.19 per lamb. The wooled lambs were valued at $17.00 and returned a profit of 10 cents per head. Table VIII. — Summary of Lamb Feeding Fxperiment, October 28, 1917, to January 26, 1918 (90 days) 18 ^Q jO ■* IQ O IO IQ OO tC LQ 8 cd CP SO- rH 8 t>. TT* 23 $ OOOWMWWO oior- i co i— iS5o5i> t— 0005rHCOCP05'OI eg 1— I H eg 05 05 rH eg qiqco HOH • eo >> -e -sSifS "oo>«; >>a> © % 2 8 $ o 06 Tii eg CO H IQ 00 O O IQCCO IQ OWN r— co t>- 00 eg co ^ ^ T— I T — I CO i-H o rH -0 « fe rrt a> be es Sgl-’S’S 5 §2 g c t m o is 8 3 - - 3 00 eg 3 - - - 3 0 0 05 eg 0 O IQ 0 0 0 eg 23 t—H cd Hji id cd 05 IQ CO 0 eg co CP OO t-- OO pH CO eg co t-H CO rH O t -5 5 >oo“«^ •So-*-: E c > © ® w ^ * E © t» £ o*s « 23 S 0(5 0000 ^ 8 3 $ £ g ^ ^ ® 10 IQ O P- CO eg co o o eg' eg p~ P- i-H Tft >H O >> •d o •S o « e S > to c • t, o a So a 00 -rH €/ 9 - O 0 CO co eg 0 0 eg' 8 i-H CO 23 y-A C 5 00 i 8 eg XQ O rH CD rH CO rH«OU 5 h'oh fe © ^ 03 ^ til ® w ^3 p 2 08 ^ (— < cu . a r! ^ ® o 2 ® *© 0 ’S t: S t> s-s feo O © s ® % » o e§ 23 o 8 S 8 00 l-T. o o eg cp 1-i © IQ 00 O 0 cd tC 00 to CO 05 1— i co © O rH 'd o> >> |1 o 2“ ® 8 S 8 60- CO OOO eg cd cd 00 co eg rH* cd O O IQ eg iq o iQN« 00 eg co 00 05 cd ■| 05 ei CO 31 O CD r* T— I © T— I a) ^ cd £ S -2 P © ® H s t a ft . GO rQ 3 8 0 0 2 « * as IQ O JQ L» eg IQ eg O 0 +j S > sa * IQ OO 1 cd cd • HOtJJ T— I O T—i *d © •g S . S* a g 2 * a «ooJ® ■S © a S S 23 o p 00 d cd cd rH IQ P— IQ O © IQ © © rjH IQ cd COO p- p- co 3J ® 00 eg co ^ o © 00 rH eg 05 rH © rH C3 rH £ n HH Ph # P 53 bfl 'a -+H o © ba ’a> £ a > *s 05 fcJO <3 pH 05 'O 05 s 13 CO _H S a o r oj « o g rrt « 05 _, >> 05 «H «.H ^ 05 S ■ ?? H O CQ a 05 Q5 03 SS-S 1 0 sh'S ?-2 1 a S a a ©3 05 P be ® 2 § 05 O > « <1 ©3 D CM CM CD CM OONOOiODOSiO CO 'CP CM IQ © CD ID CD CM TO i— i CD OS CO •£o o o t-. iq cd i— i fti 3t! O 00 rt fii r- l> OS 05 TlH d )d cd os cd cd CD <=> id C5 i— 1 OS CM | ID CO tT ho CM i—l Tp i— i CD 1— 1 i— 1 CM CD CM CD OP- e/3- CM CM CD , 1 to CM 1 2 3 2 2 2 OO CM CM ’’cP rp <=5 i—l Tp Tp CD O TO tP CO oNoqo O O o o o Tp O 05 O O uq tp ^p os os r-' tp CM OS CM t>5 cd cs oo cd Tp' cd CD Tp CD »5 id o’ cd Os tp CM ID CM co CM IQ CO to OO i — h CD tP i—i e/3- CM CO 3 3 3 2 3 00 CM -P Os cs CM OO CO >Q TO O o ID O O O O O O Tfi CO oo OS 05 co t-h co cd oo OHPH »5 tp cm OO oo r-5 cd oo t^5 cm cd cd OS CM CD t>5 id cm’ o’ as rr iD CM CM Tjt CM 10) co to TO' ID Tp rft TO- CM CO rt 55++ 2 2 2 2 2 OO CM Tp co u? CM OS O CM t- IO O CM O o o o O O tP COO O CD OHP-N Os TO CO 'pi i—l i-5 i>5 i>5 tp id t>5 cd cd os id o5 cd OS CD cd’ co’ ^5 CM o’ CM Tf ID CM i—l CO t-h )D CQ t-i CO H t-- to e/3- CM CO CO 1 1 2 3 3 2 3 TO OS CM 05 CD no h- CM TO CM i— i OS OS t>; CM CD CO <30 IO ID CD CS o o o O o CM CO CM 'P O CM Tp CO CM gs .fi no CD OO id id os o5 cm’ o cd o i-J cp t>5 oo i>5 o CM CO CO TO 1-H ID CO i—l H CO 1 | CO ^ 1 CM ID so- TO- CM CO 3 3 3 2 CO Tp Tp oo o oq CM i— O CM TO IQ TO CD CD TO CO tP O O O O O CD CD CM TO r- cs t— id 1—5 OS* Tp' o cd i-5 vP O CM os’ OS CD* cd i-5 1-5 o Tp oo CM CD CO CM CD CO i— I e/3- CM 1— I TO i— IO CO t-h TO CM CO 3 3 3 2 3 O o oo OS Tp CO OS tH rp CM o IS- CO CO o o o O O OS CO CM os iq t>- oq 1-H Tp ts- CM CO CO CM* oi oi CM ID t^5 CD oc «>5 cm' CM CM* OS 1-5 CD t>5 1>5 id o CO TO i—l TO) i— 1 IO Tp i—i TO CM CO * J "* - H oo CM tP Tp o id l D CM Tp OS IO ID O OS OS o o o o o tp OOO os iq Tp cq cq n q n h i-5 i-5 cm o r>5 r-5 cd od cd cm" CM id O cd CD TO i—l CD ip i—i -p cd os i-5 ID IOCD t'- CM CO i— l i—l CM CO CM CD to TO CM CO CO | | O <=5 0 2 2 OO CM Tp OO CO JO TO OS ^ CM cd co oo iq tp o TO CD O O O tp o oq uq t>- CS rp O tp j-j f2 ^ co ers i>5 cd od id CD 'cP 'd Os ip5 CD Tp O O CD ID CD 00 ID co NtHIOMtH HCMH co oo TO TO CM CO CO , , n eed per 1G0 pounds gai] shelled corn hominy meal oats cottonseed meal linseed oil meal ground soybeans clover hay corn silage ost of feeds shelled corn hominy meal oats cottonseed meal linseed oil meal ground soybeans clover hay corn silage Total ost per H00 pounds ga: ost of lambs otal cost ecessary selling price elling price per cwt., Lafayette basis elling value per lot rofit or loss per lot roflt or loss per lamb R o 00^1^02 ODPpRh Sh ft d .. <1) a ft o o c3 o a> > as o G g 5 o xi t- a> .. ft G , ft v* O G -O « o u w «« to 6 * G . £ 0 Initial value of lambs is actual cost in feed lots. Final values of lambs are 75 cents below Chicago valuation for fat lambs I 20 \ \ \ ACTUAL EXPENDITURES Original cost of lambs in feed lot $2,433.97 Cost of feed while on experiment 645.63 Cost of feed for cull lambs 75. 91 Cost of feed after experiment closed 140.05 Total cost $3,295.56 ACTUAL RECEIPTS Jan. 30, 1918, Bogan- Jacques, 78.5' lbs. wool at 50 cents per pound .-..$ 39.25 Feb. 6, 1918, L. Plaelser & Son, 125 lambs 1,686.38 Feb. 12, 1918, Uryfus Packing Co., 10 lambs 136.85 Feb. 18, 1918, Swift & Company, 73 lambs 891.19 Feb. 18, 1918, Dryfus Packing Co., 15 lambs 214.78 Total receipts $2,968.45 Net loss 1 $ 327.11 1 This loss is due in large part to the fact that it was impossible to market the lambs immediately after the close of the experiment on account of inability to obtain cars, and in the meantime, the market price for lambs seriously declined / 3*:YEBS!TT OF 1LUIOIS LIBRARY PURDUE UNIVERSITY JU t_ 1 5 1919. Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 222 September, 1918 Fig. 1. Effect of manure on corn, Scottsburg field, 1917. Each shock is the produce of one-twentieth acre No manure Manured 35.9 bushels corn per acre 61.9 bushels corn per acre THE VALUE OF MANURE ON INDIANA SOILS Published by the Station: LAFAYETTE, INDIANA U. S. A. PURDUE UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BOARD OF CONTROL Joseph D. Oliver, President, South Bend Fay S. Chandler, Indianapolis Charles Downing Greenfield John A. Hillenbrand Batesville Cyrus M. Hobbs Bridgeport Winthrop E. Stone, A. M., Ph. D, Warren T. McCray Kentland James W. Noel Indianapolis Andrew E. Reynolds Crawfordsville William V. Stuart LaFayette .President of the University ADVISORY COMMITTEE (Under Legislative Act of 1909) John G. Brown, Monon • D. B. Johnson, Mooresville State Live Stock Association State Dairy Association U. R. Fishel, Hope D. F. Maish, Frankfort State Poultry Fanciers' Association State Corn Growers' Association F. J. Heacock, Salem Indiana Horticultural Society ADMINISTRATION Charles G. Woodbury, M. S., Director Harry J. Reed Assistant to the Director Nellie Tracy Administrative Assistant Mary K, Bloom Bookkeeper AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION George I. Christie, B. S. A., Superintendent Thomas A. Coleman. .S tate County Agent Leader George M. Frier, B. S. A Associate in Short Courses and Exhibits Mabel L. Harlan.. A ss’ t in Agricultural Extension ANIMAL HUSBANDRY John H. Skinner, B. S., Chief Claude M. Vestal, B. S Associate in Animal Husbandry George A. Branaman, B. S Assistant in Animal Husbandry Herbert E. McCartney, B. S. A Ass’t in Animal Husbandry Extension BOTANY Herbert S. Jackson, A. B., Chief George N. Hoffer, M. S Associate in Botany Luna E. Allison, B. S Assistant in Botany Edwin B. Mains, Ph. D... Assistant in Botany DAIRY HUSBANDRY Ollie E. Reed, M. S., Chief Howard W. Gregory, B. S Associate in Dairy Manufactures George Spitzer, Ph. G.. B. S Associate in Dairy Chemistry Turner H. Broughton, B. S... Assistant in Creamery Inspection William F. Epple, Ph. G Assistant in Dairy Chemistry Hubert W. Fleisher, B. S. A Assistant in Creamery Inspection ENTOMOLOGY James Troop, M. S., Chief FARM MECHANICS William Aitkenhead, M. E., M. A Specialist in Farm Mechanics HORTICULTURE Laurenz Greene, M. S. A., Chief Joseph Oskamp, B. S.. Associate in Pomology Walter A. Huelson, B. S Assistant in Horticulture NUTRITION Ralph H. Carr, Ph. D Associate in Nutrition Chemistry POULTRY HUSBANDRY Allen G. Philips, B. S. A., Chief Dwight C. Kennard, Ph. C., B. S..... Assistant in Poultry Husbandry SOILS AND CROPS Alfred T. Wiancico B. S. A., Chief Martin L. Fisher, M. S Assistant Chief in Soils and Crops Samuel D. Conner, M. S Associate Chemist in Soils and Crops Clinton O. Cromer, B. S Associate in Crops Sadocie C. Jones. M. S Associate in Soils Ernest N. Fergus, M. Sc Assistant in Soils and Crops STATE CHEMIST Edward G. Proulx, M. *S. x State Chemist Reuben O. Bitler, B. S. 1 2 .... Deputy State Chemist Margaret Briggs, B. S Deputy State Chemist Paul B. Curtis, B. S. 2 .Deputy State Chemist Omar W. Ford, A. B. 2 Deputy State Chemist Herman J. Nimitz. B. S. 2 .. Deputy State Chemist J. Howard Roop, B. S. 2 ....Deputy State Chemist Samuel F. Thornton, B. S. 2 Deputy State Chemist Otis S. Roberts, B. S. 2 Chief Inspector State Chemist’s Department Glen G. Carter, B. S. 2 Inspector State Chemist’s Department Benjamn F. Catherwood 2 Inspector State Chemist’s Department Wlliam B. Tiedt Inspector State Chemist’s Department VETERINARY SCIENCE Robert A. Craig, D. V. M., Chief David B. Clark, D. M. C... Associate Veterinarian Lawrence C. Kigin, D. V. M Associate Veterinarian George N. Roberts, D. V. M.... Associate Veterinarian Rex A. Whiting, D. V. M Associate in Animal Pathnlogy Frank I, Cason, B. S... Ass’t in Serum Production Leo P. Doyle, B. S Ass’t in Animal Pathology Leslie R. George, B. S Assistant in Animal Pathology Fred L. Walkey, D. V. M Ass’t Veterinarian DETAILED BY U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Cereal and Forage Crop Insect Investigations John J. Davis, B. S.. Entomological Assistant in Charge John M. Aldrich, Ph. D., Entomological Assistant Herman J. Hart, B. S Scientific Assistant Wesley O. Hollister, B. S... Scientific Assistant Dean A. Ricker. B. S Scientific Assistant Chester F. Turner, B. S Scientific Assistant Seed Testing Anna M. Lute, M. A Seed Analyst 1 In charge of Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control 2 Connected with Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control THE VALUE OF MANURE ON INDIANA SOILS A. T. Wiancko S. C. Jones SUMMARY Farm manures are now worth twice as much as they were before the war. With present prices of crops, manure applied at a normal rate will produce crop increases worth from $2.00 to over $8.00 per ton of manure, according to the fertility of the soil and the crops grown. The average return on the seven experiment fields reported in this bulletin has been $5.00 per ton of manure applied. On the average farm, about one-third of the value of stable manure is lost by improper methods of conservation and handling. One-half the value of manure is in the urine. This can be saved by concrete floors in stables and feed lots and the use of sufficient absorb- ent bedding. The best way to prevent losses in manure through fermentation and leaching is to spread it upon the land as rapidly as it is made. Every barnyard should be provided with a concrete manure pit or en- closure in which manure, when it must be stored, can be compactly piled. When manure must be stored in piles it should be thoroughly com- pacted. The pile should be at least four feet high and made with per- pendicular sides and kept level or dished on top to catch and hold the rain water which falls upon it, thus keeping the manure moist. Manure exposed to the weather in loose piles for a few months may lose one-half its fertilizing value through fermentation and leaching. The most economical use of manure is to apply it to the land most in need of organic matter and nitrogen, once for each round of the crop rotation in amounts approximately equal to the cured weight of the pro- duce harvested. Light applications of manure made every three or four years are much more profitable than heavy applications made at longer intervals. To get the most out of manure, it should be reinforced with phos- phates, preferably acid phosphate, using from 40 to 50 pounds per ton of manure. If preferred, the phosphate may be applied by itself in any convenient place in the rotation. INTRODUCTION The value of farm manure has practically doubled within the last two years due to the rise in the prices of farm produce. Farmers, as a rule, do not realize this condition and are showing too little care in the conservation and utilization of this valuable product. With the present urgent demand for more food and the high prices of commercial fertil- izers, it is especially important to make the best possible use of the plant food materials produced on the farm. 4 Manure offers a ready and relatively cheap means of increasing crop production. It is the natural farm fertilizer and should be much more fully utilized. Manure not only supplies important elements of plant food but also provides the best form of decomposable organic matter to the soil, improving its physical condition and furthering highly important bacterial activities, which commercial fertilizers alone cannot bring about. Experiments conducted for the last 28 years on the Purdue farm experiment field at LaFayette and for from two to 12 years on several experiment fields in other parts of the State, show that under present conditions a ton of ordinary stable manure judiciously used will produce crop increases worth from $2.00 to over $8.00, according to the fertility of the land, the rate of application, and the crops for which it is used. A calculation based on the average results of the experiments of this station and the 1910 census of live stock in the State shows that the manure made in the stables and feed lots of Indiana is worth at least $72,000,000 annually. It is conservatively estimated that at least one- third of the manure thus produced is wasted through carelessness. Under present conditions this means a loss to the farmers of Indiana of at least $24,000,000 annually. This loss can be very largely prevented by proper methods of conservation and handling. This bulletin presents the results of some of the Station’s field ex- periments in the use of manure, together with discussions of the principal points to be observed in its management. MANURE EXPERIMENTS ON THE SCOTTSBURG FIELD The Scottsburg field is located on Volusia silt loam, commonly called “yellow clay,” which is the predominating soil type on the hilly lands of southern Indiana. The land had been exhaustively cropped for many years, with no manure and but little fertilizer applied, and was badly run down. The field was laid out in the fall of 1905 with three series of similarly treated plots for a corn, wheat and clover rotation, so that all the crops in the rotation could be grown every year. The manur- ing is at the rate of 10 tons per acre per rotation. The first application of manure was made on the first wheat crop on each series of plots, be- ginning in the fall of 1905. After that, the manure was plowed under for corn once in three years. Both the manured and unmanured plots were limed in 1911 with two tons of ground limestone per acre. All the crops have been removed from the land except the small amount of second growth clover, which has been plowed under. In Table I are shown the average annual crop yields on the manured and unmanured land, together with the increases produced by the manure and the financial results at present crop prices. 1 1 Throughout this bulletin the crop increases produced have been valued, in round num- bers, approximately at the prices prevailing at this time, as follows: corn $1.00. oats 70 cents and wheat $2.00 per bushel; stover $6.00, oats straw $6.00, wheat straw $5.00, and hay, $20.00 per ton. No set price has been placed upon manure, but its value per ton has been calculated from the value of the crop increases which it actually produced in each case 5 Table I. — Results from Manure on a Corn, Wheat and Clover Rotation, Scottsburg Experiment Field, 1906-1918 6 z Treatment Average yields per acre Value of increase per acre per year Tons manure per Return per ton of manure 0 E Corn bushels Stover pounds Wheat bushels Straw pounds Hay pounds per year 16 Lime only 30.0 2653.0 9.7 985.0 674.0 15 Lime and manure 50.2 4064.0 19.3 1999.0 1429.0 Gain for manure 20.2 1411.0 9.6 1014.0 755.0 $17.89 3.33 $5.37 Fig. 2 . Effect of manure on wheat, Scottsburg field, 1918. Each shock is the produce of one-twentieth acre No manure Manured 11.0 bushels wheat per acre 30.7 bushels wheat per acre In Table I it will be seen that the manure has produced large in- creases on corn and wheat. While the hay yields have been more than doubled by the manure, they have been unsatisfactory on account of several years of unfavorable weather conditions and the fact that the land was especially low in organic matter and in extremely bad physical con- dition to begin with, causing several complete failures, which have kept down the average yield. In the last three years the hay yields have been fairly good, averaging 2795 pounds per acre. Notwithstanding the poor average hay yield, the manure has made a good showing on this field as compared with the unmanured land, producing average crop increases worth $17.89 per acre per year, or $5.37 per ton of manure. It should be noted that the rate of manuring on this field (10 tons per acre per rotation) has been considerably above normal, that is, the amount applied in each rotation has been much larger than could have been made from the produce under ordinary farm conditions where a fair average production is a pound of manure for every pound of feed 6 and bedding used. On this basis, the amount of manure, that could have been made from the produce 1 other than wheat grain, would have been about 5.4 tons per acre per rotation instead of the io tons actually used. In the light of our present knowledge, a more nearly normal rate of manuring would doubtless have returned larger profits per ton of man- ure. This is indicated in the results on the Purdue Farm experiment field reported later in this bulletin where light and heavy applications of manure have been compared. MANURE EXPERIMENTS ON THE NORTH VERNON FIELD The experiment field at North Vernon in Jennings County is located on the flat, whitish-gray silt loam soil commonly known as “slash land,” which is widely represented in southeastern Indiana. The field was laid out for experimental purposes and thoroughly tile drained in the fall of 1911. In 1912, the land was limed with fine ground limestone at the rate of four tons per acre and a preliminary crop of soybeans grown. This crop was harvested, the seed threshed out and the soybean straw re- turned to the land. Three series of plots were laid out for a corn, wheat and clover rotation so that all the crops in the rotation could be grown every year. Manure has been applied at the rate of six ton's per acre, plowed under for corn once in three years, beginning in 1913. All the crops have been removed from the land except the second growth clover, which has been plowed under. Table II. — Results from Manure on a Corn, Wheat and Clover Rotation, North Vernon Experiment Field, 1913-1918 6 £ Treatment Average yields per acre Value of increase per acre per year Tons manure per acre per year Return per ton of manure 0 5 Corn bushels Stover pounds Wheat bushels Straw pounds Hay pounds 2 Lime only 45.6 3061.0 12.1 1428.0 3580.0 1 Lime and manure 71.3 4828.0 20.3 2096.0 3980.0 Gain for manure 25.7 1767.0 8.2 668.0 400.0 $17.69 2.0 $8.85 In Table II are shown the average annual crop yields secured from six tons of manure per acre per rotation on limed land on the North Vernon experiment field during the last five years, together with the in- creases produced by the manure and the financial results. The compara- tively small average wheat yields are due to the fact that two of the six crops grown were badly damaged by Hessian fly. The corn yields have been very satisfactory considering the character of the land. On land across the fence to the west, which until five years ago was a part of the - same field, the 1916 corn crop was not worth husking, while that on the experiment field averaged 67.9 bushels per acre. On another field, lying to the south, the 1917 corn crop produced only about 30 bushels per acre, while the corn in the experiment field averaged 78.5 bushels per acre. 7 Fig. 3. Effect of manure on wheat, North Vernon field, 1918. Each shock is the produce of one -twentieth acre Lime and manure Lime only 30.7 bushels wheat per acre 18.7 bushels wheat per acre These differences are due in large part to the fact that the experiment field is well tile drained, while the adjoining fields have only surface drainage. The manure on the experiment field has produced crop increases valued at $53.07 per acre per rotation, or $17.69 per acre per year and $8.85 per ton of manure applied. Other experiments have shown this soil to be particularly deficient in nitrogen, organic matter and phos- phorus, which accounts for the high value of manure on this land. The addition of 200 pounds of acid phosphate per acre to the lime and manure treatment on another part of this field, has added further crop increases worth $14.98 per acre per rotation. The rate of manuring on this field has been somewhat below normal. On the basis stated in the discussion of the results on the Scottsburg field, the produce would have made 7.9 tons of manure per acre per rotation instead of the six tons actually used. MANURE EXPERIMENTS ON THE WORTHINGTON FIELD The experiment field at Worthington in Greene County is located on Knox silt loam, commonly called “clay”, which is the predominating soil type of the rolling uplands of that section of the State and is similar to much of the light colored so-called “clay” soils of central Indiana. The plan of this field is a duplicate of that at North Vernon. It was started at the same time and the treatment has been the same except that the soil being less acid, ground limestone was applied at the rate of only two tons per acre. In Table III are shown the average annual crop yields secured from six tons of manure per acre per rotation on limed land on the Worthing- ton experiment field during the last five years, together with the in- creases produced by the manure and the financial results. 8 Table; III. — Results from Manure on a Corn, Wheat and Clover Rota- tion, Worthington Experiment Field, 1913-1918 6 ft Treatment Average yields per acre Value of increase per acre per year Tons manure per Return per ton of manure o E Corn bushels Stover pounds Wheat bushels Straw pounds Hay pounds per. year 2 Lime only 33.6 2393.0 9.2 859.0 3945.0 1 Lime and manure 41.1 2606.0 13.7 1499.0 5092.0 Gain for manure 7.5 213.0 4.5 640.0 1147.0 $10.13 2.0 $5.07 In this case, the manure has produced crop increases valued at $30.39 per acre per rotation, or $10.13 per acre per year and $5.07 per ton of manure applied. This land is naturally not so deficient in the substances supplied by the manure as the North Vernon field. The relatively low average yields of corn and wheat were due to two seasons of extremely dry weather for the corn and one entire failure of the wheat crop due to winter-killing. The addition of 200 pounds of acid phosphate per acre to the lime and manure treatment on another part of this field has added further crop increases worth $21.44 P er acre P er rotation. So far, the rate of manuring on this field has been just about equal to the amount of manure that could have been made from the produce removed other than the wheat grain. Fig. 4. Effect of manure on corn, Worthington field, 1917. Each shock is the produce of one -twentieth acre Eime only . 43.4 bushels corn per acre Lime and manure 58.7 bushels corn per acre 9 Fig. 5. Effect of manure on clover, Worthington field, 1917. Each cock is the produce of one-twentieth acre Lime and manure Lime only 7440 pounds hay per acre 5420 pounds hay per acre MANURE EXPERIMENTS ON DIFFERENT CROP ROTATIONS ON PURDUE FARM AT LAFAYETTE The experiment field on the Purdue farm is located on Sioux silt loam, which is a high terrace or second bottom soil of brown to dark brown color, underlaid at from two to four feet in depth by a deep bed of gravel. The surface soil is fine in texture and naturally well supplied with organic matter and was in a good state of fertility when the ex- periments were begun in 1890. Due to the shallow depth of the soil and the nearness of the gravel to the surface, the land is leachy and crops, especially corn, are always more or less subject to drought. The field was laid out for experimental purposes in the spring of 1889 and a crop of corn grown on all plots. In 1890, the six different rotations or systems of cropping shown in the following tables were be- gun, with two different commercial fertilizer and two different manure treatments in each case. Each series consists of seven plots. Plots 1, 4 and 7 are untreated checks, plot 2 receives a heavy application and plot 3 a light application of commercial fertilizer, plot 5 receives a heavy ap- plication and plot 6 a light application of manure. Only the two manured plots (5 and 6) and the two flanking untreated check plots (4 and 7) are considered in this bulletin to show the effects of the manuring on the different rotations and the relative values of the light and heavy appli- cations. In the following tables are shown the different crop rotations and the average annual crop yields per acre on the manured and unmanured plots, together with the average applications of manure, the crop increases produced by the two different rates of manuring and the financial results at present crop prices. In each rotation, the manuring was calculated to return approximately two-thirds of the crop requirements on plot 5 and 10 one-third on plot 6. During the earlier years, the rate of manuring was calculated from the crop yields, but since 1903 each corn crop has re- ceived six tons of manure per acre on plot 5 and three tons per acre on plot 6, and each wheat or oats crop has received four tons per acre on plot 5 and two tons per acre on plot 6. The clover has not been manured. All the produce has been removed from the land except the second growth clover, which has been plowed under. Table IV. — Results from Manure in Continuous Corn Culture, Purdue Farm Experiment Field, 1890-1917 Treatment Tons of manure per acre per rotation Average crop yields per acre Value of increase per acre per year Tons manure per acre per year Re- turns per ton of manure Corn bushels Stover pounds Nothing 26.7 2394.0 / Manure, 6.5 tons 38.7 3184.0 Manure, 3.6 tons 38.4 2960.0 Nothing 26.3 2132.0 Gain for heavy application 12.2 878.0 $14.83 6.5 $2.28 Gain for light application 12.0 741.0 14.22 3.6 3.95 Table V. — Results from Manure in Continuous Wheat Culture, Purdue Farm Experiment Field, 1890-1917 Treatment Tons of manure per acre per rotation Average crop yields per acre Value of increase per acre per year Tons manure per acre per year Re- turns per ton of manure Wheat bushels Straw pounds Nothing Manure, 4.2 tons Manure, 2.5 tons Nothing 12.2 19.6 17.9 12.6 1205.0 2140.0 1799.0 1282.0 Gain for heavy application Gain for light application 7.3 5.5 910.0 544.0 $17.15 12.38 4.2 £5 $4.08 4.95 II Table) VI. — Results from Manure on a Corn and Wheat Rotation, Purdue Farm Experiment Field, 1890-1917 Treatment Tons of manure per acre per rotation Average crop yields per acre Value of increase per acre per year Tons manure per acre per year Re- turns per ton of manure Corn bushels Stover Wheat 1 Straw pounds bushels | pounds Nothing 27.1 1838.0 9.8 877.0 Manure, 10.8 tons 42.1 3051.0 21.7 2325.0 Manure, 6.4 tons 39.8 2744.0 19.2 1888.0 Nothing 27.4 1751.0 9.4 860.0 Gain for heavy application 14.9 1242.0 12.0 1454.0 $23.13 5.4 $4.28 Gain for light application 12.5 964.0 9.7 999.0 18.64 3.2 5.82 Table: VII. — Results from Manure on a Corn, Oats and Wheat Rotation, Purdue Farm Experiment Field, 1890-1917 Treatment Tons of manure per acre per rotation Average crop yields per acre Value of increase per acre per year Tons manure per acre per year Re- turns per ton of manure Corn bushels Stover pounds Oats bushels Oats straw pounds Wheat bushels Wheat straw pounds Nothing 26.2 1733.0 33.4 1106.0 11.5 1047.0 Manure, 14.8 tons 42.8 2634.0 46.6 1691.0 21.7 2094.0 Manure, 8.8 tons 40.6 2456.0 45.8 1554.0 18.4 1872.0 Nothing 29.9 1777.0 36.0 1128.0 13.1 1274.0 Gain for heavy application 15.4 886.0 12.3 578.0 9.7 969.0 $16.58 4.9 $3.38 Gain for light application 12.0 693.0 10.6 434.0 5.9 669.0 11.97 2.9 4.11 Table: VIII.* — Results from Manure on a Corn, Wheat and Clover Rotation, Purdue Farm Experiment Field, 1890-1917 Treatment Tons of manure per acre per rotation Average crop yields per acre Value of increase per acre per year Tons manure per acre per year Re- turns per ton of manure Corn bushels Stover pounds Wheat bushels Straw pounds Clover hay pounds Nothing 32.2 1872.0 7.0 655.0 2231.0 Manure, 11.4 tons 43.9 2672.0 17.6 1803.0 3174.0 Manure, 5.7 tons 41.8 2471.0 13.7 1410.0 2898.0 Nothing 33.2 2104.0 7.7 765.0 2439.0 Gain for heavy application 11.4 723.0 10.4 1111.0 874.0 $15.40 3.8 $4.05 Gain for light _ application 9.0 445.0 6.1 681.0 529.0 9.91 1.9 5.22 Prior to 1904 this was a six year rotation of corn, sugar beets, oats, wheat, clover and timothy 12 Table IX. — Results from Manure on a Corn, Oats, Wheat and Clover Rotation, Purdue Farm Experiment Field, 1890-1917 Treatment Tons of manure per acre per rotation Average crop yields per acre Value of increase per acre per year Tons manure per acre per year Re- turns per ton of manure Corn bushels Stover pounds Oats bushels Oats straw pounds Wheat bushels Wheat straw pounds Clover hay pounds Nothing 28.6 1844.0 27.9 1040.0 10.7 1065.0 1679.0 Manure, 14.2 tons 35.9 2452.0 35.8 1461.0 18.5 1989.0 2457.0 Manure, 8.5 tons 36.2 2404.0 38.0 1494.0 16.7 1771.0 2282.0 Nothing 29.2 1825.0 29.9 1097.0 10.5 1029.0 1513.0 Gain for heavy application 7.1 614.0 7.2 402.0 7.9 936.0 834.0 $10.87 3.6 $3.02 Gain for light application 7.2 572.0 8.8 416.0 6.1 730.0 714.0 9.32 2.1 4.44 DISCUSSION OF TABLES IV TO IX In the results secured from manure on the Purdue experiment field, presented in Tables IV to IX, inclusive, attention is directed to two prin- cipal points : first, the relatively large crop increases produced by the manuring compared with the yields on the untreated land. The small average yields throughout are due to the gravel subsoil and the conse- quent droughty condition of the land. In seasons of abundant rainfall, the yields have been very satisfactory, while several very dry seasons have caused almost complete crop failures. The leachy and droughty character of the land has doubtless operated against getting the best re- sults from the manure applied. While the crop yields have not been large in any case, on the percentage basis, the manure has produced about 37 per cent, increase as the average for the several crops over the entire period. The second important point to be observed in these tables is the rela- tively larger returns secured from the lighter applications of manure. In every case, the lighter manuring has produced the larger returns per ton of manure applied. As a general average for the six systems of cropping, the heavier applications of manure, averaging 4.7 tons per acre per year, have produced crop increases valued at $16.44 P er acre P er year, and $3-53 P er ton of manure applied. The lighter applications of manure, averaging 2.7 tons per acre per year, have produced crop increases valued at $12.99 P er acre P er year, and $4.84 per ton of manure applied. The average difference in the value of the produce per ton of manure has been $1.31 in favor of the lighter rates of manuring. An examination of the yields produced in the several rotations shows that on the average the normal rate of manuring would have been about 1.8 tons of manure per acre per year, which is considerably less than the so-called “light” application actually used, which averaged 2.7 tons per acre per year. 13 MANURE EXPERIMENTS ON WILSON FARM AT LAFAYETTE The Wilson Farm experiment involving a study of the effect of manure is located on Miami silt loam, which fairly represents the greyish so-called “clay” soil common throughout central and northeastern Indi- ana. The land has been under cultivation for at least two generations but seems to have been fairly well managed and in the later years at least has been more or less manured. The experiment on this field was begun in 1915 after two years of preliminary cropping with corn and soybeans, of which it produced fair crops. Three blocks of similarly treated land are used in the experiment and carry a rotation of corn, wheat and clover. Manure is applied once in three years for the corn crop at the rate of six tons per acre. Both the manured and unmanured land was limed in 1915 at the rate of two tons of ground limestone per acre. Table) X. — Results from Manure on a Corn, Wheat and Clover Rotation, Wilson Farm, LaFayette, 1915-1918 Plot No. Treatment Average yields per acre Value of increase per acre per year Tons manure per acre per year Return per ton of manure Corn bushels 1915- 1917 Stover pounds Wheat bushels 1916- 1918 Straw pounds Hay pounds 1917- 1918 19 Lime 35.8 3200.0 19.1 1903.0 3560.0 20 Lime and manure 40.3 3353.0 22.0 2033.0 3550.0 Gain for manure 4.5 153.0 2.9 130.0 -10.0 $3.66 2.0 $1.83 In Table X are shown the average annual crop yields on the manured and unmanured land, the increases produced by the manure and the finan- cial results. Up to date, three manured corn crops and three wheat and two hay crops following have been harvested. Due to unfavorable seasons the corn yields have been relatively small for this land and the 1917 wheat crop was not what it should have been. So far the showing for manure has not been good, amounting to only $1.83 per ton of manure applied, but the field observations indicate that it has not yet had a fair chance due to unfavorable seasonal conditions. MANURE EXPERIMENTS ON THE BEDFORD FIELD The experiment field at Bedford is located on the Moses Fell Annex Farm on a yellowish-brown silt loam soil typical of most of the upland of Lawrence and neighboring counties. As nearly as could be learned, this land has been cropped for about two generations with little use of manure or fertilizer and had been in meadow for several years. There was a thin growth of timothy, blue grass, red top and broom sedge. Two preliminary crops, one of corn and one of soybeans, were grown on the land after plowing up the sod and before the special treatments were be- gun. The corn crop made about 25 bushels per acre and the entire crop was removed from the land. The soybeans made only a small growth and the entire crop was plowed under. 14 There are two experiments. involving manure treatments on this field. One is a three-year rotation of corn, wheat and clover begun in 1916 and the other is a four-year rotation of corn, wheat, clover and timothy beguh in 1917. The manuring is at the rate of six tons per acre in the three- year rotation and eight tons per acre in the four-year rotation plowed under for corn once in the rotation in both cases. In Table XI are shown the results so far secured on the manured and untreated land in the corn, wheat and clover rotation. Table XII shows the results in the corn, wheat, clover and timothy rotation. Table: XI. — Results from Manure on a Corn, Wheat and Clover Rota- tion, Bedford Experiment Field, 1916-1918 d £ Treatment Average yields per acre Value of increase per acre per year Tons manure per acre per year Return per ton of manure 0 5 Corn bushels Stover pounds Wheat bushels Straw pounds Hay pounds 133 Nothing 30.8 1730.0 1.70 260.0 780.0 132 Manure 41.2 2012.0 2.25 305.0 1160.0 Gain for manure 10.4 282.0 0.55 45.0 380.0 $5.42 2.0 $2.71 Table XII. — Results from Manure on a Corn, Wheat, Clover and Timothy Rotation, Bedford Experiment Field, 1917-1918 Average yields per acre Value of increase per acre per year Tons vn 0 niiTA Return per ton of manure Plot No Treatment Corn bushels 1917 Stover pounds Wheat bushels 1918 Straw pounds Clover hay pounds 1917-1918 Timothy hay pounds 1917-1918 Lll dll 111 c per acre per year 14 Nothing 29.5 1825.0 4.50 655.0 1080.0 1430.0 15 Manure 43.7 2530.0 10.16 850.0 1540.0 2040.0 Gain for manure 14.2 705.0 5.66 195.0 460.0 610.0 $9.70 2.0 $4.85 The actual yields on the Bedford field have been small in most cases, due partly to the poor condition of the soil to begin with and partly to unfavorable conditions, but the percentage increase due to manuring has been good, ranging from over 30 to almost 50 per cent. Winter-killing and particularly Hessian fly damage caused almost complete wheat fail- ures in the three-year rotation. The corn and clover crops have suffered considerably from unfavorable weather. However, other experiments alongside show that the manure treatment alone is not all that is required by this soil. More phosphorus than the manure supplies is needed and liming also is essential to the best results. Where manure, lime and acid phosphate were used, the corn yield has been raised to over 60 bushels per acre and the wheat and clover yields have been from four to five times as much as on the untreated land. i5 MANURE EXPERIMENTS ON THE FRANCISCO FIELD This field is located near Francisco in Gibson County. The soil is a yellowish-brown silt loam characteristic of the rolling uplands of south- western Indiana. The land has been under cultivation for many years and so far as could be learned had never been manured. The crops grown are corn, wheat and clover rotated on three series of plots. The land was limed in the fall of 1915 at the rate of three tons of ground limestone per acre. The manuring on this field has been at the rate of eight tons per acre plowed under for corn once in three years. The first application was made in 1916. Two crops of corn, one of wheat and one of clover have been harvested from manured land. The 1917 wheat crop was a total failure, due to fly and winter-killing. In Table XIII are shown the average annual crop yields on the manured and unmanured land together with the increases produced by the manure and the financial results. Table XIII. — Results from Manure on a Corn, Wheat and' Clover Rotation, Francisco Experiment Field, 1916-1918 Plot No. Treatment Average yields per acre Value of increase per acre per year Tons manure per acre per year Return per ton of manure Corn bushels 1916- 1917 Stover pounds Wheat bushels 1917- 1918 Straw pounds Hay pounds 1918 2a Lime 39.8 3590.0 8.5 1 710.0 2420.0 2b Lime and manure 53.6 4289.0 16.7 1 1545.0 3680.0 Gain for manure 13.8 699.0 8.2 835.0 1260.0 $15.66 2.66 $5.89 1 The low average wheat yield is due to the fact that .the 1917 wheat crop was a complete failure due to Hessian fly and winter-killing The showing made by manure on this field has been good on all three of the crops in the rotation, resulting in $15.06 per acre per rota- tion or $5.89 per ton of manure applied. The corn crop has been in- creased by one-third ; the wheat yield has been practically doubled, and the clover has been increased by one-half. SOURCES OF WASTE AND LOSS IN FARM MANURES If we take the average value per ton of manure as shown on the seven fields reported in this bulletin to be fairly representative, and de- duct 40 cents per ton for the cost of application, the value of a ton of manure .in the barnyard is $4.60. Based on the 1910' census of live stock in Indiana and the average amount of manure that can be saved from each class of animals, the average production of manure per year in Indiana is 15,690,077 tons after deducting one-fourth of the manure from horses, one-third of that from cattle and one-half of that from sheep and swine, which is either deposited on fields and pastures where there is little loss, or in roads and lanes where its loss cannot be prevented. At $4.60 per ton, the manure that can be saved from Indiana live stock, according to these estimates, is worth $72,174,354.20 annually. i6 It is conservatively estimated that one-third of the manure annually made in the stables and feed lots in the State is lost or wasted by improper methods of conservation and handling. Under present conditions this means an annual loss to the farmers of Indiana of $26,058,118.06. Prac- tically all of this loss could be prevented by proper methods of manage- ment. Among the more important sources of loss and waste in manures are leakage of the liquids through wooden stable floors, or soaking into the ground in the case of earth floors, muddy feed lots, leaching through ex- posure to rain in the open, where the liquid runs away into streams or soaks into the ground and is lost, and fermentation and “fire-fanging” in loose piles causing much loss of nitrogen and organic matter. METHODS OF CONSERVING MANURE Stables and feed lots should have concrete floors. Practically one- half of the manurial value of the voidings of animals is in the urine, much of which will be lost unless concrete floors are used. At the Ohio Sta- tion it was found that the manure from a thousand-pound steer for six months was worth over $2.00 more when made on a concrete floor than Fig. 6. A concrete manure pit will pay for itself in a short time. Leaching is entirely prevented. By tramping the manure as it is put into the pit, fermentation may be re- duced to a minimum when made on a clay floor. The cost of constructing concrete floors will be paid for in a short time by saving the liquid that would otherwise soak into the ground or drain away. In addition to having concrete floors, enough bedding should be used to absorb all the liquid. Wherever possible, manure should not be stored for any length of time, but should be hauled out and spread upon the land as rapidly as it is made. Except on very sloping ground when frozen in winter, there 1 7 will be practically no loss after the manure is spread. It is not always practical, however, to spread manure as rapidly as it is made. In such cases, provision should be made for storing it in a way to prevent loss as far as possible. The most practical storage place is a concrete pit or en- closure outside of the stable in which the manure can be compactly piled. The pit should be so constructed that the wagon or spreader can be easily loaded from it. Manure should never be thrown out under the eaves of the roof or into loose piles where leaching and fermentation will cause heavy losses. When manure must be piled, it should be thoroughly compacted in perpendicular sided piles kept level or dished on top and built several feet high. Compacting by tramping will exclude air and reduce fermentation. Keeping the pile dished on top will cause rain that falls on it to soak in and further prevent heating. Manure should not be hauled into the field and placed in small piles for spreading later on, as there is certain to be waste through leaching, if not also destructive fer- mentation. The teachings may be taken up by the soil, but the spot where the pile lies will be made unduly rich. By proper attention to the points discussed above, practically all of the manure losses in Indiana stables and feed lots can be prevented. THE VALUE OF MANURE A ton of manure is worth exactly what it will produce in crop in- creases, minus the labor of handling. Manure may have a certain plant food value or a certain organic matter value under a given set of condi- tions, but it is not practical to put any set value upon it for all conditions. On one soil the nitrogen content, on another the phosphorus, and on an- other the potash content may be the important or determining plant food factor in the value of the manure. Likewise, on some soils the organic matter will be more important than on others. A knowledge of the needs of the particular soil is necessary to form anything like a trust- worthy estimate of the value of manure applied to it, and the results of experiments under known soil conditions may be very helpful in arriving at just conclusions. It must be remembered, too, that different lots of manure will vary in composition according to differences in the conditions under which they are made. The quality of the feed, the kind of animals fed, the kind and amount of bedding used, the proportion of the liquid voidings saved, the method of handling and the conditions of storing, all influence the quality and value of the manure. Legume hay and rich concentrated feeds make richer manure than where non-leguminous feeds are used. TIME, PLACE AND METHOD OF APPLYING MANURE As has been stated in the discussion of methods of conserving man- ure, the best time to apply manure is as soon as possible after it is made, in order to prevent losses from fermentation and leaching during storage. Many farmers find it good practice to spread manure on young wheat in the fall or during the winter when the ground is bare and frozen. Such use of manure not only helps the wheat by hastening development in the spring but it also helps to prevent winter-killing by acting as a mulch. It also helps to insure a stand of clover and grass when these i8 are seeded on the wheat. In the summer time, manure can often be spread on young clover or on second growth clover or on oats stubble to be plowed for wheat. The bulk of the manure, however, can be most satisfactorily spread on land to be planted to corn. The organic matter value of manure can undoubtedly be secured to the fullest extent when it is plowed under or otherwise worked in and allowed to decompose in the soil. When incorporated in the soil, manure has an important effect in furthering beneficial bacterial action. It is good practice to disk the ground after applying manure and before plowing, in order to mix it with the soil and avoid throwing it all into the bottom of the furrow. Fine manure may often be used to advantage as a top dressing on corn and other spring planted crops but the rush of other work usually makes this impracticable. Among the methods of applying manure, there is nothing better than the manure spreader. Spreading can never be done as uniformly by hand as with the spreader. It is often claimed that two tons of manure applied with a spreader are as effective as three tons spread with a fork. THE RATE OF MANURING The normal rate of manuring under practical farm conditions, sup- posing that all the produce of the land that can be profitably utilized were fed or used for bedding, would be a pound of manure for every pound of air-dried produce, except the wheat grain. Under such conditions, taking the average produce on the manured land in the seven experiment fields reported in this bulletin, the normal full rate of manuring would be two tons of manure per acre per year, or about six tons per acre once in three years on a corn, wheat and clover rotation averaging 50 bushels of corn, 16 bushels of wheat and 3200 pounds of hay per acre. Where the corn stalks are left in the field, the amount of manure that can be made from the three crops mentioned will be reduced to about four tons per acre per rotation. It will be noted that in the case of the Scottsburg field and the heavier applications on the Purdue field, the rates of manuring have been much heavier than normal. In other words, much more manure has been applied in each round of the rotation than could possibly have been made from the produce of these fields. On the North Vernon, Worth- ington, Wilson Farm and Francisco fields and in the case of the lighter applications on the Purdue field, the rates of manuring have been more nearly normal, or practically equivalent to the amount of manure that could have been made from the produce. These lighter rates of manur- ing in all cases have been more profitable per ton of manure than the heavier applications. It follows, therefore, that making the manure serve the whole farm at a normal rate once per rotation, is more economical than using heavier applications at longer intervals or on only a part of the farm. 19 SUPPLEMENTING MANURE WITH PHOSPHATE On most Indiana soils, manure is not a well balanced fertilizer. All of our ordinary soils are deficient in phosphorus. Manure is also de- ficient in this element. It is, therefore, advisable to supplement the manure with phosphatic fertilizers, preferably acid phosphate. As a general farm practice, where the manure is plowed under for corn, the acid phosphate can be most conveniently applied once for the entire rota- tion by means of a fertilizer attachment on the drill when seeding a small grain crop, using from 200 to 300 pounds per acre, according to the length of the rotation. If preferred, the same result can be accomplished by sprinkling the acid phosphate on top of the manure in the manure spreader, using about 40 or 50 pounds of the phosphate per ton of manure. Very striking results have been secured by this station from supple- menting manure with phosphates on several different soil types. On the North Vernon and Worthington experiment fields, the addition of 200 pounds of acid phosphate to a six-ton application of manure per acre per rotation of corn, wheat and clover has produced additional crop increases valued at $14.98 and $21.44, respectively, at a cost of $2.25 for the phos- phate at $25.00 per ton. At South Bend, under similar conditions of crop- ping and manuring, the addition of $5.46 worth of acid phosphate 'has produced crop increases valued at $12.52. On the Bedford field several different rates of supplementing manure with acid phosphate have been tried with a six-ton application of manure per acre per rotation of corn, wheat and clover with results as follows: 150 pounds of acid phosphate produced crop increases valued at $19.64, 300 pounds produced $25.98, 450 pounds produced $31.22 and 1000 pounds produced $57.68 worth of crop increase per acre per rotation over and above the increases pro- duced by the manure. MANURE AND COMPLETE FERTILIZER As to whether or not it will pay to use a complete fertilizer in addi- tion to manure, other experiments on several of the fields reported show that this depends upon the condition of the land as regards the supply of organic matter and nitrogen. On the North Vernon field, which is very low in these constituents, the application of 200 pounds per acre of a 2-8-4 fertilizer, on wheat in addition to six tons of manure and 200 pounds of acid phosphate on corn once in three years has paid a profit of $1.58, while on the other fields, all of which are somewhat better supplied with organic matter and nitrogen, it has not paid. MANURE VS. FERTILIZER Another question which arises is to what extent fertilizer can take the place of manure. On the North Vernon and Worthington fields, $9.13 worth of fertilizer per rotation, consisting of 200 pounds acid phos- phate on corn and 200 pounds 2-8-4 on wheat, has produced crop in- creases worth $33.36 and $26.73 respectively, while six tons of manure have produced crop increases worth $57.00 and $29.40 respectively. At Scottsburg, $12.43 worth of 2-8-4 fertilizer has produced crop increases worth $22.96, while 10 tons of manure have produced crop increases 20 worth $51.29. At Bedford $27.52 worth of fertilizer consisting of 400 pounds per acre of 0-8-4 on corn and 400 pounds of 4-8-4 on wheat in a four-year rotation of corn, wheat, clover and timothy has produced crop increases valued at $57.03, while eight tons of manure have pro- duced crop increases valued at $37.06 per acre per rotation. The rela- tive importance of phosphorus is again strikingly illustrated on this field where 800 pounds* of 0-8-0 per rotation, costing $5.12, produced crop increases worth $50.55, while 800 pounds of 2-8-4 used in the same way and costing $27.52 produced $52.54 worth of crop increases. The value of phosphorus, even where land is well manured, is further illustrated in another test where eight tons of manure alone produced crop increases worth $32.16, while the same amount of manure reinforced with 400 pounds of acid phosphate produced $63.18 worth of crop increase. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt a systematic rotation of crops, including clover or some other legume at least once every three or four years. Wherever clover fails to do well, apply two or more tons of ground limestone to the acre. See that the land is properly drained and practice good tillage methods. Feed as much of the produce as possible and carefully conserve and re- turn to the land the manure produced, as well as any unused crop residues. Apply from 150 to 200 pounds per acre of acid phosphate or some other available phosphate to each grain crop in the rotation. In a per- manent system, where manure is applied for corn, enough phosphate for the whole rotation may be most conveniently applied when seeding wheat or oats. Under certain systems of farming, where the crops are not all fed on the farm, it will pay, under normal conditions, to add some nitrogen and potash in the fertilizer. If acid phosphate or other available phosphate cannot be secured, a mixed fertilizer as high as possible in available phosphoric acid should be used. RECENT PURDUE PUBLICATIONS RELATING TO SOIL FERTILITY Experiment Station Bulletin No. 210. The Value of Phosphates on In- diana Soils. Experiment Station Bulletin No. 213. The Value of Time on Indiana Soils. Experiment Station Circular No. 66. The Time and Fertilizer Needs of Indiana Soils. Experiment Station Circular No. 76. Increasing Crop Yields for War Needs. Experiment Station Circular No. 79. Indiana Soils Need Phosphates. Ud/I XAZb PURDUE UNIVERSITY Agricultural Experiment Station UNIVERSITY CF FLUIDS l WRY Bulletin No. 223 APR 3 0 1919 September, 1918 Fig. 1. Good management, sanitation and proper vaccination will prevent disease SO-CALLED MEDICINAL HOG CHOLERA REMEDIES AND CURES Published by the Station: LAFAYETTE, INDIANA U. S. A. SO-CALLED MEDICINAL HOG CHOLERA REMEDIES AND CURES C. H. Cunk D. B. Clark INTRODUCTION The prevalence of hog cholera in Indiana and neighboring states has been responsible for the introduction and advertising of numerous so- called preventives or cures. Tests carried on by the Station have proved these to be worthless in controlling the disease. Previous to the enactment of the Swine Disease law in 1913, a great many of these proprietary preparations were advertised widely by agri- cultural papers and were used largely by farmers and feeders of hogs having outbreaks of hog cholera in their herds. The prevalence of hog cholera from 1911 to 1915 resulted in the venders of these so-called remedies becoming very active in the State and in order to protect the swine industry, the General Assembly in 1913 passed a law requiring the testing of all preparations claimed to be pre- ventives, remedies or cures for hog cholera, by the Purdue Agricultural Experiment Station. Section 9 of this law is as follows d “Hog Cholera Serum — Test Approved by Purdue University. Sec. 9. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corpora- tion or their agents to sell or dispose of in any way anti-hog- cholera serum or hog-cholera virus, or any other serum or so- called serum or vaccine, or any other remedy, in this state, un- less said serum or virus or any other remedy, has been tested and approved by the Purdue University Agricultural Experiment Station, and a permit issued by state veterinarian to said per- son, firm or corporation or their agents, allowing him or them to sell or use said serums, vaccines or virus or any other remedy for the purpose of vaccinating swine against hog cholera or any infectious disease, or treating swine affected with hog cholera or any infectious disease. Said serum, virus, or so-called serum or vaccine or any other re medy shall meet any test required by said experiment station for potency, protective properties, virulence, or freedom from such organisms as may cause septic infection before the state veterinarian shall issue said permit, and if at any time after said permit has been issued said serum or virus or any other remedy does not meet with such a test for potency, protec- tive properties, virulence or freedom from such organisms as may cause septic infection, said permit shall be revoked by the state veterinarian.” In compliance with the provisions of this law, generally known as the Swine Disease law, the Veterinary Department of the Station has tested 20 different preparations during the past five years. Duplicate tests were made of three of the preparations, making a total of 23 tests. * Acts — Indiana, 1913, Chapter 135, Sec. 9 4 Each test, upon completion, was reported promptly and in detail to the State Veterinarian with such recommendations for his action as were warranted by the facts. Several other preparations than those discussed in this bulletin were offered for sale but upon presentation to their proprietors of a copy of the law, and a request for samples of the material for testing, were in each case withdrawn from sale and claims made in regard to the value in the cure or prevention of hog cholera were discontinued. A great many preparations were offered for testing but it was found impossible to make tests of all on account of lack of funds. The policy of the Station has been to test every so-called remedy which was actually produced and offered for sale, but to refuse to test theoretical formulas, the supposed value of which for the control of hog cholera, their originators wished to have tested. Fig. 2 . The hogs marked X have hog cholera. Experience and tests indicate that the so-called medicinal remedies will not control the disease or prevent its spread to the rest of the herd. Prompt vaccination, using the serum-simultaneous treatment with good serum, is the most satisfactory and profitable method of controlling hog cholera PLAN The general plan of testing medicinal mixtures and other prepara- tions advertised or sold as preventives and cures for hog cholera has been as follows: from five to 29 hogs, weighing from 60 to 100 pounds, were used for testing each of the remedies. All of the hogs were exposed to hog cholera by inoculating them with hog cholera blood, or placing them in a cholera infected pen. Part of the hogs were treated with the prepara- tion according to the directions, and the balance was not treated. Daily observations of the conditions, symptoms, and body temperatures of the test lot were made. All were given the same feed and care. The fol- lowing is a description of each test. Cunningham Hog Cholera Remedy A sample of the Cunningham Hog Cholera Remedy was submitted to Dr. W. E. Coover, former State Veterinarian, who delivered it to the Station for testing purposes. Thirteen pigs were treated with the preparation according to direc- tions and 13 pigs were left untreated as controls. All but one of the treated pigs died, and all of the control pigs died or were killed when fatal symptoms of hog cholera were shown. All of the dead pigs, both treated and untreated, showed lesions of hog cholera upon post-mortem examin- ation. This remedy was withdrawn from sale. National 23 An advertised preparation for hog cholera known as National 23, sold by the National Breeders Company, Toledo, Ohio, was placed on test October 15, 1913. Seven pigs were treated with the preparation according to directions and six pigs were left as controls. All pigs were placed in infected pens and none of them showed any symptoms of dis- ease, proving they were immune to cholera. The test was repeated November 19, 1913. Five pigs were used in making the second test of National 23, three being treated and two left as control pigs. All five pigs died and showed lesions of hog cholera upon post-mortem examination, showing that the preparation had no value as a hog cholera preventive or cure. Table I. — Data Obtained in Test of National 23 (first test) Hog number Method of infection Dose of preparation Results 777 pen exposure 3.8 C.C. lived 778 pen exposure 3.2 C.C. lived 779 pen exposure 3.8 c.c. lived 780 pen exposure 3.9 c.c. lived 781 pen exposure lived 782 pen exposure lived 783 pen exposure lived 896 pen exposure lived 897 pen exposure lived 898 pen exposure lived 899 pen exposure 4.2 c.c. lived 900 pen exposure 3.9 c.c. lived 901 pen exposure 4.0 c.c. lived Table II. — Data Obtained in Test of National 23 (second test) Hog number Method of infection Dose of preparation Results 778 pen exposure 3.9 c.c. died 31st day; cholera lesions 779 pen exposure 4.2 c.c. died 17th day; cholera lesions 780 pen exposure 3.2 c.c. died 13th day; cholera lesions 781 pen exposure died 19th day; cholera lesions 782 pen exposure died 11th day; cholera lesions 6 U. S. Specific A preparation produced by the U. S. Specific Company, Indianap- olis, Indiana, which had been widely advertised and sold in the State, was tested on eight pigs, four being treated with the preparation accord- ing to the manufacturer’s directions, and the remainder left untreated as controls. The test was started January 7, 1914. The prepar- ation furnished was a clear, colorless solution like water in appearance. The test pigs were exposed to pen infection and both treated and control pigs died and showed lesions of hog cholera upon post-mortem exam- ination. The test showed that the preparation was of no value in curing or preventing hog cholera. Table III. — Data Obtained in Test of U. S. Specific Hog number Method of infection Dose of preparation Results 171 pen exposure 3.0 C.C. died 11th day; cholera lesions 172 pen exposure 3.0 C.C. died 12th day; cholera lesions 173 pen exposure 4.5 c.c. died 20th day; cholera lesions 174 pen exposure 3.0 c.c. died 30th day; cholera lesions 175 pen exposure died 11th day; cholera lesions 176 pen exposure died 17th day; cholera lesions 177 pen exposure died 11th day; cholera lesions 178 pen exposure died 11th day; cholera lesions American Specific No. 2 The American Specific Company, Elgin, Illinois, with a branch of- fice at Indiana Harbor, Indiana, produced a preparation called American Specific No. 2, which was guaranteed to immunize hogs previously ex- posed to hog cholera. A test of this preparation was started January 7, 1914. The material furnished was a clear, colorless liquid resembling water in appearance. Eight pigs were used in the test, four being treated with the preparation according to the manufacturer’s directions. One treated pig and one control pig survived the test, all the others dying and exhibiting hog cholera lesions upon post-mortem examination. The test proved that American Specific No. 2, possessed no curative or preventive properties against hog cholera. Table IV. — Data Obtained in Test of American Specific No. 2 Hog number Method of infection Dose of preparation Results 163 pen exposure 3.0 c.c. died 30th day; cholera lesions 164 pen exposure 3.2 c.c. died 28th day; cholera lesions 165 pen exposure 3.5 c.c. died 14th day; cholera lesions 166 pen exposure 4.0 c.c. lived 167 pen exposure died 18th day; cholera lesions 168 pen exposure lived 169 • pen exposure died 15th day; cholera lesions 170 pen exposure died 20th day; cholera lesions 7 Preparation Prepared by S. H. Colbert A preparation known as Blue Moon Hog Corrector produced by the Blue Moon Stock Corrector Company, Crawfordsville, Indiana, was tested out on eight pigs, four of which were treated with the preparation according to directions (one tablespoonful per pig each day in the feed) and the remaining four pigs were used as controls. The test was begun February 18, 1914. The material was in the form of a white powder. All the test pigs died and showed lesions of hog cholera upon post-mortem examination. The test proved this preparation to be of no value in curing or pre- venting hog cholera. Table V. — Data Obtained in Test of Blue Moon Hog Corrector Hog Method of infection Treated and Results number untreated 339 pen exposure treated died 24th day; cholera lesions 340 pen exposure treated died 25th day; cholera lesions 341 pen exposure treated died 27th day; cholera lesions 342 pen exposure treated died 31st day; cholera lesions 343 pen exposure untreated died 18th day; cholera lesions 344 pen exposure untreated died 18th day; cholera lesions 345 pen exposure untreated died 12th day; cholera lesions 346 pen exposure untreated died 20th day; cholera lesions Preparation Prepared by S. H. Colbert A hog cholera preparation prepared by S. H. Colbert of Wheatland, Indiana, was tested on 20 pigs. The test was begun August 3, 1914. Ten pigs received the preparation as per directions and 10 were left untreated as controls. Five pigs in each lot were inoculated with two cubic centi- meters each of hog cholera blood and all were placed in infected pens. Seven of the treated pigs and eight of the untreated pigs died, showing extensive lesions of hog cholera upon post-mortem examination. The result of the test proved the material to be of no value as a hog cholera cure or preventive and the sale of it was discontinued by the proprietor. The proprietor of this preparation was present and superintended the administration of the material to the treated pigs. 8 Table VI. — Data Obtained in Test of a Preparation Prepared by S. H. Colbert Hog number Method of infection Treated and untreated Results 911 cholera blood inoculation treated died 5th day; cholera lesions 912 cholera blood inoculation treated died 8th day; cholera lesions 913 cholera blood inoculation treated died 5th day; cholera lesions 914 pen exposure treated lived 915 pen exposure treated died 9th day; cholera lesions 916 pen exposure treated lived 917 cholera blood inoculation treated died 7th day; cholera lesions 918 pen exposure treated lived 919 pen exposure treated died 8th day; cholera lesions 920 cholera blood inoculation treated died 7th day; cholera lesions 928 pen exposure untreated lived 929 pen exposure untreated died 14th day; cholera lesions 930 cholera blood inoculation untreated died 11th day; cholera lesions 931 pen exposure untreated lived 932 cholera blood inoculation untreated died 8th day; cholera lesions 933 cholera blood inoculation untreated died 11th day; cholera lesions 934 pen exposure untreated died 9th day; cholera lesions 935 pen exposure untreated died 15th day; cholera lesions 936 cholera blood inoculation untreated died 12th day; cholera lesions 937 cholera blood inoculation untreated died 14th day; cholera lesions Crosier's Hog Cholera Cure A preparation known as Crosier’s Hog Cholera Cure, manufactured by the Crosier’s Stock and Poultry Powder Company, New Albany, Indiana, was tested on 20 pigs, 10 of which received the preparation as per directions and the others left as control pigs. All of the pigs showed abnormal temperatures on the first day of the test. This material was put on test August 4, 1914. Five pigs in each lot were inoculated with two cubic centimeters of hog cholera blood each and all of them placed in infected pens. Seven in each lot died and exhibited lesions of hog cholera upon post-mortem examination, and three in each lot recov- ered. The directions on the label were as follows : “Give a tablespoonful to each hog twice a day in soft feed or slop, but if they are too sick to eat, drench them by mixing the medicine in a drenching bottle with water, then roll the animal on its back and it can be drenched very easily, and in cases of over-feeding or when they are off their feed, give once or twice a day, and when disease is in the herd give to all alike morning and evening, as this prevents those that are appar- ently healthy from taking the disease.” The result of the test showed the remedy to be without value in cur- ing or preventing hog cholera. 9 Table VII. — Data Obtained in Test of Crosier’s Hog Cholera Cure Hog number Method of infection Treated and untreated Results 901 pen exposure treated lived 902 1 pen exposure treated died 7th day; cholera lesions 903 cholera blood inoculation treated died 7th day; cholera lesions 904 pen exposure treated died 10th day; cholera lesions 905 cholera blood inoculation treated lived 906 cholera blood inoculation treated lived 907 cholera blood inoculation treated died 8th day; cholera lesions 908 pen exposure treated died 13th day; cholera lesions 909 cholera blood inoculation treated died 10th day; cholera lesions 910 1 pen exposure treated died 5th day; cholera lesions 948 cholera blood inoculation untreated died 10th day; cholera lesions 944 cholera blood inoculation untreated lived 942 1 cholera blood inoculation untreated died 8th day; cholera lesions 946 cholera blood inoculation untreated died 10th day; cholera lesions 943 1 cholera blood inoculation untreated died 10th day; cholera lesions 940 pen exposure untreated lived 949 pen exposure untreated died 8th day; cholera lesions 945 pen exposure untreated died 8th day; cholera lesions 947 1 pen exposure untreated lived 938 1 pen exposure untreated died 14th day; cholera lesions 1 Hogs Nos. 902, 910, 942, 943, 947 and 938 had abnormal body temperatures the first day of the test Vaxall A preparation known as Vaxall prepared by Drs. Parrett and Mon- toux of Indianapolis, was tested, beginning August 3, 1914, and extend- ing to August 22. The proprietors of this material were present and administered their preparation. Ten treated pigs and 10 control pigs were used, five in each lot being inoculated with one cubic centimeter of hog cholera blood each, and the others received pen exposure. Four of the controls and five of the treated pigs died. On account of the num- ber of control pigs remaining alive at the conclusion of the test, it was deemed advisable to duplicate the test as a partial immunity was indicated in the pigs used. A second test of the Vaxall preparation was started on August 19, 1914, and continued until September 9, 1914. Drs. Parrett and Montoux, the proprietors of this preparation, were present and personally administered the material. Twenty pigs were used, 10 being treated and 10 used as controls. Several pigs showed abnormal temperatures when placed on test. Five of the treated pigs and five of the control pigs were injected with one cubic centimeter of hog cholera blood each and the others subjected to pen exposure. Three of the treated pigs and three of the control pigs that received one cubic centimeter of the virus died and two in each lot lived. One of the treated pigs and three of the control pigs that received pen exposure died. In all, six of the 10 treated pigs and four of the con- trol pigs lived. The two tests showed that Vaxall was not a remedy or preventive for hog cholera. Inquiries later in regard to Vaxall from other states IO gave the information that the preparation was being sold and recommend- ed for the cure and prevention of hog cholera in other sections, especially in the South. Table; VIII. — Data Obtained in Test of Vaxall (first test) Hog number Method of infection Treated and untreated Results 002 : 1 cholera blood inoculation untreated lived 603 1 cholera blood inoculation untreated died 8th day; cholera lesions 604 cholera blood inoculation untreated lived 605 cholera blood inoculation untreated lived 606 cholera blood inoculation untreated died 7th day; cholera lesions 607 pen exposure untreated lived 608 pen exposure untreated lived 609 1 pen exposure untreated died 6th day; cholera lesions 610 pen exposure untreated died 8th day; cholera lesions 611 pen exposure untreated lived 701 cholera blood inoculation treated lived 702 cholera blood inoculation treated lived 703 cholera blood inoculation treated lived 704 cholera blood inoculation treated lived 705 cholera blood inoculation treated died 12th day; cholera lesions 706 1 pen exposure treated died 8th day; cholera lesions 707 1 pen exposure treated died 13th day; cholera lesions 708 pen exposure treated lived 709 pen exposure treated died 16th day; cholera lesions 710 pen exposure treated died 13th day; cholera lesions 1 Hogs Nos. 602, 603, 609, 706 and 707 had abnormal body temperatures the first day of the test Table IX. — Data Obtained in Test of Vaxall (second test) Hog number Method of infection Treated and untreated Results 528 cholera blood inoculation treated lived 529 cholera blood inoculation treated lived 530 cholera blood inoculation treated died 17th day; cholera lesions 531 cholera blood inoculation treated died 21st day; cholera lesions 532 cholera blood inoculation treated died 14th day; cholera lesions 533 pen exposure treated lived 534 pen exposure treated lived 535 pen exposure treated lived 536 pen exposure treated lived 537 pen exposure treated died 23rd day; cholera lesions 538 cholera blood inoculation untreated lived 539 cholera blood inoculation untreated died 10th day; cholera lesions 540 cholera blood inoculation untreated died 9th day; cholera lesions 541 cholera blood inoculation untreated lived 542 cholera blood inoculation untreated died 21st day; cholera lesions 543 pen exposure untreated died 10th day; cholera lesions 544 pen exposure untreated died 11th day; cholera lesions 545 pen exposure untreated lived 546 pen exposure untreated lived 547 pen exposure untreated died 10th day; cholera lesions Preparation Prepared by A. J. Keubeer A preparation produced and sold by A. J. Keubler, Mt. Vernon, In- diana, was tested on 20 pigs. The proprietor was present and admin- istered the material on August 19, 1914. Ten pigs were treated with the remedy and 10 were left untreated as control pigs. Five pigs in each lot received one cubic centimeter of hog cholera blood each, intramuscularly, and the others were subjected to pen exposure. Seven treated pigs and seven control pigs died and showed lesions of hog cholera upon post- mortem examination and six pigs survived. The test showed the preparation to be without value as a cure or preventive for hog cholera. Tabee X. — Data Obtained in Test of a Preparation Prepared by A. J . Keubler Hog number Method of infection Treated and untreated Results 505 cholera blood inoculation treated died 11th day; cholera lesions 506 cholera blood inoculation treated died 20th day; cholera lesions 507 cholera blood inoculation treated died 23rd day; cholera lesions 508 cholera blood inoculation treated lived 509 cholera blood inoculation treated lived 510 pen exposure treated died 9th day; cholera lesions 511 pen exposure treated died 11th day; cholera lesions 512 pen exposure treated died 16th day; cholera lesions 513 pen exposure treated lived 514 pen exposure treated died 14th day; cholera lesions 516 cholera blood inoculation untreated died 21st day; cholera lesions 517 cholera blood inoculation untreated lived 518 cholera blood inoculation untreated died 14th day; cholera lesions 519 cholera blood inoculation untreated died 18th day; cholera lesions 520 cholera blood inoculation untreated lived 521 cholera blood inoculation untreated died 8th day; cholera lesions 522 pen exposure untreated lived 523 pen exposure untreated died 11th day; cholera lesions 525 pen exposure untreated died 10th day; cholera lesions 526 pen exposure untreated died 14th day; cholera lesions 544 A test was made on a widely advertised material known as 544. pro- duced by the Thiele Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio, beginning December 21, 1914. Eighteen pigs were used, 10 receiving the preparation according to the manufacturer’s directions, each pig receiving 10 cubic centimeters of it injected intramuscularly, and the remaining eight pigs left untreated as controls. Five treated pigs were injected with one cubic centimeter of hog cholera blood each and four control pigs were subjected to pen ex- posure. All the pigs in the test died or were killed and showed lesions of hog cholera upon post-mortem examination. A second test starting January 18, 1915, was made, in which 21 pigs were used, 10 pigs receiving the preparation according to directions and 11 pigs were used as controls. Five treated pigs and six control pigs received one cubic centimeter of hog cholera blood each, injected in- tramuscularly and the others were subjected to pen exposure. All the pigs except Nos. 205 and 217 used in the test died or were killed after exhibiting fatal symptoms of hog cholera. These two tests showed the material to be without value as a hog cholera cure or preventive. Tests made at other state experiment sta- tions, notably in Iowa, Kentucky and Ohio, gave the same results. Al- though these tests showed that 544 is not a preventive or cure for hog cholera, the remedy was advertised for sale by one of the leading agricul- tural papers in the country, although notified regarding the results of these tests. None of the Indiana farm papers advertised this preparation. Table XI. — Data Obtained in Test of 544 (first test) Hog number Method of infection Treated and untreated Results 941 cholera blood inoculation treated killed 10th day; cholera lesions 443 cholera blood inoculation treated killed 10th day; cholera lesions 944 cholera blood inoculation treated killed 10th day; cholera lesions 945 cholera blood inoculation treated killed 10th day; cholera lesions 946 cholera blood inoculation treated killed 10th day; cholera lesions 947 pen exposure treated died 14th day; cholera lesions 949 pen exposure treated died 14th day; cholera lesions 950 pen exposure treated died 18th day; cholera lesions 952 pen exposure treated died 14th day; cholera lesions 953 pen exposure treated died 16th day; cholera lesions 954 cholera blood inoculation untreated killed 8th day; cholera lesions 955 cholera blood inoculation untreated killed 10th day; cholera lesions 956 cholera blood inoculation untreated killed 10th day; cholera lesions 958 cholera blood inoculation untreated killed 9th day; cholera lesions 959 pen exposure untreated died 17th day; cholera lesions 960 pen exposure untreated died 16th day; cholera lesions 962 pen exposure untreated died 18th day; cholera lesions 963 pen exposure untreated died 20th day; cholera lesions 13 Table XII. — Data Obtained in Test of 544 (second test) Hog Method of infection Treated and Results number untreated 205 pen exposure treated lived 206 pen exposure treated killed 9th day; cholera lesions 207 pen exposure treated died 24th day; cholera lesions 208 pen exposure treated died 12th day; cholera lesions 209 pen exposure treated died 11th day; cholera lesions 210 cholera blood inoculation treated killed 10th day; cholera lesions 211 cholera blood inoculation treated killed 10th day; cholera lesions 212 cholera blood inoculation treated killed 10th day; cholera lesions 213 cholera blood inoculation treated killed 9th day; cholera lesions 214 cholera blood inoculation treated died 12th day; cholera lesions 215 pen exposure untreated died 14th day; cholera lesions 216 pen exposure untreated died 19th day; cholera lesions 217 pen exposure untreated lived 218 pen exposure untreated died 13th day; cholera lesions 219 pen exposure untreated died 13th day; cholera lesions 220 cholera blood inoculation untreated killed 9th day; cholera lesions 221 cholera blood inoculation untreated died 11th day; cholera lesions 222 cholera blood inoculation untreated killed 8th day; cholera lesions 223 cholera blood inoculation untreated killed 8th day; cholera lesions 224 cholera blood inoculation untreated died 12th day; cholera lesions 247 cholera blood inoculation untreated died 13th day; cholera lesions Porcine A sample of a preparation recommended for the treatment of hog cholera produced by the Porcine Remedy Company, Marion, Ohio, was secured and tested on 20 pigs, 10 of which were injected with one cubic centimeter of hog cholera virus each and 10 exposed to pen infection. All of the treated pigs and eight of the control pigs died and showed exten- sive lesions of hog cholera upon post-mortem examination. The material known as Porcine is a red liquid that is injected in- tramuscularly in 20 cubic centimeter doses. The pigs used averaged about 70 pounds in weight. The preparation was shown upon test to be without value as a cure or preventive for hog cholera and the manufacturers discontinued selling it in Indiana. The test began January 7 and ended January 25, 1915. 14 Tabus XIII.- — Data Obtained in Test of Porcine Hog number Method of infection Treated and untreated Results Y- 9 pen exposure untreated died 14th day; cholera lesions Y-10 pen exposure untreated lived Y-ll pen exposure untreated lived Y-12 pen exposure untreated died 10th day; cholera lesions Y-13 pen exposure untreated died 13th day; cholera lesions Y-14 cholera blood inoculation untreated died 13th day; cholera lesions Y-15 cholera blood inoculation untreated died 8th day; cholera lesions Y-16 cholera blood inoculation untreated died 9th day; cholera lesions Y-17 cholera blood inoculation untreated died 9th day; cholera lesions Y-18 cholera blood inoculation untreated died 9th day; cholera lesions Y-19 pen exposure treated died 13th day; cholera lesions Y-20 pen exposure treated died 17th day; cholera lesions Y-21 pen exposure treated died 18th day; cholera lesions Y-22 pen exposure treated died 21st day; cholera lesions Y-23 pen exposure treated died 20th day; cholera lesions Y-24 cholera blood inoculation treated died 10th day; cholera lesions Y-25 cholera blood inoculation treated died 12th day; cholera lesions Y-26 cholera blood inoculation treated died 14th day; cholera lesions Y-27 cholera blood inoculation treated died 10th day; cholera lesions Y-28 cholera blood inoculation treated died 12th day; cholera lesions John Dobry’s Remedy A preparation manufactured by the John Dobry Manufacturing Company, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, was tested on 20 pigs, 10 being treated with the material according to the directions of the manufacturer and 10 used as controls. The preparation was placed on test January 18, 1915. Five of the treated pigs and five of the control pigs were injected with one cubic cehtimeter of hog cholera blood each and 10 were subjected to pen exposure. On the twenty-first day of the test, four of the treated pigs and seven of the control pigs were alive and these were given one cubic centimeter of hog cholera blood each. Six days later pig No. 230 died, showing lesions of hog cholera. This was one of the treated pigs subjected to pen exposure. In all, seven treated pigs and three control pigs died. A statement made by the manufacturers in advertising was as fol- lows : “The Dobry Hog Remedy is the first and only positive cure and preventive known to the world. It cures and prevents so-called hog cholera in its first stages, cures thumps, cough, scours, and sick suckling pigs, makes sows bring strong, healthy pigs, and makes pigs grow rap- idly, and is 100 per cent better as preventive or cure than the serum treatment.” The test of this remedy proved that it was not a cure or preventive for hog cholera and could not be recommended for a license in Indiana. 15 Table XIV. — Data Obtained in Test of John Dobry’s Remedy Hog number Method of infection Treated and untreated Results Y-205 cholera blood inoculation treated died 11th day; cholera lesions Y-226 cholera blood inoculation treated died 11th day; cholera lesions Y-227 cholera blood inoculation treated lived Y-228 cholera blood inoculation treated died 13th day; cholera lesions Y-229 cholera blood inoculation treated died 11th day; cholera lesions Y-230 pen exposure treated died 27th day; cholera lesions Y-231 pen exposure treated died 15th day; cholera lesions Y-233 pen exposure treated died 14th day; cholera lesions Y-234 pen exposure treated lived Y-235 pen exposure treated lived Y-236 pen exposure untreated lived Y-237 cholera blood inoculation untreated lived Y-238 pen exposure untreated lived Y-239 pen exposure untreated lived J-24i pen exposure untreated lived Y-242 cholera blood inoculation untreated lived Y-243 cholera blood inoculation untreated died 16th day; cholera lesions Y-244 cholera blood inoculation untreated lived Y-245 cholera blood inoculation untreated died 11th day; cholera lesions Y-246 cholera blood inoculation untreated died 11th day; cholera lesions Perry's Swine Lixir Perry’s Swine Lixir was submitted by the Swine Elixir Mfg. Co., Moultrie, Ga. The test was begun October 7, 1915 and 15 pigs were used in the test, eight being treated with the remedy and seven used as con- trols. The pigs were exposed to the disease by placing them in a cholera- infected pen and the preparation administered according to directions, one teaspoonful per hog twice weekly. All the control pigs and all but one of the treated pigs died after showing fatal symptoms of disease. The results of the test show that this preparation is without value as a remedy for hog cholera. Table XV. — Data obtained in Test of Perry’s Swine Lixir Hog Method of infection Treated and Results number untreated Y-41 pen exposure treated lived Y-43 pen exposure treated died 15th day; cholera lesions Y-46 pen exposure treated died 16th day; cholera lesions Y-47 pen exposure treated died 16th day ; cholera lesions Y-50 pen exposure treated died 17th day; cholera lesions Y-51 pen exposure treated died 14th day; cholera lesions Y-52 pen exposure treated died 15th day; cholera lesions Y-53 pen exposure treated died 16th day; cholera lesions Y-42 pen exposure untreated died 17th day; cholera lesions Y-44 pen exposure untreated died 19th day; cholera lesions Y-45 pen exposure untreated died 20th day; cholera lesions Y-48 pen exposure untreated died 18th day; cholera lesions Y-49 pen exposure untreated died 20th day; cholera lesions Y-54 pen exposure untreated died 13th day; cholera lesions Y-55 pen exposure untreated died 16th day; cholera lesions i6 Puritan Tablets John G. Taylor, Hotel DeSoto, New Orleans, La., recommended a preparation known as Puritan Tablets. The remedy had not been sold or advertised in Indiana. These tablets were fed to the treated pigs as directed, 20 tablets in slop feed once a day, beginning October 12, 1915. Twenty pigs were used in the test, 10 being treated and 10 left un- treated as controls. Two of the treated pigs and three of the controls survived. Mr. Taylor was present at intervals but did not superintend the test. TabuE XVI. — Data Obtained in Test of Puritan Tablets Hog number Method of infection Treated and untreated Results Y-56 pen exposure treated died 18th day; cholera lesions Y-57 pen exposure treated died 18th day; cholera lesions Y-59 pen exposure treated lived Y-61 pen exposure treated died 20th day; cholera lesions Y-63 pen exposure treated died 11th day; cholera lesions Y-64 pen exposure treated died 16th day; cholera lesions Y-65 pen exposure treated died 11th day; cholera lesions Y-66 pen exposure treated died 16th day; cholera lesions Y-69 pen exposure treated lived Y-70 pen exposure treated died 13th day; cholera lesions Y-58 pen exposure untreated died 31st day; cholera lesions Y-60 pen exposure untreated died 17th day; cholera lesions Y-62 pen exposure untreated died 18th day; cholera lesions Y-67 pen exposure untreated died 18th day; cholera lesions Y-68 pen exposure untreated died 21st day; cholera lesions Y-72 pen exposure untreated lived Y-73 pen exposure untreated died 20th day; cholera lesions Y-74 pen exposure untreated lived Y-75 pen exposure untreated lived Y-77 pen exposure untreated died 15th' ffay; cholera lesions Cal-Sino Hog Restorative A preparation named Cal-Sino Hog Restorative and manufactured by the Cal-Sino Company, Inc., Baltimore, Maryland, was placed on test with 29 pigs, 15 of which were treated with the material according to the manufacturer’s directions and 14 pigs were used as controls. The test was begun September 29, 1916. The material is a brownish powder and the recommendations accom- panying it call for a daily dose of a heaping tablespoonful of the remedy, mixed with ground feed, for each 200 pounds live weight. The litera- ture advertising the preparation makes no direct statement that the remedy will prevent or cure hog cholera, but the statements made are so worded as to lead the reader to understand that the preparation is effective in curing or preventing the disease. On the cover of a booklet describing this material is printed : “How you can prevent and cure cholera with Cal-Sino Hog Restora- tive and get your pork production up to the top notch.” 1 7 All of the test pigs were killed when fatal symptoms of hog cholera were exhibited, from the fourth to the eighth day. Several of these pigs showed high 'body temperatures the day the test was started. The average maximum temperature between the first and fifth days of this lot of pigs was 104.7 degrees. The result of the test proved that hog cholera cannot be cured by using Cal-Sino Hog Restorative. Table XVII. — Data Obtained in Test of Cal-Sino Hog Restorative Hog number Method of infection Treated and untreated Results 395 pen exposure untreated killed 4th day; cholera lesions 396 pen exposure untreated killed 8th day; cholera lesions 397 pen exposure untreated killed 5th day; cholera lesions 398 pen exposure untreated killed 7th day; cholera lesions 399 pen exposure untreated killed 7th day; cholera lesions 400 pen exposure untreated killed 7th day; cholera lesions 403 pen exposure untreated killed 7th day; cholera lesions 404 1 pen exposure untreated killed 4th day; cholera lesions 405 pen exposure untreated killed 7th day; cholera lesions 406 pen exposure untreated killed 7th day; cholera lesions 407 pen exposure untreated killed 7th day; cholera lesions 408 pen exposure untreated killed 7th day; cholera lesions 409 pen exposure untreated killed 7th day; cholera lesions 410 pen exposure untreated killed 10th day; cholera lesions 426 1 pen exposure treated killed 6th day; cholera lesions 427 pen exposure treated killed 7th day; cholera lesions 428 pen exposure treated killed 7th day; cholera lesions 429 1 pen exposure treated killed 7th day; cholera lesions 430 pen exposure treated killed 6th day; cholera lesions 431 pen exposure treated killed 8th day; cholera lesions 432 pen exposure treated killed 7th day; cholera lesions 433 1 pen exposure treated killed 4th day; cholera lesions 434 pen exposure treated killed 6th day; cholera lesions 435 pen exposure treated killed 7th day; cholera lesions 436 1 pen exposure treated killed 6th day; cholera lesions 437 pen exposure treated killed 7th day; cholera lesions 438 pen exposure treated killed 7th day; cholera lesions 439 pen exposure treated killed 7th day; cholera lesions 440 1 pen exposure treated killed 6th day; cholera lesions 1 Hogs Nols. 404, 426, 429, 433, 436 and 440 had abnormal body temperatures the first day of the test Bourbon Remedy A sample of Bourbon Remedy manufactured by the Bourbon Remedy Company, Lexington, Kentucky, was secured from a distributor and test- ed on 20 pigs, 10 of which were treated with the preparation according to directions and io remained as control pigs. The test was started April 3, 1916. All the pigs were subjected to pen exposure. Six of the treated pigs and eight of the control pigs died and exhibited lesions of hog cholera upon post-mortem examination. The literature of the manufacturer makes the following statements : “One cholera germ divides into four germs in twenty minutes. These again subdivide into sixteen others in twenty minutes, so that if this rate i8 is steadily maintained, a single germ becomes four thousand in two hours, and one thousand billions in ten hours. An animal affected with cholera is literally ‘eaten up alive’ by these germs. Filling the intestines in countless numbers, their ravages in two or three days so disarrange the system that the secretion of gastric juice is suspended, and the germs reenter the stomach in safety; then follows vomiting, collapse and death. Special Instructions Cholera in hogs is similar to typhoid fever in human beings. In treating this disease the care and nursing of the sick is fully as important as the administering of medicines. The infected animals should be provided with clean, dry, comfort- able quarters. To prevent over-heating by crowding and subsequent chilling, the animals should be separated as much as possible and not more than three or four should be kept in each pen or stall. The disease produces an intense thirst and if allowed free access to water, the animals will swill it and thus dilute and weaken the gastric juice which is their natural and only defense against the cholera germ. If too much food is given them the gastric juice will be used up for digestion purposes and a sufficient excess will not be available for destroying the cholera bacilli. Therefore, cholera infected hogs should be kept confined where they can get no food or drink except that which is given them. As the disease pro- gresses, ulcers and lesions are formed in the animal’s intestines and the irritation produced by the passage of partly digested food causes violent diarrhea. Corn, or other solid food, given to the hogs at this stage of the disease aggravates this condition and causes death by rupture of the bowels. The exercise of a little common sense in caring for cholera infected animals and protecting them from exposure to unfavorable conditions and a regular and careful treatment with Bourbon Hog Cholera Remedy before the disease has gone too far, will produce remarkably satisfactory results. The dose of this medicine for a sick hog is one (i) tablespoonful, diluted in as much milk or gruel as the hog will drink, and each and every hog in cholera infected herds should be given this amount of medicine twice a day morning and evening. From ten days to two weeks is required to effect a cure, according to the virulence of the disease and the condition of the animals when treat- ment is begun.” The result of the test shows that this medicinal preparation is neither a cure or preventive for hog cholera. 19 Table XVIII. — Data Obtained in Test of Bourbon Remedy Hog number Method of infection Treated and untreated Results Y-543 pen exposure treated died 13th day; cholera lesions Y-544 pen exposure treated died 15th day; cholera lesions Y-545 pen exposure treated lived Y-546 pen exposure treated lived Y-547 pen exposure treated lived Y-548 pen exposure treated died 23rd day; cholera lesions Y-549 pen exposure treated lived Y-550 pen exposure treated died 11th day; cholera lesions Y-551 pen exposure treated died 18th day; cholera lesions Y-552 pen exposure treated died 13th day; cholera lesions Y-553 pen exposure untreated died 13th day; cholera lesions Y-554 pen exposure untreated died 13th day; cholera lesions Y-555 pen exposure untreated died 11th day; cholera lesions Y-556 pen exposure untreated lived Y-557 pen exposure untreated died 11th day; cholera lesions Y-558 pen exposure untreated died 11th day; cholera lesions Y-559 pen exposure untreated lived Y-560 pen exposure untreated died 10th day; cholera lesions Y-561 pen exposure untreated died 11th day; cholera lesions Y-562 pen exposure untreated died 11th day; cholera lesions Posalti A preparation known as Posalti recommended by Frank J. Cosgrove, South Bend, Indiana, was tested, using 20 pigs, 10 of which were treated and 10 used as controls. The test was begun April 4, 1916. The pigs were subjected to pen exposure, being placed in cholera infected pens. Mr. Cosgrove was present, administered his material and superintended the feeding of the pigs. When the treated pigs refused feed, he tried drenching them with the remedy, and pigs Nos. 574, 578, 579, and 580 died as a result of the drench going into the lungs. On post-mortem, how- ever, these pigs showed the usual lesions of hog cholera. The control pigs were killed when fatal symptoms of hog cholera were evident and the treated pigs were allowed to die. The directions furnished by the pro- ducers were as follows : “Administer in each feed one-half ounce of Posalti remedy per hog. Feed one-third pound middlings mixed with two quarts of skimmed milk preferred. If skimmed milk can not be obtained two quarts of tepid water can be used. Feed 3 times daily — 8 A. M., 12 M., and 4 P. M. After two weeks of Posalti treatment, begin to give a little more solid food with the slop or soft food and increase gradually to proper proportion of solid foods. If hogs will not eat, set them on rear end, pry mouth open with stick, pour pints of water containing iy 2 ozs. of Posalti into hog.” All treated pigs died from the ninth to the thirteenth days, and seven of the control pigs were killed when fatal symptoms of hog cholera ap- peared. Three control pigs survived. The result of the test shows that Posalti is not a cure or preventive for hog cholera. 20 Table; XIX. — Data Obtained in Test of Posalti Hog number Method of infection Treated and untreated Results Y-563 pen exposure untreated killed 10th day; cholera lesions Y-564 pen exposure untreated killed 13th day; cholera lesions Y-565 pen exposure untreated killed 11th day; cholera lesions Y-566 pen exposure untreated killed 11th day; cholera lesions Y-567 pen exposure untreated lived Y-568 pen exposure untreated lived Y-569 pen exposure untreated killed 11th day; cholera lesions Y-570 pen exposure untreated killed 11th day; cholera lesions Y-571 pen exposure untreated killed 11th day; cholera lesions Y-572 pen exposure untreated lived Y-573 pen exposure treated died 9th day; cholera lesions Y-574 pen exposure treated died 11th day; cholera lesions Y-575 pen exposure treated died 10th day; cholera lesions Y-576 pen exposure treated died 10th day; cholera lesions Y-577 pen exposure treated died 10th day; cholera lesions Y-578 pen exposure treated died 11th day; cholera lesions Y-579 pen exposure treated died 11th day; cholera lesions Y-580 pen exposure treated died 13th day; cholera lesions Y-581 pen exposure treated died 12th day; cholera lesions Y-582 pen exposure treated died 10th day; cholera lesions Preparation Prepared by H. W. Metzeer * A preparation prepared by H. W. Metzler, Champaign, Illinois, was tested on 20 pigs, 10 of which were treated and 10 used as controls. The pigs were exposed to pen infection. Mr. Metzler was present and ad- ministered the material which was given in the feed. When several of the treated pigs refused feed, Pigs Nos. 669, 670, 671, 675, and 676 re- ceived the remedy in a drench. On the twentieth day but two of the treated pigs were alive, while eight of the untreated pigs were living. It would thus appear that the preparation had a harmful effect in treating cholera pigs. The directions given by the manufacturer on the bottle labels were as follows : “Give four tablespoons of the remedy to every gallon of water or swill three times a week. If cholera appears in the neighbor- hood increase the dose to one ounce (fluid measure) and give daily.” Additional instructions given were as follows : “Increase the dose one- fourth ounce to each gallon, every feed until the hogs refuse to take it. Then feed along at the biggest dose that they will take. Include same dose in all drinking water given to them.” On the conclusion of the test all treated and all control pigs had died, and it was shown that this remedy was without value in treating pigs af- fected with the cholera or in preventing the disease. 21 Table: XX. — Data Obtained in Test of a Preparation Prepared by H. W. Metzler Hog number Method of infection Treated and untreated Results G-689 pen exposure treated died 11th day; cholera lesions G-670 pen exposure treated died 17th day; cholera lesions G-671 pen exposure treated died 11th day; cholera lesions G-672 pen exposure treated died 15th day; cholera lesions G-673 pen exposure treated died 15th day; cholera lesions G-674 pen exposure treated died 21st day; cholera lesions G-675 pen exposure treated died 15th day; cholera lesions G-676 pen exposure treated died 13th day; cholera lesions G-677 pen exposure treated died 12th day; cholera lesions G-678 pen exposure treated died 21st day; cholera lesions G-679 pen exposure untreated died 13th day; cholera lesions G-680 pen exposure untreated died 21st day; cholera lesions G-681 pen exposure untreated died 10th day; cholera lesions G-682 pen exposure untreated died 21st day; cholera lesions G-683 pen exposure untreated died 21st day; cholera lesions G-685 pen exposure untreated died 21st day; cholera lesions G-686 pen exposure untreated died 21st day; cholera lesions G-687 pen exposure untreated died 21st day; cholera lesions G-688 pen exposure untreated died 21st day; cholera lesions G-689 pen exposure untreated died 21st day; cholera lesions Kol-Kur A preparation known as Kol-Kur produced by Chas. Billingsley, Princeton, Indiana, was delivered to the Station by the proprietor for a test. The material was placed on test November 20, 1916. Twenty pigs were used in the test, 10 receiving treatment according to directions and the others left untreated for controls. All the pigs were subjected to pen exposure and all died, showing hog cholera lesions upon post- mortem examination. The result of the test shows Kol-Kur to be without value in curing or preventing hog cholera. Pigs Nos. 750 and 752 were killed on the eighth day. 22 Table XXL — Data Obtained in Test of Kol-Kur Hog number Method of infection Treated and untreated Results G-739 pen exposure treated died 18th day; cholera lesions G-740 pen exposure treated died 16th day; cholera lesions G-741 pen exposure treated died 16th day; cholera lesions G-742 pen exposure treated died 9th day; cholera lesions G-743 pen exposure treated died 14th day; cholera lesions G-744 pen exposure treated died 19th day; cholera lesions G-745 pen exposure treated died 15th day; cholera lesions G-747 pen exposure treated died 16th day; cholera lesions G-748 pen exposure treated died 18th day; cholera lesions G-756 pen exposure treated died 19th day; cholera lesions G-749 pen exposure untreated died 18th day; cholera lesions G-750 pen exposure untreated died 8th day; cholera lesions G-751 pen exposure untreated died 17th day; cholera lesions G-752 pen exposure untreated died 8th day; cholera lesions G-753 pen exposure untreated died 19th day; cholera lesions G-754 pen exposure untreated died 18th day; cholera lesions G-746 pen exposure untreated died 15th day; cholera lesions G-759 pen exposure untreated died 16th day; cholera lesions G-849 pen exposure untreated died 19th day; cholera lesions G-S51 pen exposure untreated died 19th day; cholera lesions Preparation Prepared by Mrs. Harry Condit A preparation recommended for the treatment of hog cholera by Mrs. Harry Condit of Vincennes, Indiana, was tested on 20 pigs, 10 of which received the preparation and 10 used for controls. The test was begun December 13, 1916. The pigs were subjected to pen exposure and eight of the treated pigs and nine of the control pigs died, showing exten- sive lesions of hog cholera upon post-mortem examination. The material was administered according to directions furnished by Mrs. Condit as follows: “For twenty head put three heaping tablespoonsful in a bucket of scalded bran, or if bowels are loose put it in the slop, or a handful of soft soap mixed to a paste with the same quantity of the powder, and put it in a trough or where they can easily get to it — will be eagerly devoured ; they will take this when they will touch nothing else. According to sick- ness increase the amount given. If hogs are down and can’t get up to eat, give from a tablespoon.” The result of the test shows the remedy to be without merit as a cure or preventive for hog cholera. 23 Table XXII. — Data Obtained in Test of a Preparation Prepared by Mrs. Harry Condit Hog number Method of infection Treated and untreated Results G-866 pen exposure treated died 15th day; cholera lesions G-867 pen exposure treated died 16th day; cholera lesions G-868 pen exposure treated died 19th day; cholera lesions G-869 pen exposure treated died 17th day; cholera lesions G-870 pen exposure treated died 19th day; cholera lesions G-871 pen exposure treated lived G-872 pen exposure treated died 14th day; cholera lesions G-873 pen exposure treated died 13th day; cholera lesions G-874 pen exposure treated died 17th day; cholera lesions G-875 pen exposure treated lived G-877 pen exposure untreated lived G-878 pen exposure untreated died 21st day; cholera lesions G-879 pen exposure untreated killed 14th day; cholera lesions G-880 pen exposure untreated killed 14th day; cholera lesions G-881 pen exposure untreated died 18th day; cholera lesions G-882 pen exposure untreated died 21st day; cholera lesions G-883 pen exposure untreated died 17th day; cholera lesions G-884 pen exposure untreated died 21st day; cholera lesions G-885 pen exposure untreated died 14th day; cholera lesions G-886 pen exposure untreated died 21st day; cholera lesions Cholerine A sample of Cholerine, a preparation recommended by the proprie- tors for the treatment of hog cholera, was secured through a practicing veterinarian from the manufacturers, A. S. Horowitz Chemical Company, 17 E. 38th St., New York City, and tested on 18 pigs. The test was begun September 5, 1917. Nine pigs were treated with the remedy according to the directions of the manufacturers, 2.0 cubic centimeters being in- jected into each pig, and the remaining pigs were left as controls. Two of the treated pigs and one of the control pigs lived. The untreated pigs were killed when they showed fatal symptoms of cholera. The test showed that Cholerine is without value as a cure or preven- tive for hog cholera. The Wm. S. Merrill Chemical Company, Cincinnati, Ohio, has been advertising CholeRem for the prevention and treatment of hog cholera during the past year. The advertising literature sent out by this firm states that this is Dr. A. S. Horowitz’s preparation. CholeRem is prob- ably the same preparation as Cholerine. 24 Table XXIII. — Data Obtained in Test of Cholerine Hog number Method of infection Treated and untreated Results M-481 pen exposure untreated killed 11th day; cholera lesions M-482 pen exposure untreated killed 11th day; cholera lesions M-483 pen exposure untreated killed 10th day; cholera lesions M-484 pen exposure untreated killed 10th day; cholera lesions M-485 pen exposure untreated killed 11th day; cholera lesions M-486 pen exposure untreated lived M-487 pen exposure untreated killed 11th day; cholera lesions M-488 pen exposure untreated killed 11th day; cholera lesions M-489 pen exposure untreated killed 11th day; cholera lesions M-490 pen exposure treated died 14th day; cholera lesions M-491 pen exposure treated lived M-492 pen exposure treated died 15th day; cholera lesions M-493 pen exposure treated died 15th day; cholera lesions M-494 pen exposure treated died 15th day; cholera lesions M-495 pen exposure treated lived M-496 pen exposure treated died 19th day; cholera lesions M-497 pen exposure treated died 15th day; cholera lesions M-498 pen exposure treated died 15th day; cholera lesions Table XXIV. — Summary of Results Obtained in Tests of Twenty Dif- ferent Preparations Recommended for the Cure or Prevention of Hog Cholera Remedy Number hogs in test Number test hogs died treated un- treated treated un- treated Cunningham Hog Cholera Remedy 13 13 12 13 National 23 (first test) 7 6 0 0 National 23 (second test) _ 3 2 3 2 U. S. Specific 4 4 4 4 American Specific No. 2 4 4 3 3 ' Blue Moon Hog Corrector 4 4 4 4 Preparation prepared by S. H. Colbert 10 10 7 8 Crozier’s Hog Cholera Cure 10 10 7 7 Vaxall (first test) 10 10 5 4 Vaxall (second test) _ 10 10 4 6 Preparation prepared by A. J. Kuebler 10 10 7 7 544 (first test) ___ _ _ _ 10 8 10 8 544 (second test) _ _ _ _ _ _ 10 11 9 10 Porcine 10 10 10 8 John Dobry’s Remedy 10 10 7 3 Perry’s Swine Lixir 8 7 7 7 Puritan Tablets _ 10 10 8 7 Cal-Sino Hog Restorative 15 14 15 14 Bourbon Remedy _ _ 10 10 6 8 Posalti 10 10 10 7 Preparation prepared by H. W. Metzler 10 10 10 10 Kol-Kur 10 10 10 10 Preparation prepared by Mrs. Harry Condit-— 10 10 8 9 Cholerine _______ 9 9 7 8 Totals _ _ 235 227 187 179 Acknowledgment is made to Dr. H. C. Paine who was in charge of the test pigs up to June i, 1917 purdue vmmumnrnrn Agricultural Experiment Station v)UL Bulletin No. 224 September, 1918 Fig. 1. An ear-to-row test showing a diseased row between two healthy ones, plant- ed from a good looking ear which germinated 100 per cent. The yields of fields throughout the Corn Belt are reduced by using seed from ears that are infested or weakened by harm- ful organisms SELECTION OF DISEASE-FREE SEED CORN Published by the Station: LAFAYETTE, INDIANA U. S. A. SUMMARY Indiana corn yields are greatly reduced by hitherto little under- stood disease-producing organisms. The planting of seed infested with these organisms is, in a great measure, responsible for missing hills, slow-growing stalks, barren stalks, down-stalks, nubbins, early blighting of plants in the field with the large reduction in yield which these conditions bring about. The same organism which causes scab of wheat also causes rot of the stalks, ears, and ear-shanks of corn plants. Wheat planted in fields of diseased corn has more scab than occurs when the corn fields are free from scab-producing organism. The ear-to-row method is recommended for studying the quality and value of seed ears. The selection of seed ears from disease-free stalks is recommended and explained. By a careful study of germinating seedlings it is possible to dis- card from seed stock ears carrying disease-producing organisms. The bulletin explains how this may be done. The type of germinator which serves best for this method of test- ing seed corn is also described and illustrated. Its use is recommended to all farmers who are interested in corn improvement and especially to seed corn breeders. These facts had in a large measure been developed by investiga- tions carried on by the authors during the past five years, and in 1917, this work was organized as an Experiment Station project. 3 SELECTION OF DISEASE-FREE SEED CORN 1 George N. Hoefer J. R. Holbert Many fields of corn in the Corn Belt states do not give the yields which their fertility and the attention given them in cultivation would justify. Considerable care may be used in selecting seed for planting, but too many missing hills and slow-growing stalks result. This has often been attributed to injuries from birds, root insects, and rodents, but re- cent studies on these troubles that have been made by Purdue University Agricultural Experiment Station in cooperation with the Office of Cer- eal Investigations, United States Department of Agriculture, show that while these injuries are important, there are other definite, harmful or- ganisms which are responsible for disappointing stands and unprofitable yields. When careful studies are made on seed ears, even those ears of high score card value, to determine their field performances by planting them by the ear-to-row method, it is apparent at once that some ears have high yielding ability, while others are of low power. The yield obtained in any field of corn is always the average of the yielding capacities of all the ears planted. The low yielding ears are most often those which had been taken from weakened parent stalks. This weakness may be due to the results of freezing or to injuries to the stalks caused by harmful or- ganisms* such as fungi and bacteria. EFFECTS OF PARASITIC ORGANISMS ON CORN PLANTS The effects of certain fungi on the corn plants may be very marked. They may be observed readily in the form of smut, rust, broken ear shanks, broken stalks, and down-stalks which may be distributed irregu- larly through a field. Other harmful organisms may cause less striking effects on the plants. Inconspicuous rotting ;of the stalks, of the ears, and of the roots, may take place with no apparent injury. The ears, however, which are borne on such diseased plants are weakened. Per- haps the weakness is not enough to show decreased vitality on the germin- ator, but is evident in the field performance of the seed when taken from the ear and planted the following season. The kernels from ears borne on diseased plants will have seedling characteristics which can be noted usually on the germinator. These seedling features and certain physical characters of the seed serve as a basis for discarding for seed purposes the incompletely matured ears formed on diseased stalks, since it has been shown that one effect of the rot-producing organisms may be to delay maturity. In contrast with such ears, those kernels from disease-free mother plants do not show the 1 The work reported in this publication is the result of cooperation between the Bu- reau of Plant Industry of the United States Department of Agriculture, and the Purdue University Agricultural Experiment Station 4 Fig. 2. Two infested seedlings which died soon after germinating. This blighting causes poor stands abnormal conditions referred to above, and always give good germination on the germinator, provided no injury, such as freezing, has occurred. The difference between infested and disease-free seed is very strik- ing in fields where seedlings die early and where the plants blight while young. Some plants may remain stunted during the entire growing sea- son. Fig. 2 shows some plants which died early. Ordinarily these plants are not noticed before the first cultivation. At this time, however, plants as shown in Fig. 3 may be found. The roots and bases of such young stunted stalks are rotted, as shown in Fig. 4. For permanent corn improvement, only ears from disease-free stalks should be used for seed purposes. Improvement by this means, at first thought, may appear difficult to accomplish. There are two methods of selection of good seed ears, both of which, from the present state of knowledge, should be followed to insure freedom from disease. 1. Mature ears on disease-free stalks should be selected for plant- ing. It is assumed that the variety of corn is one which is adapted to the soil and climatic conditions of the locality where it is grown and that it will mature in a normal season. Ears should never.be selected from smutted stalks, or from stalks which are rotted or whose roots are rotted. Neither should ears be selected which have rotted, broken shanks as noted in Fig. 8. Many root-rotted plants die prematurely. The rotting of the stalk can be observed by cutting down through the plant and splitting it open. If the inner portion of the stalk, especially at the lower nodes or “joints,” at the base of the stalk, shows a brown discoloration, the presence of a harmful organism in the plant is indicated. A mature ear on a living green stalk is always best for seed purposes. Fig. 3. An infected seedling is indicated by early stunting. A barren stalk is usually the result Fig. 4. A stunted stalk cut lengthwise through the base to show the rot resulting from a primary infection 2. A more critical study of the results of the germination test can be made than has been the habit in the past. It has been found that ears may have perfect germination and yet give low yields in the field; such ears have an unusual susceptibility to rot-causing organisms on the germinator. The seedlings from such ears may develop molds upon them and if they are cut through with a sharp knife at the time the normal seedlings are three or four inches in height, the rot will be noticed de- veloping in the embryos of infected seedlings. This infection caused by harmful organisms, actually upon or within the seed-kernels, is called primary infection. This early rotting of the seedling, the result of primary infection, is a germination characteristic by u’hich the infested weak ears may be discarded before planting. Ears from diseased stalks may have kernels bearing harmful molds and bacteria in a relatively inconspicuous manner. The kernels may germinate, but at germination time, the young seedlings may be invaded readily because of this close relation. Then again, some ears may be free of any harmful organisms, but having been formed on a diseased parent-stalk, the seedlings growing from these ears are less resistant to infection and may, therefore, become infected readily on the germinator and in the field. Conspicuously moldy ears should never be considered for seed purposes. In contrast with these infested ears are the ears from disease-free plants. The seedlings that develop from kernels on such ears do not show the rotting of the embryo before the plants are three or four inches in height. Figs. 14, 17. In other words, primary infection does not occur in the seedlings from ears borne on disease-free stalks that are not other- wise injured. 6 Fig. 5. A barren, a normal, and a stunted Fig. 6. Do not select seed ears stalk in the same hill resulting from planting from smutted stalks two infested seeds with a healthy one In the field, primary infections are very common in the plants from weakened and infested seed, Figs. 2 and 3. If the seeds are not weakened or infested with harmful organisms, the seedlings and plants will make good progress in growth in the field, providing weather and soil condi- tions are favorable. The infected seedlings are slower growing, and depending upon their ability to overcome the effects of the organisms causing this primary in- fection, they may struggle along during the growing season and are not likely to produce good mature ears. The plants may be permanently stunted, and such plants are very common, or they may be only nubbin- bearing stalks. It is this primary infection of seedlings in the field through the use of infested seed which is causing considerable losses to corn growers. During the latter part of the growing season, secondary infections occur. These infections are caused by organisms which live in t # he soil on the remnants of a preceding crop, or which have been carried into the 7 soil on the infested seed which was used for planting. The same organisms which cause primary infections may also cause the sec- ondary rotting of the roots. It is thus em- phasized that infested seed may be re- sponsible for both primary and secondary troubles in the same plants. The importance of planting disease-free seed is therefore apparent. WHEAT SCAB RELATION Another phase of the problem, and one which adds greater emphasis to the desira- bility of having disease-free corn fields, is the fact that the same organism which causes scab of wheat also causes a rot of the stalks and ear-shanks of corn plants. Wheat planted in diseased corn fields has more scab in it than when the corn fields are free of the scab-causing organism, or when it is planted following other crops. This inter- crop relation is one of the most important problems of a pathological nature connected with the growing of these crops, especially so where winter wheat is planted in standing rig. 7. a prematurely dead corn. The profitable control of wheat scab stalk with rotted base. Note ma y b e involved in the growing of disease- tree corn, or in planting wheat on corn land providing all of the fodder will have been removed completely during the fall or winter. METHOD OF CORRELATING GERM I N ATOR RESULTS WITH FIELD PERFORMANCE OF THE SEED EARS The best way to study the field performance of seed ears is by the ear-to-row plot method. Germinator tests are first made on a number of the kernels, at least 30, taken from various parts of the ears to be studied. Enough of the ear is shelled to plant a row of 75 or 100 hills in length in the field. These rows are kept under close observation dur- ing the growing season. The various phenomena referred to in this bul- letin may then be observed and the effects of the harmful organisms on the corn plants noted. Fig. 11 shows how the results of an ear-to-row plot can be demon- strated at a field meeting. Note that the hard corn was placed in the front pile, the remnant ear was preserved in a tin can, the soft corn was placed in the back pile, and a 25-pound sample was bagged for moisture determination. Fig. 1 shows how striking the effects of the root- rots may appear in certain rows. The row of “down stalks” was bordered by ‘two rows of standing corn. The value of the ear-to-row method of study of the dis- 8 Fig. 8. Ears on broken shanks should Fig. 9. Ears on broken shanks are frequently Fig. 10. Rotted stalks and shanks are not be used for seed rotted * responsible for many nubbins 9 Fig. 11. A well matured ear on a healthy shank is best for seed eases of corn is that there is strikingly represented in the lives of the in- fested plants the phenomena which are so common in the ordinary fields of corn. All gradations of injuries may be noted. For seed corn purposes no infested and weakened ears should be planted. These can be detected and discarded before planting. THE GERMINATOR TEST The testing of seed corn on germinators has already proved its worth. Bad ears are readily indicated in all types of germinators when dead ker- nels are found during the test. The method of interpretation of the germinator results recommended in this bulletin is applicable to all types of germinators in use, but is practiced most easily on the type of germi- nator recommended. If the seedlings are infected on the germinator and show rotting of the embryo parts before the plants are three inches in height, as shown in Figs. 15 and 17, the ears from which the kernels were taken will show weaknesses in their field performances according to experimental results obtained to date. The convenience with which these readings may be made is a mat- ter of much importance where large numbers of ears are to be tested. The rag-doll tester and the sand-box may be used but in as much as it is necessary to pull up the plants for examination, the former is the more convenient. But while the rag-doll is usable and fairly satisfactory for this method of interpretation of the seed corn test, the type of germi- nator where the seedlings can be observed as a whole, and the readings made directly, is the more desirable. 10 Fig. 12. A profitable hill of healthy stalks planted from disease-free ears The type of germinator suggested involves the use of a limestone- sawdust base to supply the moisture for the germinating seeds. » The germinator is very easily made and requires very little attention during the germination test. It is recommended to all farmers who are inter- ested in corn improvement and especially so to those who breed corn on a large scale. The germinator requires more effort to prepare, as well as more space, than the ones commonly used, but the advantage derived in being able to select disease-free ears commends it for this purpose. The germinator is shown in Figs. 18, 19, and 20, and consists of a frame support on which there is a wire screen. This frame and screen holds about a two-inch layer of sawdust mixed with about one-fourth of its weight of ground limestone. The purpose of the limestone is to keep the sawdust sweet and to prevent the effects on the germinating seed- lings of the injurious substances which develop in wet sawdust. A sheet of heavy muslin that had been placed previously in boiling water to remove the starch is spread over this limestone-sawdust layer. The kernels of corn are placed on this muslin which may be marked in various ways to indicate the position of each of the ears tested, and the II Fig. 13. An ear-to-row test plot on harvest day. Note the hard corn, remnant ear box, soft corn and bag for moisture sample. This is the best method of determining high yielding, disease-free strains of corn varieties in each locality seeds are then covered by another similarly treated sheet of muslin. The germinator and the sawdust-limestone substratum are then wet down with water, and to prevent rapid drying out are covered with gunny- sacks or heavy cloths for at least two days. When the corn germinates, these heavier cloths should be removed and the seedlings should be covered with the heavy muslin only. The germinator should be wet down thoroughly twice each day while in use. After the seedlings have grown to a height of three or four inches, they are ready for observation. Those seedlings which have rotted embryos and stalks (Figs. 15 and 16), indicate the ears to be discarded for seed purposes. By reading the germinator on the basis of these rotted seedlings, and eliminating all of the ears which show this rot on the germinator, the primary infections zvhich would otherwise occur in the field from seed from such ears and which would considerably reduce the yield in the field, can be prevented. The harmful organisms referred to in this bulletin are species of Gibberella, Fusarium, Verticillium, Rhizopus and Pseudomonas. They will be described in a Technical Bulletin to be published in the near future. 12 Fig. 14. A good vigorous type of seed- ling. Note the early development of lateral rootlets A Fig. 16. An infected seed- ling cut open to show the first stages in the develop- ment of rot. Contrast this with Figure 17 Fig. 17. A normal three-inch seedling cut through the embryo portion and laid open. Note the healthy con- dition of the germ i3 Fig. 18. A desirable type of germinator. Note layer of sawdust and limestone on the wire screen support Fig. 19. Kernels in position on damp cloth ready to start test. Heavy cloths are placed on germinator for three days Fig. 20. Germination test completed. At this time infected seedlings can be noted and the diseased ears discarded 14 The Experiment Station Building;. The Experiment Station was founded primarily to develop, through investigation and research, new information about agriculture. Facts must be discovered before they can be taught. The main Station building contains the head- quarters and laboratories for the administration of the work of the Station. The work itself is conducted on the farms, in the fields, herds, and orchards of the State as well as in the offices and laboratories at Purdue PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE FOR FARMERS INTERESTED IN CORN CULTURE Bulletin No. 210. Bulletin No. 213. Bulletin No. 222. Circular No. 25. Circular No. 49. Circular No. 66. Circular No. 76. Circular No. 79. The value of phosphates on Indiana soils The value of lime on Indiana soils The value of manure on Indiana soils (Revised edition) How to grow more and better corn Farm manures The lime and fertilizer needs of Indiana soils Increasing crop yields for war needs Indiana soils need phosphates i5 AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION CLASSIFICATION OF THE MAILING LIST Owing to the unusual demand for the bulletins and circulars of the Station, and the limited funds available for publications, it is necessary to revise the mailing lists continually and send the literature only to per- sons especially interested in the particular subjects treated. It will not be feasible to send bulletins on all subjects to every name on the lists. If you wish to receive the publications of the Station please mark the subjects in which you are especially interested and return this sheet. □ ANIMAL HUSBANDRY— Beef Cattle, Hogs, Sheep, Horses □ BOTANY — Plant Diseases, Weeds □ DAIRY HUSBANDRY— Dairy Cattle, Milk, Butter, Cheese, Ice Cream □ ENTOMOLOGY — Bees, Hessian Fly, Injurious Insects □ FIELD CROPS — Grains, Legumes, and other hay crops. Varieties and Rotations □ HORTICULTURE — Fruits, Vegetables, Small Fruits, Truck Crops □ POULTRY — Housing, Feeding, Egg Production □ SOILS — Lime, Fertilizers, Drainage □ VETERINARY — Animal Diseases □ REPORTS OF FERTILIZER INSPECTION— State Chemist De- partment □ REPORTS OF COMMERCIAL FEEDING STUFFS INSPEC- TION — State Chemist Department □ REPORTS OF STALLION ENROLLMENT LAW ADMINIS- TRATION □ REPORTS OF CREAMERY AND TESTERS’ LICENSE LAW ADMINISTRATION □ Please send me a list of publications which are now available. Name Post Office R. F. D County , State NOTE. — A large number of unsigned requests have been received from people who wish to have their names on the mailing list. The name and address must be written plainly i6 “The urgent demand for information for immediate appli- cation has revealed as the essential prerequisite the possession of a substantial fund of scientific knowledge. It has made it clear that the accumulation of such a body of knowledge is not a mat- ter to be improvised in an emergency but something to be at- tained gradually by carefully planned investigation. The situa- tion has directed attention to what has already been accomplished by research institutions fostered by public funds, and has stimu- lated inquiry and discussion as to means for so strengthening such institutions as to bring about their maximum efficiency.” E. W. ALLEN, Experiment Station Record PURDUE UNIVERSITY Agricultural Experiment 0!S Umar JUL 15 ig jg Bulletin No. 225 January, 1919 Fig:. 1. Looking: across the oats variety test field on Purdue Farm. The yield averaged over 80 bushels per acre SPRING SMALL GRAINS IN INDIANA PMlisM Dy tie station: LAFAYETTE, INDIANA U. S. A. The climate of Indiana, as a general rule, is too warm for the satis- factory development of the spring small grains and with the exception of oats and barley in the northern portion of the State, they are not to be recommended for general use. The usual periods of hot weather during the fruiting season check development and cause shrivelling of the grain and consequently low yields and poor quality. Profitable yields of oats and barley can be secured in northern Indiana, with fertile soil, good cultural methods and early seeding. On the loose, black *soils in this portion of the State, oats will usually do better than winter wheat. Spring wheat can be profitably raised only in unusually cool seasons. Spring rye, emmer and speltz are poorly adapted even to northern Indiana conditions and are not profitable as compared with oats, barley or the winter grains. Special attention is called to the importance of treating seed oats for smut. This disease causes an average loss of at least 10 per cent, of the oats crop of Indiana. It may easily be prevented by seed treat- ment. (see pages 8, 9 and 10). SPRING SMALL GRAINS IN INDIANA A. T. Wiancko C. O. Cromer SUMMARY The spring small grains discussed in this bulletin, oats, barley, spring wheat, spring rye and emmer, are all cool weather crops and the climate of Indiana, for the most part, is too warm for their proper development. The production of spring small grains cannot be recommended under normal seasonal conditions, except in the northern portion of the State, where the average temperature during their growing season is several degrees cooler than in southern Indiana. Their profitable production, even in northern Indiana, is conditioned upon early seeding, good soil and cultural conditions and the absence of hot weather. The careful selection of varieties and proper grading of the seed will aid materially in increasing the yields. There is no important advantage in the use of imported seed. Oats is the leading spring small grain crop in Indiana, comprising about 99 per cent, of the total acreage devoted to such crops. The medium maturing varieties of oats have been the best yielders on the Station farm, and among these the Great Dakota, Big Four, Silver Mine, White Bedford and Schance have been leaders. Among early maturing varieties, Daubeney and Sixty Day have been the leaders. Loose smut is a troublesome disease of oats in Indiana. Treating the seed with formaldehyde will practically eliminate this disease and materially increase the yields. Barley stands next to oats in importance among spring small grains in Indiana and on mellow soils in northern Indiana, the proportion of this crop might be profitably increased. Silver King, Canadian No. 21 and Hannchen have been the most profitable varieties on the Station farm. Among early varieties, the Success Beardless is best. On the average, the conditions in Indiana are not favorable to spring wheat as compared with either oats, barley, winter wheat or winter rye. Marquis and Regenerated Red Fife are the most promising varieties. Emmer and spring rye are of little importance in Indiana. The comparative average yields of spring small grains on the Station farm during the last nine years have been: oats, 52.6 bushels; barley, 28.7 bushels; spring wheat, 13.7 bushels where under the same conditions winter wheat yielded 29.2 bushels and winter rye, 38.7 bushels. INTRODUCTION The area devoted to spring small grains in Indiana amounts to about 1,730,000 acres annually, or about 20 per cent, of the total acreage of grain crops. This acreage is of sufficient importance to warrant a careful study of the subject, including the different kinds of spring small grains, their adaptation to Indiana conditions, the most suitable varieties and the best cultural methods in their production. The principal kinds of spring small grains grown in Indiana are oats, barley and spring wheat. Of these, oats constitutes about 99 per cent., barley about 0.8 per cent, and spring wheat less than 0.2 4 per cent. The areas devoted to emmer and spring rye are prac- tically negligible. For the io-year period, 1908-1917, the average yields of oats and barley were 31.8 bushels per acre and 26.5 bushels respective- ly. There is no record of the average yield of spring wheat but it has been somewhere below the average yield of winter wheat. During the same period the average farm price of oats was 42 cents, barley 68 cents and wheat $1.14 per bushel. A little calculation will show that on the average, the profits derived from these crops have been small and that something needs to be done if they are to retain an important place in In- diana agriculture. On some farms, oats and even barley and spring wheat are profitable crops but on the majority of farms they are grown at a loss. An important reason why these crops do not do better in Indiana is that the climatic conditions are not favorable to their production. The temperature during the growing season, and especially during the fruiting period, is too high for their proper development. They are all cool weather crops and sufifer severely when the temperature gets up above 80 degrees, as is often the case during their growing season in this part of the country. This disadvantage must be reckoned with from the begin- ning, and Indiana farmers never will be able to compete on an equal basis with farmers in the states further north in the production of spring small grains. Within the State, the farmers of northern Indiana have a con- siderable advantage over the farmers in southern Indiana because of climatic differences. The average June-July temperature for the last 14 years has been 71 degrees Fahrenheit in northern Indiana and 75 degrees in southern Indiana. This temperature difference is sufficient to seriously discourage spring small grain production in the southern part of the State where hot weather nearly always cuts both yield and quality. As a mat- ter of fact, northern Indiana grows over 85 per cent, of the spring small grains produced in the State. In certain sections of northern Indiana, notably the prairies and the Kankakee marsh area, the soil conditions are more favorable to spring grains than they are to the winter grains, which further accounts for the preponderance of spring grains in the northern part of the State. These conditions, however, are changing through better drainage, and winter grains are steadily pushing further north. For those who may be in doubt as to whether they should raise spring or winter small grains, it will be interesting to examine a comparative statement of average returns based on average yields and average farm prices. Taking the state averages for the last nine years, 1910 to 1918 inclusive, the gross returns per acre for the grain alone have been $14.96 for oats, $19.52 for barley, $20.19 for winter wheat and $14.74 for winter rye. The average yields per acre have been: oats, 34 bushels; barley, 27.5 bushels; winter wheat, 15.9 bushels; winter rye, 15.2 bushels. The average farm prices per bushel have been: oats, 44 cents; barley, 7 1 cents; winter wheat, $1.27; winter rye, 97 cents. To show what may be done on fairly well managed soil and how the several small grains compare under like conditions in this part of the State, attention may be called to the results on the Experiment Station fields at LaFayette reported in Table V of this bulletin. As shown, the average yields per acre for the several crops during the last nine years 5 have been as follows: oats, 52.6 bushels; barley, 28.7 bushels; spring wheat, 13.7 bushels; winter wheat, 29.2 bushels, and winter rye, 38.7 bushels. Based on the average farm prices for the State during the same period, the gross returns per acre for the grain alone have been as fol- lows: oats, $23.14; barley, $20.38; spring wheat, $17.26; winter wheat, $37.08 ; winter rye, $37.54. The conditions on the Station fields are not any better than they may be made on the majority of farms in the northern half of the State at least. Modern cultural methods have been practiced. Fair amounts of manure have been applied and some acid phosphate has been used. The most common crop rotation has been corn, spring small grains, winter small grains and clover or mixed clover and timothy. INCREASING THE YIELDS PER ACRE In order to realize a profit from raising spring small grains, the yields per acre must be increased. Probably the first requisite is better soil con- ditions. If the ground is naturally wet or heavy, it should be more thoroughly drained. A good system of tile drainage will soon pay for itself and will make all other treatments more effective. A good crop rotation should be adopted in which clover or some other legume appears at least once every three years. The legume will provide nitrogen and make more mineral plant food available for the other crops and will im- prove the physical condition of the soil. To get a good growth of legumes, the soil may need to be limed. With a good rotation and the use of a fair proportion of stable manure, some available phosphate is the only fertilizer that will need to be added for all ordinary soils. On run down soils, it may be necessary to buy some nitrogen and potash until the legume is well established. Practically all Indiana soils are lacking in phosphorus and this substance will need to be regularly purchased. At least 100 pounds per acre per year of a high grade acid phosphate or its equivalent in other available phosphates should be used. Enough phosphate for the whole rotation can be applied to one or two of the grain crops, according to convenience. Better cultural methods must be practiced. Disking oats or other small grain in corn-stalk ground is not a good method of seeding but where this is necessary, it should be more carefully done so as to secure a fine, even seed bed. Deep disking is not so desirable as a thorough pulverization of the surface. Fall plowing in the northern part of the State will pay well wherever this can be done. Fall plowed land can be worked earlier in the spring than stalk land. Early seeding is a very important factor in the successful production of spring small grains in Indiana. A few days delay in seeding may seriously reduce the yield. Observations on interrupted seedings on the Station grounds have sub- stantiated this statement many times. Drilling the seed is always better than broadcasting, because it insures more even covering and a more even distribution of the seed. Finally, it is important to use good seed and good varieties. The results of the variety tests reported in this bulletin will show which varieties are best suited to Indiana conditions. Thorough cleaning and grading of the seed will insure a better stand and add several bushels to 6 the yield. A good fanning mill or other seed grader should be a part of every small grain grower’s equipment. The results of experiments con- ducted for several years at the Ohio, Kansas, Minnesota and Canadian ex- periment stations with oats have shown an average increase- of nine bush- els per acre from the use of large, heavy seed as compared with small and light seed. Good seed must be free of plant diseases. Most of these are readily preventable by proper seed treatment. OATS Time oe Seeding and Soig Preparation. — Oats should be sown as early in the spring as it is possible to work the ground without injury, to obtain the largest yields of grain of the best quality. Where plowing ground for oats is practiced, this should be done in the fall. Fall plowed land can be worked earlier in the spring than unplowed land and has the advantage of permitting earlier seeding. Spring plowing is not generally practiced on account of the necessary delay in seeding. For corn ground, disking is usually the most practical method of preparing the seed bed for oats and other spring grains requiring early seeding. The disking and harrowing should be thorough but not deep. Fineness and uniformity are important to insure an even stand. Method and Rate oe Seeding. — As to the most profitable manner of seeding, it may be said that a great deal depends upon the season. Broadcasting does not insure the most uniform distribution of seed and covering with a smoothing harrow does not plant all kernels at the proper depth. When the planting season is dry, this ununiformity in depth of planting is objectionable. Drilling with a seed drill insures uniform distribution and depth of planting. It pays to do the work well under all climatic conditions. The optimum rate of seeding will depend upon the season, the size of the berry and the fertility of the soil. In 1909, the Station began an experiment which was continued over a period of eight years to determine what rate of seeding should be recommended to produce the most profitable yields. In this period, practically all kinds of growing seasons have occurred. In 1913, the experiment was located on a new farm and in places the ground was so weedy that the results could not be considered trustworthy and were discarded. Two varieties were used in this experiment — Swedish Select, a large kerneled oat, and Silvermine, having a medium sized kernel. 7 Table I. — Results of Experiments in Different Rates of Seeding Oats Variety Tear Rates of seeding and yields in bushels per acre 6 pecks 8 pecks 10 pecks 12 pecks 16 pecks 20 pecks Silvermine 1909 60 .3 1 65.1 64.1 64.7 51.0 59.7 1910 60.4 61.7 60.5 57.4 58.3 62.6 1911 34.0 31.4 32.7 36.5 32.6 32.0 1912 54.6 65.1 66.8 77.2 67.9 65.8 1914 12.7 11.7 11.5 11.2 10.2 7.1 1915 66.8 70.7 72.8 71.4 76.0 71.0 1916 51.4 57.2 57.2 58.5 56.2 55.2 Average 48.6 1 51.8 52.2 53.8 50.3 50.5 Swedish Select 1909 52.2 1 56.0 56.5 48.2 54.6 54.1 1910 54.5 59.1 58.1 54.7 55.9 58.9 1911 29.7 31.3 30.5 33.7 29.0 28.9 1912 53.4 58.5 66.4 67.0 64.1 63.4 1914 9.3 10.8 9.5 9.5 8.3 8.8 1915 70.0 74.7 67.5 75.2 73.0 82.8 1916 48.0 57.3 57.3 57.7 53.7 55.0 Average 45.3 49.7 49.4 49.4 48.4 50.3 General average of both varieties 46.9 50.7 50.7 51.6 49.3 50.4 Average net yield after deducting the seed 45.4 48.7 48.2 48.6 45.3 45.4 1 Calculated yield It may be observed in Table I that 12 pecks per acre of Silvermine gave the largest average yield and 20 pecks of Swedish Select pro- duced best. In the case of the Silvermine variety, the apparently ab- normally high yield of the 12-peck rate of seeding in 1912 is the cause of this rate of seeding giving the highest average yield ; barring this, the 10-peck rate of seeding has been most profitable. In the case of the Swedish Select variety, the extra seed above eight pecks per acre did not pay. The general average of the two varieties indicates that drilling eight to 12 pecks of clean seed per acre will produce the most profitable yields. Ohio results 1 closely agree with the results obtained at the Indiana Station. Iowa results 2 seem to indicate that a four-bushel rate of seeding is most productive for the Kherson variety, while not over three bushels per acre of Silvermine and other similar varieties should be sown for maximum returns in that state. The richer the soil, the more favorable the season and the larger the type of kernel, the larger should be the rate of seeding oats. In sowing a variety like the Sixty Day or Kherson, a smaller quantity of seed will give as good a stand as a larger quantity of a larger kerneled variety but due to the shorter growth, more scant foli- age and earlier maturity of the small kerneled varieties, it may be more profitable to seed at a heavier rate than one would sow such varieties as the Swedish Select. 1 Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 257 2 Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 175 8 Grading the Seed. — A fanning mill should be considered a part of the equipment of a small grain grower. The use of the fanning mill removes the dirt, sticks, weed seeds, light kernels and any other foreign matter that would hinder the uniform distribution of the seed in sowing and the securing of a perfect stand. Experiments by this and other sta- tions show that it pays to run the oats through a good fanning mill at least once, in order to remove dirt, straw, and light as well as diseased and unfilled grains. Seed Diseases. — Several diseases are common to oats in Indiana, viz., leaf rust, stem rust, blight and smut. Perhaps oats smut is the dis- ease most detrimental to large yields, but is at the same time, the most easily controlled of any of the diseases mentioned. It has been estimated that as much as five per cent, to io per cent, of the oats crop is destroyed by smut each year. In some cases, the proportion of infected plants reaches 25 per cent, of the crop. The formalin treatment not only kills the smut spores and increases the yield, but it also improves the quality of the grain and the straw as well. This treatment may be of benefit in killing other disease spores borne by the kernels, which tend to reduce the yield. Directions for Treating Seed. — Owing to the fact that the smut germs are present only on the surface of the kernels, it is an easy task to Fig. 2. The “wet method” of applying the formaldehyde treatment to seed oats to prevent smut, using a watering can destroy them without impairing the vitality of the oats. Until recently, the method in general use consisted in treating the seed with a compara- tively weak solution of formaldehyde. A new method, requiring a very strong solution of formaldehyde, has been carefully tested out and is being recommended by several experiment stations. The old method 9 may well be called the wet method, and the new, the dry method, con- sidering the amount of water used in each. The main advantage of the dry method is that the treated seed remains practically dry and can be sown immediately after the treatment. The tests have also shown that the grain treated by the dry method is not as liable to injury as it is when treated by the wet method. The: Wet MTthod. — Prepare a solution by mixing one pint of for- maldehyde in 40 gallons of water. One gallon of this solution will treat about one and one-half bushels of oats. Spread the seed on a tight board or cement floor, on a canvas or in a wagon box, and sprinkle with the prepared solution. Then shovel the grain over to distribute the moisture. Repeat this a number of times until all grain is thoroughly moist, but not wet, and then shovel into a pile. Cover the pile with disinfected sacks, canvas, old rugs or horse blankets, for at least two hours. The treated grain may safely be left covered, however, from morning until night or through the night if treated in the evening. The grain is usually dry enough to sow about 12 to 24 hours after the treatment. To allow for its swollen condition at this time, the seeding machine should be set to sow about one-fifth more per acre than when perfectly dry grain is used. Fig. 3. The “dry method” of applying the formaldehyde treatment to seed oats to prevent smut, using an atomizer-sprayer 10 If the treated grain is to be kept longer than 24 hours before sowing, it must be spread out and occasionally raked or shoveled over to allow it to dry. It should never be sacked or left in a deep pile in damp condition. The Dry Method. — Mix one pint of formaldehyde with one pint of water and pour the solution into a one-quart hand sprayer. A good hand atomizer- sprayer, equipped with an ordinary quart Mason jar to hold the solution, can be purchased for about 50 cents to 75 cents. Spray the solu- tion on the grain, as it is being shoveled over, taking care that it is well distributed. One quart of the solution will treat 50 bushels of oats. When all grain is treated, shovel it into a pile and cover for five hours as directed under the wet method. The grain may be sown immediately after the treatment or allowed to aerate thoroughly and stored until needed. Precautions Regarding Formaldehyde Treatment. — Care should be taken to use only formaldehyde of proper strength, as otherwise the results may be disappointing. The treating solution should not be made stronger or weaker than recommended. If less than 50 bushels of oats ^re to be treated, the proper amount of solution to be used should be calculated on the basis of three quarts to a gallon per bushel in the wet method, and two-thirds of an ounce per bushel in the dry method. When treating by the dry method the sprayer should be held close to the grain to prevent waste of the mist. The grain should be treated in a well ven- tilated place, especially if using the dry method, to avoid the irritating ef- fect of the formaldehyde gas. Care should be taken to avoid reinfection. The bin, sacks, the seed drill, or any other container that held untreated oats, previous to placing treated seed in it should be sprayed with for- maldehyde solution. The expense connected with the seed treatment is practically negligible. The cost of formaldehyde is less than one cent per bushel, or Fig. 4. Result of formaldehyde treatment for oats smut. The bundle at right is the produce of treated seed and contains no smut. The bundle at left shows the proportion of sound oats and the bundle in the middle, the smutted oats produced from a lot of the same seed without the formaldehyde treatment. The untreated seed produced 31 per cent, of smutted heads II about two cents an acre, and the labor requires comparatively little time. Two men can easily treat 50 bushels in less than an hour. To treat all seed oats in Indiana would cost about $34,000.00. This investment would save annually about 7,700,000 bushels of grain worth, at 50 cents a bushel, $3,75 o ,ooc ) , or over ten times the cost of seed treatment. Varieties. — Varieties of grain vary in their ability to produce under a given set of conditions. The qualities that go to make up a good variety of oats for Indiana are high yield, stiff straw, medium early maturity, and low per cent, of hull. Not all of these qualities are correlated with yield, so that yield is usually the most important factor in determining the im- portance of any variety. The question of securing the best variety can- not be decided until the varieties in question have been put through a test covering several years. The Soils and Crops Department has been con- ducting such tests for a number of years. A summary of the average yields of all the varieties tested at the Experiment Station since 1904, grouped according to the years tested, appears in Table II. Swedish Select has been used as the check throughout the test. It is a coarse, moderately stiff-strawed variety with an open panicle, and is medium to moderately late in maturity. \ 12 Table: II. — Summary of Oats Variety Tests, 1904-1918 Varieties grouped by years in test Color of grain Yields in bushels per acre 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 Aver- age 1904-1907 Swedish Select white 66.2 64.0 59.1 23.8 53.3 Black Diamond black 58.4 69.0 67.9 24.6 55.0 Early Illinois white 67.8 65.0 56.6 22.8 53.0 Northern White Star white 59.1 71.5 69.5 24.1 56.0 Prosperity white 36.8 72.5 39.4 17.7 41.6 1904-1908 Swedish Select white 66.2 64.0 59.1 23.8 35.2 49.7 American Banner white 59.3 50.4 74.9 24.0 33.0 48.3 Big Pour white 67.5 62.5 74.8 23.6 39.0 53.5 Black Gotham black 54.4 64.0 71.7 21.3 38.5 50.0 Centennial white 55.3 71.4 62.5 20.3 35.5 49.0 Clydesdale white 59.1 65.0 66.9 18.4 35.3 48.9 Colonel white 67.5 52.0 64.7 22.8 35.6 48.5 Early Champion white 59.4 68.0 37.1 19.5 28.4 42.5 Great Dakota white 59.3 76.5 74.2 29.4 35.7 55.0 Green Mountain white 62.2 70.0 63.4 26.0 38.0 51.9 Improved American white 40.9 66.5 67.2 28.5 35.9 47.8 Kansas Hybrid white 58.9 66.0 61.7 24.0 42.4 50.6 Kherson yellow 38.7 68.0 50.6 17.2 33.8 41.7 Lincoln white 64.3 66.0 69.4 19.6 40.3 51.9 Michigan Wonder white 68.7 53.0 60.2 18.7 41.0 48.3 Mortgage Lifter white 59.3 63.0 66.9 25.9 37.5 50.5 Purdue Black black 58.1 59.1 63.5 24.4 42.8 49.6 Scotch Champion white 42.5 43.0 53.1 17.2 34.3 38.0 • Scottish Chief white 59.3 62.0 64.2 19.4 42.4 49.5 Seizure white 49.4 65.0 62.6 16.9 32.9 45.4 Silver Mine white 69.1 67.0 68.8 22.2 33.9 52.2 Sixty Day yellow 36.5 85.9 41.3 23.2 42.3 45.8 Tyration white 63.1 62.5 67.2 22.0 33.2 49.6 White Belgian white 66.2 63.0 59.7 15.3 35.5 47.9 1904-1909 Swedish Select white 66.2 64.0 59.1 23.8 35.2 58.8 51.2 Czar of Russia white 66.8 69.0 65.8 27.2 33.9 56.2 53.1 Gold Mine white 59.3 68.5 67.9 26.0 40.9 50.4 52.2 Great American white 46.5 59.0 62.7 16.4 1 41.1 37.7 43.9 1905-1909 Swedish Select white 64.0 59.1 23.8 35.2 58.8 48.2 Black Prolific black 51.0 56.7 20.8 35.0 47.2 42.1 Black Tartarian black 66.0 67.6 18.5 41.1 58.0 50.2 Fourth of July white 68.0 40.4 20.5 34.6 53.1 43.3 Improved White Russian white 57.0 53.6 18.6 54.7 56.4 48.1 National white 58.0 65.3 22.0 41.2 58.3 49.0 Texas Red reddish 64.0 64.8 26.6 39.5 48.9 48.8 Twentieth Century white 63.0 54.7 19.9 32.9 1 55.0 1 45.1 White Mohegan white 55.0 63.5 19.1 35.3 52.9 45.2 White Superior Scotch white 53.0 43.9 21.1 36.4 54.2 41.7 1 Calculated yield 13 Table: II. — Summary of Oats Variety Tests, 1904-1918 (continued) Varieties grouped by years in test Color of grain Yields in bushels per acre 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 Aver- age 1906-1910 Swedish Select white 59.1 23.8 35.2 58.8 39.7 43.3 Golden Fleece white 65.2 21.0 45.0 57.8 41.9 46.2 National white 65.3 22.0 41.2 58.3 37.2 44.8 University No. 6 white 59.2 1 25.3 33.9 55.2 44.4 43.6 Welcome white 68.4 28.9 39.7 51.4 41.2 45.9 1908-1912 Swedish Select white 35.2 58.8 39.7 26.2 70.5 46.1 Daubeny white 35.6 75.7 30.7 25.4 67.9 47.1 Emperor William white 38.7 56.0 48.9 37.1 67.7 49.7 Great Dakota white 35.7 56.9 42.2 27.1 75.9 47.6 Regenerated Swedish Select white 36.5 57.0 39.5 27.6 75.3 47.2 Silver Mine white 33.9 68.0 34.3 25.1 82.9 48.8 Sparrowbill white 25.3 58.8 33.7 18.2 73.9 42.0 White Bedford white 31.3 66.3 46.6 25.7 89.6 51.9 White Belyak white 29.2 58.6 36.9 23.7 87.6 47.2 White Plume white 32.2 59.0 24.4 24.5 98.4 47.7 1909 1910 1911 1912 1914 1916 1909-1914 Swedish Select white 58.8 39.7 26.2 70.5 15.6 42.2 Black Egyptian black 57.8 33.5 31.3 78.7 13.4 42.9 Garton No. 364 white 43.5 27.6 25.7 72.6 16.9 37.3 Garton No. 396 black 53.7 29.7 30.8 74.9 16.9 41.2 Garton No. 436 white 53.2 40.2 26.1 70.3 12.9 40.5 Garton No. 572 white 51.6 46.9 26.0 71.8 18.9 43.0 Garton No. 691 black 47.6 27.3 29.2 63.6 17.6 37.1 Great Northern white 50.6 39.5 24.8 71.3 16.2 40.5 New Sensation white 59.3 39.8 25.2 68.2 12.7 41.0 Peerless white 58.2 36.8 26.5 69.3 12.5 40.7 Schance white 63.1 46.3 23.5 95.9 16.4 49.0 White Bonanza white 53.6 35.6 24.9 90.0 11.7 43.1 White Tartar King white 51.5 28.9 22.9 93.7 16.5 42.7 1910-1916 Swedish Select white 39.7 26.2 70.5 15.6 62.4 42.9 Canadian Cluster white 27.1 26.0 65.4 17.1 50.6 37.2 Kirsche’s Original white 35.5 20.5 74.8 14.5 55.2 40.1 President white 44.8 23.0 68.8 13.8 56.4 41.3 Roosevelt white 36.4 25.2 71.7 8.8 56.4 39.7 Senator white 17.3 20.4 77.2 11.8 52.1 35.8 University No. 26 white 39.1 28.8 84.8 14.0 58.1 44.9 Victor black 32.0 29.9 70.7 13.4 40.8 37.4 1 Calculated yield 14 Table: II. — Summary of Oats Variety Tests, 1904-1918 (continued) Varieties grouped by years in test Color of grain Yields in bus ; hels per acre 1911 1912 1914 1916 1917 1918 Aver- age 1911-1917 ' Swedish Select white 26.2 70.5 15.6 62.4 82.8 51.5 Borstlas Probsteier yellow 16.7 60.6 15.9 47.6 74.4 43.0 Guldrcgns yellow 22.8 73.3 17.2 54.8 79.8 49.6 Hoit Probsteier white 21.7 75.0 17.9 57.2 81.8 50.7 Hvitling white 23.4 72.3 18.3 49.2 64.3 45.5 Ligowo white 27.3 75.6 9.9 62.1 77.4 50.5 Napoleon white 22.5 1 82.6 12.3 50.1 71.0 47.7 Seger white 22.3 84.1 17.7 65.7 84.7 54.9 Serial No. 37 yellow 32.3 77.3 17.0 65.4 99.2 58.2 Serial No. 40 yellow 38.0 72.9 16.2 77.9 87.5 58.5 Serial No. 42 yellow 34.7 70.0 11.7 72.2 100.2 57.8 1914-1918 Swedish Select white 15.6 62.4 82.8 71.4 58.0 Black Belle II black 10.8 38.6 41.6 70.9 40.5 Black Great Mogul black 0.0 38.3 53.9 70,6 40.1 Crown white 13.8 59.8 81.9 76.2 57.9 Garton No. 5 white 13,6 42.7 60.5 60.2 44.3 Mammoth Cluster white 10.6 50.2 56.2 60.6 44.4 Swedish Tarpaulin white 11.3 58.3 80.7 71.6 55.5 Victory white 9.9 67.0 89.6 77.4 61.0 1916-1918 Swedish Select white 62.4 82.8 71.4 72.2 Alexander white 54.7 91.7 61.0 69.1 Alexander No. 61601 white 56.2 90.9 64.3 70.4 Canadian Regener- ated Swedish Select white 53.0 86.2 71.9 70.4 Canadian New Alberta white 58.1 84.5 62.5 68.4 Golden Rust Proof yellow 63.9 88.8 62.7 71.5 Iowa No. 103 white 60.8 72.3 53.0 62.0 Minnesota No. 281 white 52.6 82.9 66.1 67.2 Minnesota No. 295 white 49.4 92.0 60.0 67.1 Miracle white 55.0 78.2 70.0 67.7 Success No. 05402 white 53.7 89.5 73.9 72.4 White Banner white 57.1 89.0 63.0 69.7 Wisconsin Pedigree No. 1 white 61.3 78.5 81.6 73.8 Worthy white 54.3 82.8 67.8 68.3 1917-1918 Swedish Select white 82.8 71.4 77.1 Idaho White white 88.7 67.4 78.0 O. A. C. No. 72 white 86.1 63.3 74.7 Schoenen white 85.8 73.1 79.4 Wisconsin Pedigree No. 5 white 80.3 69.4 74.8 1 Calculated yield i5 Table II shows some marked differences between varieties in yield and earliness. Such varieties as Scotch Champion, Early Champion, Kherson, Sixty Day, Early Illinois, Fourth of July, and Iowa No. 103 are all early varieties and generally fall below the check variety in point of yield. The best yielding varieties include the Great Dakota, Silvermine, Big Four, Green Mountain, Black Tartarian, National, Welcome, White Bedford, Schance and Seger, the latter being of Swedish origin. The Great Da- kota, Silvermine, National and Big Four mature about the same time as the Swedish Select. The Black Tartarian and Welcome mature a day earlier than Swedish Select, while the White Bedford, Schance and Se- ger mature from one to three days later than the Swedish Select. The question of maturity is an important one in connection with the nature of the season. In a season of extreme drought and high temperature, a late maturing variety is greatly reduced in yield and quality. In a season favorable for oats, an early maturing variety produces very much less than those later in maturity, while in a season both hot and dry, the early maturing varieties show to much better advantage. Therefore, it is advisable to select a variety that is medium in maturity and will measure up well under average conditions. The southern part of the State general- ly will obtain the best results from the earlier maturing varieties. Imported Seed. — Questions frequently arise concerning the importa- tion of seed from other sections. Most experiments see n to indicate that there is a slight increase in yield to be gained by using northern grown seed but this is not sufficient to pay for the extra trouble and cost. The Ohio Station’s 1 results indicate that seed oats from the north and north- west may be expected to yield about the same as home grown seed and that imported varieties gain little by acclimatization. The Illinois Station 2 says, “A six-year average, covering 32 tests with northern oats and 34 tests with home-grown oats, shows that the northern-grown seed pro- duced 3.0 bushels more per acre than the home-grown seed. This differ- ence is scarcely large enough to justify the extra expense and trouble of shipping in the northern seed oats.” At the Indiana Station, two tests have been conducted to determine the adaptation of imported seed as compared with home grown seed. In one experiment, lasting seven years, a fresh seed of Sixty Day oats was secured each year from Kansas and North Dakota and compared with home grown seed, all having come from one source at the beginning of the experiment. As the average for the seven-year period, the Kansas grown seed produced 51.2 bushels, the North Dakota seed, 52.4 bushels and the home grown seed 50.2 bushels per acre. In the other experi- ment lasting three years, Wisconsin grown National oats were imported each year and grown beside home grown National originally from the same source. The average yields for the three years were 58.4 bushels per acre for the Wisconsin grown seed and 57.6 bushels for the home grown seed. In the light of the data from Indiana, Ohio and Illinois, it would seem that oats yields can be maintained with the continuous use of home 1 Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 257 2 Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 195 i6 grown seed, especially where cleaned and graded seed is used that has been treated to reduce disease to the minimum. Too frequently a good variety is discarded by the farmer, because he thinks it has “run out.” Neglected varieties will surely deteriorate but properly cared for varieties will continue to give good results indefinitely. After a variety has once proven its worth, continuous careful attention to seed selection will im- prove its adaptation to the local conditions and there need be no fear of “running out.” SPRING BARLEY The same general statements so far as time of seeding and method and rate of seeding are concerned, hold true for spring barley as for oats. Hot weather the latter part of the growing season injures the yield and the quality of barley even more than oats. For this reason, the earlier the seeding the better it is for the crop. Earliness is a desirable quality for a variety to have in addition to yielding power. These two characteristics will contribute a great deal towards making barley culture profitable. 17 Table: III. — Summary of Spring Barley Variety Tests, 1905-1918 Varieties grouped by years in test Yields of grain in bushels per acre 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 Aver- age- 1905-1909 Success Beardless 20.6 21.7 16.2 21.3 30.5 22.1 Black Hulless 16.8 18.6 15.0 14.4 31.3 19.2 Giant White Hulless 16.4 18.7 1 9.3 13.2 35.4 18.6 Great Beardless 20.6 23.6 17.3 15.7 32.2 21.9 Highland Chief 20.0 20.9 9.0 16.3 37.6 20.8 Manshury 20.4 30.3 10.0 13.4 47.1 24.2 Moravian or Hanna 19.6 24.8 8.4 17.7 33.1 20.7 Silver Beardless 17.5 24.0 11.8 14.4 32.7 20.1 Silver King 22.3 33.6 21.2 19.0 46.3 28.5 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1908-1914 Success Beardless 21.3 30.5 45.7 20.7 37.8 7.3 6.4 24.3 Canadian No. 21 18.8 48.0 41.8 19.9 55.0 7.1 5.9 28.1 Oderbrucker 21.1 41.3 42.0 18.6 37.5 9.0 3.2 24.7 University No. 105 19.7 43.7 43.2 16.2 34.4 5.2 5.2 23.9 No. 986 8.8 1 31.3 32.3 0.1 4.6 2.7 4.9 12.1 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1911-1917 Success Beardless 20.9 37.8 7.3 6.4 20.5 28.7 48.8 24.3 Chevalier 9.1 42.0 5.4 3.0 14.3 26.0 37.3 19.6 Hannchen 17.8 55.5 8.7 8.1 17.9 35.2 50.5 27.7 Primus 3.8 23.8 1 4.6 1 0.0 12.8 23.4 45.7 16.3 Princess 4.9 56.1 3.7 6.3 24.8 33.6 44.9 24.9 Reed’s Triumph 5.1 38.4 5.8 6.2 14.2 29.2 65.6 23.5 Sexrads 17.6 46.2 8.7 6.3 18.1 33.9 51.8 26.1 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1914-1918 Success Beardless 6.4 20.5 28.7 48.8 42.5 29.4 Chevalier II 2.5 17.2 24.5 40.3 33.0 23.5 Gold 2.3 16.0 32.7 48.8 19.0 23.8 Stoeckinger 5.1 16.0 31.3 38.3 59.3 1 26.0 Swanneck 1.9 16.8 30.7 45.8 29.1 24.9 1 Calculated yield A comparison of Table III with Table II will show that barley, on the average, has produced about one-half as many bushels per acre as oats. On this basis the price of barley would have to be twice the price of oats per bushel to make 't equally profitable as a market crop. In the average yields for the State, however, (see page 4), barley compares favorably with oats and not only yields a larger profit per acre when used as a market crop but also yields a considerably larger amount of digestible nutrients for feeding purposes. According to the average prices of the two grains (see page 4) it takes 25 bushels of barley to i8 be equal to 40 bushels of oats. In total digestible nutrients produced, 23.5 bushels of barley are worth 40 bushels of oats. Silver King, Canadian No. 21 and Hannchen, all bearded varieties, have produced the largest average yields among the varieties tested at this station, as compared with Success Beardless which has been used as the check in all groups. Where beardiness is objectionable, the Success Beardless is the most generally satisfactory variety to use in this part of the country. SPRING WHEAT Spring wheat in Indiana is not a crop of much importance. About 2003 acres are grown annually and the average yield per acre is consid- erably below the average yield of winter wheat. The growing season for this crop is too hot, particularly during the ripening period. In cool seasons, however, very satisfactory yields have been reported. In the last two years some farmers reported yields as high as 30 to 35 bushels per acre and this has caused many inquiries concerning this crop to be directed to the Station. In the main, this department regards the crop as too uncertain to recommend it for general sowing. Some years there have been total failures, while in other years the yields have reached as high as winter wheat. It is quite probable that the best success with this crop may be expected in the northern part of the State where the average summer temperature is several degrees lower than in the southern part of the State. Table: IV. — Summary of Spring Wheat Variety Tests, 1908-1918 Varieties grouped by years in test Yields ; in bushels per acre 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1 Aver- age 1908-1915 Kubanka (check) 18.6 16.5 28.1 5.9 17.8 14.8 3.7 13.2 New Minnesota No. 163 10.0 19.0 18.8 5.9 16.9 12.7 3.6 10.9 1912 1913 1914 191 5 1 1912-1915 Kubanka (check) 17.8 14.8 3.7 0.0 9.1 Marquis 19.5 9.7 2.9 0.0 8.0 New Marvel 16.4 14.6 4.2 0.0 8.8 New Minnesota No. 163 16.9 12.7 3.6 0.0 8.3 Regenerated Red Fife 14.7 11.7 3.1 0.0 7.4 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1 1915 1917 1918 1910-1918 Kubanka (check) 28.1 5.9 17.8 14.8 3.7 0.0 25.0 23.8 24.1 15.9 New Marvel 15.0 6.8 16.4 14.6 4.2 0.0 14.5 26.8 24.7 13.7 1915 1917 1918 1916-1918 Kubanka (check) 25.0 23.8 24.7 24.5 New Minnesota No. 169 16.0 24.2 21.5 20.6 1 The crop of 1915 was a complete failure, due to the ravages of Hessian fly and red rust, but was counted in obtaining the average yield 19 Table IV shows the results of trials with different varieties of spring wheat on the Station plots. These varieties have frequently pro- duced seed of very poor quality. Marquis and Regenerated Red Fife are the two most promising varieties for Indiana conditions. Kubanka, a macaroni wheat, is a hard spring wheat of the Durum type and has given very creditable yields as compared with spring wheats of the ordinary bread-making varieties. Spring wheat in Indiana seems to be particularly subject to blight and scab as well as shrivelling of the grain due to hot weather. The cultural requirements for spring wheat are very similar to those required for oats. The rate of seeding is the same as for winter wheat. SPRING EMMER Spring emmer has been highly spoken of for feeding purposes. It, however, has too high a per cent, of hull to make it of any particular value as compared with other spring grains. Only a very small acreage was reported for Indiana in the last census, with an average yield of a little less than 20 bushels per acre, including hull. It is not to be recom- mended for general use in this state. SPRING RYE Not a great deal is known about spring rye. The Station has grown it during three different years, 1910, 1911 and 1918, but definite con- clusions cannot be drawn from the limited data at hand. The average yield for the three years was 29.1 bushels per acre, while in the same years the average yield of winter rye was 34.9 bushels per acre. Spring rye does not seem to have any particular place among grain crops in Indiana and very little of it is produced. COMPARATIVE YIELDS OF SMALL GRAINS For the purpose of comparison, to give an idea of what may be ex- pected from the various small grains in Indiana, attention is called to the yields secured on the trial grounds of the Station at LaFayette during the last nine years. Table V. — Comparative Yields of All Small Grains Years tested and yields in bushels per acre Kind of grain 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 Aver- age Spring wheat 15.0 6.8 16.4 14.6 4.2 0.0 1 14.5 26.8 24.7 13.7 Spring barley 45.7 20.9 37.8 7.3 6.4 20.5 28.7 48.8 42.5 28.7 Oats 39.7 25.2 70.5 35.3 15.6 69.8 62.4 82.8 71.4 52.6 Spring emmer 32.2 33.1 16.5 8.7 24.5 Spring rye 29.8 16.6 40.8 Winter wheat 18.5 28.3 31.2 34.2 27.6 37.6 10.7 34.1 40.8 29.2 Winter rye 32.5 30.0 54.7 34.8 28.0 46.2 40.0 39.7 42.1 38.7 1 The spring wheat crop of 1915 was a complete failure due to Hessian Fly and rust but the year was included in making up the average yield 20 In Table V, it will be noted that the winter grains have been much more profitable than the spring grains. Oats have been the most profit- able of the spring grains. Winter wheat and winter rye have been about equal in money value. At the average farm prices (see page 4) for the nine years for which the yields are shown in Table V, the gross returns per acre for the principal crops have been: oats, $23.14; barley, $20.38; spring wheat, $17.26; winter wheat, $37.08, and winter rye, $37.54. 30.7 >2 b MM.-iM T or ILMMOIS LIBRARY PURDUE UNIVERSITY Agricultural Experiment Bulletin No. 22 6 January, 1919 Fig. 1. Red clover is the most practical legume for ordinary farm use in Indiana THE VALUE OF LEGUMES ON INDIANA SOILS Published by the Station: LAFAYETTE, INDIANA U. S. A. The successful growth of clover or other leguminous crops is an essential factor in maintaining the fertility of most Indiana soils. Leg- umes are soil renovators in a marked degree and may be very profit- ably employed in building up run-down soils. Without legumes, the problems of maintaining adequate supplies of organic matter and nitro- gen in soils are difficult; with legumes, they are simple. To produce maximum crops, the ordinary soils of the State should bear clover or some other legume at least once every three or four years and most of the produce should go back to the land in one form or another. In a rotation of corn, wheat and clover, averaging 60 bushels of corn, 25 bushels of wheat and two tons of clover hay to the acre, where the corn stalks and second growth clover are left on the ground, the wheat grain sold, the ear corn, clover hay and wheat straw utilized as feed and bedding and the manure carefully saved and re- turned to the land, the nitrogen balance in the soil will be just about maintained. The importance of phosphorus, lime and manure on Indiana soils has been shown in recent bulletins of this station. The results of field experiments reported in this bulletin show that the inclusion of a fair proportion of clover or other legumes in the crop rotation is fully as important in maintaining soil fertility. THE VALUE OF LEGUMES ON INDIANA SOILS A. T. Wiancko S. D. Conner S. C. Jones SUMMARY From 25 to 50 per cent, of the nitrogen and humus of Indiana soils has been used up or lost by the system of cropping they have undergone. The increased growth of legumes is the easiest and most profitable method of restoring nitrogen and organic matter to run-down soils. The annual acreage of legumes grown in Indiana on the average, is not more than 1,000,000 acres out of a total of over 11,000,000 acres in field crops. The acreage of legumes should be increased at least three times. Clover and other legumes are the only crops that have the power of utilizing free nitrogen from the air. A two-ton crop of clover will gather about 80 pounds of nitrogen. Besides increasing the nitrogen and organic matter, legumes improve the physical, chemical and biological conditions of the soil. In experiments conducted in various parts of Indiana, crop rotations containing legumes produced 4.6 bushels of corn and 4.7 bushels of wheat per acre more than rotations in which no legumes were grown. These aver- ages are for 61 crops on eight experiment fields during the last 12 years. Clover and other legumes may fail to do well because of soil acidity, poor drainage, lack of phosphate, potash or organic matter. To succeed with clover, wet soils must be drained; acid soils must be limed ; phosphate will nearly always be needed and sometimes potash may be required. Clover is the most practical legume for general farm use in Indiana. When clover fails, soybeans and cowpeas are good substitutes to fill its place in the rotation. The more recently introduced legumes, such as alfalfa, soybeans, sweet clover and vetch, will usually need to be specially inoculated with their particular nitrogen gathering bacteria when first used. Some legumes are more tolerant of poor soil conditions than red clover. Alsike is best for wet soils. Soybeans and cowpeas are best for acid soils, while hairy vetch and cowpeas may be grown on light sands. INTRODUCTION The successful growth of clover or other leguminous crops is an essential factor in maintaining the fertility of most Indiana soils. Legumes are soil renovators in a marked degree and may be very profitably em- ployed in building up run-down soils. Without legumes, the problems of maintaining adequate supplies of organic matter and nitrogen in soils are difficult ; with legumes, they are simple. All the light colored soils of the State are deficient in organic matter and nitrogen and under ordinary systems of cropping are becoming more 4 and more depleted of these essential constituents. In a recent chemical examination of a large number of representative soil samples from fields which had been under cultivation for from 50 to 75 years and from ad- joining fence rows or woods areas of the same soil types that had never been under cultivation, it was found that on the average, the cultivated soils had lost 26 per cent, of their total organic matter, 47 per cent, of their humus and 28 per cent, of their nitrogen content. These losses have had a serious effect upon the crop producing powers of the fields concerned and in many cases they are no longer yielding profitable re- turns. To produce maximum crops, the ordinary soils of Indiana should bear clover or some other legume at least once every three or four years and most of the produce should go back to the land in one form or an- other. In a rotation of corn, wheat and clover, averaging 60 bushels of corn, 25 bushels of wheat and two tons of clover hay to the acre, where the corn stalks and second growth clover are left on the ground, the wheat grain sold, the ear corn, clover hay and wheat straw utilized as feed and bedding and the manure carefully saved and returned to the land, the nitrogen balance in the soil will be just about maintained. To get an idea of how far short farmers are falling in this matter of maintaining the nitrogen balance in the soil, the acreage of legumes and the acreage of non-legumes annually produced on the farms of Indiana should be compared. Average Annual Acreages of Field Crops Produced in Indiana During the Last 10-Year Period, 1908-1917 Corn 4,884,300 acres Hay 2,056,300 acres Wheat 2,136,700 acres Oats 1,713,200 acres Rye 104,900 acres Potatoes 84,400 acres Miscellaneous field crops estimated. . . . 125,000 acres Total acreage 11,104,800 acres Of this total acreage, it is estimated that not over 1,000,000 acres (included under hay and miscellaneous) are in clover and other legumes. This means that only about one-eleventh of the total acreage of field crops in Indiana is legumes. It should be at least three times as much if soil fertility is to be economically maintained. Ordinary crops of corn, oats, wheat and grass on the average will take from the soil upwards of 40 pounds of nitrogen per acre per year. There is also more or less unavoidable loss of nitrogen through leaching and the natural processes going on in the soil. Without legumes, even under the best systems of management, only a small portion of the nitrogen thus removed can be returned to the soil. To supply it in the 5 form of commercial fertilizers is out of the question on the ground of expense. The only practical means of making good the nitrogen loss- es or increasing the supply in the soil is the growing and turning under of clover or other legumes. HOW LEGUMES INCREASE SOIL FERTILITY The value of clover and other legumes in increasing the yields of grain and other non-leguminous crops grown in a rotation has long been recognized but only within the last half century has it been known that the principal reason for this is the fact that legumes add nitrogen to the soil. They do this by means of bacteria which develop in nodules on their roots. 1 These bacteria have the power of collecting nitrogen from the inexhaustible supplies in the atmosphere. Each acre of the earth’s surface has above it 70,000,000 pofinds of nitrogen. The nodule-forming bacteria, which normally live on the roots of legumes, feed upon this atmospheric nitrogen and convert it into forms which can be utilized by succeeding crops of other kinds, such as corn, small grains and grasses, which are not able directly to utilize atmospheric nitrogen ; only the legumes can do this. A two-ton crop of clover will require about 120 pounds of nitrogen, about 80 pounds of which will be gathered from the air, and will be a clear gain to the soil if the crop is turned under. The roots and stubble of such a crop will contain about half as much nitrogen as the tops, or about 40 pounds per acre. Since legumes can utilize available soil nitrogen as well as other crops, a certain amount of the nitrogen contained in them will have come from the soil. For the pur- pose of calculations, it is commonly estimated that the amount of nitro- gen thus taken from the soil by legumes is about equal to that contained in their roots and stubble. This means that if the top growth of the crop is removed from the land there is no gain of nitrogen in the soil. It is only when top growth is plowed under, either directly or in the form of manure, that the soil can be built up in nitrogen, and the amount added will be directly proportional to the amount of material plowed under. In a trial of soybean and cowpea cover crops after wheat on the Purdue Farm experiment field during three years (1909-1911), soy- beans made an average of six tons and cowpeas an average of 7.1 tons of green top growth per acre. The soybeans contained 92.4 pounds of nitrogen in the tops and 13 pounds in the stubble and roots to the depth of 18 inches. The cowpeas contained 112.5 pounds of nitrogen in the tops and 16.8 pounds in the roots and stubble.’ These cover crops, turned under green, added an average of over 100 pounds of nitrogen to the soil if we consider that an amount of nitrogen equal to that in the roots and stubble came from the soil. In experiments at the Rhode Island and Delaware experiment stations it was found that crops of clover, soy- beans, cowpeas and vetch added an average of 112 pounds of nitrogen to the soil in a single season. These additions of nitrogen to the soil by 1 It is now known that Azotobaoter and related forms of bacteria are able to fix at- mospheric nitrogen a's well as the legume bacteria. These bacteria require a supply of decomposable organic matter for food and do not live on the live roots of plants. They also require an abundance of lime and the other soil conditions that are favorable to the growth of clover. Undoubtedly, the turning under of a legume crop residue will supply the decaying organic matter that Azotobacter require and in this way additional nitrogen may be fixed 6 legumes are well worth while considering what they would cost if added in the form of commercial fertilizer. To supply ioo pounds of nitrogen in the form of manure or fertilizer would require io tons of manure or 650 pounds of nitrate of soda or two and one-half tons of a 2-8-2 fertilizer. Legumes can also be utilized for supplying organic matter to the soil if turned under and by their use in this way, this important soil con- stituent as well as nitrogen may be maintained or increased at will and in the most profitable manner. Other crops than legumes will provide organic matter but they cannot of themselves add nitrogen. Leguminous organic matter is therefore the most valuable. Most legumes have a marked mellowing effect upon the soil and leave it in good physical con- dition for succeeding crops. When used as cover crops, legumes not only add nitrogen from the air but also conserve and make more available other plant foods which they gather from the soil. By means of their deep root systems and strong feeding powers legumes bring up consid- erable quantities of mineral matter from the subsoil which, when they decay, is made available to other crops following. The decay of legumes in the soil also favors the work of beneficial soil bacteria which bring about favorable chemical reactions upon mineral plant foods, making them available to succeeding crops. It has been estimated that a good crop of clover has in its tops and roots as much plant foot as 10 tons of ordinary manure. Many examples of the beneficial effects of legumes upon the fertility of the soil may be found in the work of other experiment stations. In an experiment at the New Jersey Station where wheat and rye have been grown in continuous culture since 1909, a portion of each plot has been treated with a cowpea or soybean cover crop, seeded after harvest and turned under in the fall before reseeding to wheat or rye. As the aver- age for the first eight years (1909 to 1916 inclusive) the yield of wheat has been 19.7 bushels per acre after the legume cover crop and 11.6 bushels without the legume cover crop. The yield of rye has been 22.3 bushels with the legume cover crop and 16.7 bushels without it. 1 At the Maryland Station crimson clover was plowed under for corn and pota- toes and the yields compared with those on untreated land. On the un- treated land, the yield of corn was 39.3 bushels and the yield of potatoes 52.8 bushels per acre. On the land where crimson clover had been plowed under, the yield of corn was 46 bushels and the yield of potatoes 72.3 bushels per acre. 2 At the Alabama Station, sorghum after sorghum stubble yielded 3.65 tons; 'after cowpea and velvet bean stubble, 5.73 tons; after cowpea and velvet bean vines turned under, 6.24 tons of for- age per acre. 3 The Rothamsted Experiment Station in England reports an experiment where clover residues were plowed under in 1911 and fol- lowed with oats in 1912 and barley in 1913. The yield of oats was 41 bushels and of barley 39.3 bushels per acre on the clover residue plots as compared with 17 bushels of oats and 34 bushels of barley on untreated land. At Ottawa, Canada, land that was in clover in 1900 yielded 25.8 tons of silage corn in 1901 ; 70.59 bushels of oats in 1902; 195.33 bushels 1 New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 305 2 Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletins Nos. 31, 38 and 46 3 Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 120 7 of potatoes, 3148 tons of carrots and 22.3 tons of sugar beets per acre in 1903. The corresponding yields on unclovered land were: silage corn, 20.08 tons; oats, 58.82 bushels; potatoes, 175.33 bushels; carrots, 20.32 tons; sugar beets 8.6 tons per acre. 1 At the Nappan Farm in Nova Scotia, wheat, oats and barley grown continuously with and without a clover cover crop, gave the following yields in 1905: without the clover cover crop: wheat, 34.33 bushels; oats, 41.18 bushels; barley, 32.71 bushels per acre ; with the clover cover crop, the yields were : wheat, 40 bushels; oats, 55.29 bushels; barley, 37.29 bushels per acre. 2 The importance of phosphorus, lime and manure on Indiana soils has been shown in recent bulletins of this station. The results of field experiments reported in this bulletin show that the inclusion of a fair proportion of clover or other legumes in the crop rotation is fully as important in maintaining soil fertility. THE SCOTTSBURG AND LITTLES EXPERIMENTS The crop rotation experiments on the Scottsburg field in Scott County and on the Littles field in Pike County present two good ex- amples of the beneficial effect of legumes upon the fertility of the soil. In Table I are shown the average yields of wheat after clover and after corn for a period of nine years on land receiving no treatment other than the rotation. In the first case the rotation is wheat, wheat and clover with a cowpea inter crop or cover crop sown after harvesting the first wheat crop and turned under or disked in for the second wheat crop in the fall of the same season. In the second case, the rotation is corn, wheat and timothy. Table I. — Effect of Legume on Wheat Yields on Scottsburg and Littles Experiment Fields, Average of Nine Years on Each Field, 1907-1915 • Particulars Average wheat yields — bushels per acre Scottsburg Littles Average Wheat after clover in a wheat (cowpea intercrop), wheat and clover rotation 11.9 16.5 14.2 Wheat after corn in a corn, wheat and timothy rotation 7.6 9.4 8.5 Difference in favor of wheat after clover 4.3 7.1 5.7 The average yields of wheat have been small, partly on account of frequent damage by Hessian fly and winter-killing and partly because of the impoverished condition of the soil. Only the results on the unfertil- ized check plots are shown in this comparison because the fertilized plots received different treatments in the two rotations and therefore are not strictly comparable. The differences shown in the unfertilized yields are due to the difference in the rotations only. Where the wheat follows 1 Dominion Experimental Farms Report, 1903 - Dominion Experimental Farms Report, 1905 8 corn the yields are much smaller in both cases than where it follows clover. There are doubtless other limiting factors on this impoverished land but the beneficial effect of the legume is clearly shown in both cases. For the wheat following clover, the ground was summer plowed a month to six weeks after harvesting the clover hay crop and the seed bed otherwise prepared in the usual way. Where the wheat followed corn, the entire corn crop was removed and the land prepared by disking and harrowing before drilling the wheat. The seeding was done at the same time in all cases. The soil of the Scottsburg field is Volusia silt loam, locally known as “yellow clay.” The soil of the Littles field has not been classified, but is a grayish-brown silt loam common in that section of the State. THE WILSON FARM EXPERIMENTS In the crop rotation experiments on the Wilson Farm, located on Miami and Clyde silt loam (“black and clay”) soil of fair fertility, there are three rotations in which wheat follows soybeans used as a grain crop. In several other rotations the wheat follows corn. A beneficial legume effect is shown in all cases where wheat follows soybeans. The yields of wheat in these rotations have been considerably larger than in adjoin- ing rotations where wheat follows corn with otherwise similar treatment. The average yields and the difference in favor of the soybeans are shown in Table II. Table: II. — Effect of Legume vs. Corn on Succeeding Wheat Yields, Average Three Years on Wilson Farm, 1916-1918 Average yields per acre Particulars Wheat bushels Straw pounds Value of produce 1 Wheat after soybeans (average of 3 rotations for the 3 years, or 9 crops) 34.0 3117.0 $75.79 Wheat after corn (average of 3 rotations for the 3 years, or 9 crops) 29.6 2817.0 66.24 Difference in favor of wheat after soybeans 4.4 300.0 9.55 1 Throughout this bulletin, where money values are used, corn has been valued at $1.00 and wheat at $2.00 per bushel, stover at $6.00, straw at $5.00 and hay at $20.00 per ton Good yields of wheat have been secured in both the corn and soy- bean rotations but the wheat after soybeans has averaged 4.4 bushels per acre better than the wheat after corn in otherwise good rotations. Where the wheat follows soybeans, the rotations are as follows : corn, soybeans and wheat ; corn, soybeans, wheat and clover ; corn, corn, soybeans, wheat and clover. Where the wheat follows corn, the rotations are as follows : corn, wheat and alfalfa ; corn, wheat and sweet clover ; corn, wheat, clover and timothy. 9 THE NORTH VERNON EXPERIMENTS In the soil fertility investigations on the North Vernon field there is included a comparison of a corn, wheat and clover rotation with a corn, wheat and timothy rotation to determine the relative efifects of the clover and timothy upon the fertility of the soil. In both cases the soil has been limed and receives a dressing of six tons of stable manure once every three years for corn. The soil is a whitish silt loam, naturally very low in organic matter and nitrogen and before being limed was very acid. In Table III are shown the average yields of corn, wheat and hay in the two rotations, together with the differences in favor of the rotation having clover instead of timothy as the hay crop. Table III. — Clover vs. Timothy in Rotation with Corn and Wheat, North Vernon Experiment Field, 1914-1918 Average yields per acre Rotation Corn bushels 1914-18 Stover pounds 1914-18 Wheat bushels 1915-18 Straw pounds 1915-18 Hay pounds 1916-18 Corn, wheat and clover 77.1 4926.0 19.8 1890.0 4147.0 Corn, wheat and timothy 73.9 4413.0 15.4 1410.0 2600.0 Difference in favor of clover 3.2 513.0 4.4 480.0 1547.0 It will be seen that all the crops have produced larger yields in the rotation containing clover. The relatively small difference in the average yields of corn is doubtless due to the fact that this crop receives the manure. Six tons of manure per acre are plowed under for corn on the timothy and clover plots alike. This manuring seems to meet most of the needs of the corn crop and largely masks the legume effect. The wheat and hay, however, which follow the corn in the next two years, get only what is left of the manure and the clover plot shows up to much better advantage. Clover has increased the yields of corn by 3.2 bushels, wheat by 4.4 bushels, and hay by 1547 pounds per acre. Expressed in terms of money, the corn, wheat and clover rotation has been worth an average of $30.21 more than the corn, wheat and timothy rotation, or $10.07 P er acre P er year. THE WORTHINGTON EXPERIMENTS On the Worthington experiment field in Greene County, clover and timothy are being compared as to their effect upon the fertility of the soil and the total value of the rotation just as at North Vernon on limed and similarly manured. land. The soil on this field, which is a gray silt loam (Knox), is somewhat better supplied with organic matter and nitrogen than the North Vernon soil but was considerably run down. On account of clover failures due to extremely dry weather in the earlier years of the experiment, which was begun in 1912, no comparison of the clover and timothy effects was possible until the 1916 corn crop, which was the 10 first that followed clover on one plot and timothy on the other. The 1917 wheat crop and the 1918 hay crop were the first to follow the clover versus timothy treatment. The results are shown in Table IV. Fig. 2. Effect of legume on wheat, Worthington held, 1917. Each shock is the produce of one-twentieth acre Corn, wheat and timothy rotation 14.7 bushels wheat per acre Corn, wheat and clover rotation 24.7 bushels wheat per acre Table IV. — Clover vs. Timothy in Rotation with Corn and Wheat, Worthington Experiment Field, 1916-1918 Average yields per acre Rotation Corn bushels 1916-18 Stover pounds 1916-18 Wheat bushels 1917-18 Straw pounds 1917-18 Hay pounds 1918 Corn, wheat and clover 46.5 2448.0 21.8 2113.0 3380.0 Corn, wheat and timothy 44.4 2162.0 15.7 1651.0 2280.0 Difference in favor of clover 2.1 286.0 6.1 462.0 1100.0 It will be seen that the corn and hay increases due to clover instead of timothy are somewhat smaller than at North Vernon, while the in- crease in wheat has been larger. There is no apparent explanation for the comparatively large increase in wheat unless it be that dry weather did not permit the corn to respond as fully to the clover, thus leaving more of a residue for the wheat. The small average yields of corn are at least partly due to unfavorable weather conditions, causing late plant- ing and poor development. The total average value of the increase due to clover is, however, very similar to that at North Vernon, being $27.12 per acre per rotation, or $9.04 per acre per year. II EFFECT OF SOYBEANS VS. CORN ON WHEAT YIELDS AT NORTH VERNON AND WORTHINGTON On the North Vernon and Worthington experiment fields there are comparisons of a soybean, wheat and clover rotation with a corn, wheat and clover rotation. In both cases a favorable legume effect is shown on the wheat yields. Table V shows the results. TablK V. — Effect of Soybeans and Corn on Succeeding Wheat Yields on North Vernon and Worthington Experiment Fields, Average of Five Years on Each Field, 1914-1918 Rotation Average wheat yields — bushels per acre North Vernon Worthington Average .1 Soybeans, wheat and clover 25.4 22.2 23.8 Corn, wheat and clover 22.8 19.8 21.3 Difference in favor of wheat after soybeans 2.6 2.4 2.5 The difference in the wheat yields after soybeans and after corn are in favor of the legume in both cases, being 2.6 bushels per acre at North Vernon and 2.4 bushels at Worthington. On both fields the land has been limed and the corn and soybeans receive six tons of manure and 200 pounds of acid phosphate and the wheat receives 200 pounds of a 2-8-4 fertilizer. Which of these two rotations will be the better in the long run it is too early to decide. The soybeans may not prove as profit- able as the corn in a rotation already having one legume, but they do show a beneficial effect upon the yields of wheat. THE PURDUE FARM EXPERIMENTS On the old Purdue experiment field, which was started in 1889, several different systems of cropping are being compared. On one sec- tion of the field, corn is grown continuously with a rye cover crop. On another section, wheat is grown continuously with clover seeded in the spring and turned under after harvest. On another section, corn and wheat are rotated and clover is sown on the wheat and turned under the following spring for corn. On another section, a full three-crop rotation of corn, wheat and clover is grown. The results for the last eight years are shown in Table VI. The results prior to 1911 are not strictly com- parable, because on the rotated land only one crop at a time was grown. In 1911, the rotated plots were divided into sections, so that all the crops in the rotation could be grown every year. These experiments have not been altogether satisfactory on account of the droughty character of the soil which is very shallow and is under- laid by a deep bed of gravel. The results of these experiments are shown in Table VI. 12 Table VI. — Effect of Clover in Rotation on Corn and Wheat Yields, Purdue Farm Experiment Field, 191 1-1918 Average yields per acre Rotation Corn bushels Stover pounds Wheat bushels Straw pounds Corn continuously 25.3 2345.0 Wheat continuously 14.6 1661.0 Corn and wheat, with clover inter crop 27.0 1950.0 17.7 1865.0 Corn, wheat, clover 32.2 2018.0 17.9 1736.0 It will be seen that the yields of corn have averaged 5.2 bushels more after clover in the three-year rotation than after wheat in the two-year rotation which has clover only as an inter crop, and 6.9 bushels more than where corn is grown continuously. The yields of wheat have been only slightly larger in the three-year rotation having a full crop of clover than in the two-year rotation where the clover stands only as an inter- crop but 3.3 bushels larger than under continuous wheat culture, where the young clover is plowed under shortly after wheat harvest. The relatively small legume effect in the three-year rotation is due partly to the fact that frequently the stand of clover was unsatisfactory on account of summer drought after wheat harvest. Another factor which operates against a better clover effect in these experiments, is the fact that only the grain crops are fertilized, meaning that the three-year rotation receives only two-thirds as much fertilizer pjer year as the two-year rotation. THE WESTPORT EXPERIMENT The soil fertility experiment field at Westport, Decatur County, is located on the same type of soil as the North Vernon field. It is a flat, whitish silt loam soil, naturally wet and sour. A clover and timothy, or legume and non-legume comparison is one of several subjects of study on this field and is repeated on both tiled and untiled land, with and without manure. This experiment was started in 1915 but the 1917 corn and the 1918 wheat crops were the first to follow the legume vs. non-legume treatment, which began in 1916. Both rotations were limed at the rate of four tons of ground limestone per acre in 1915 and the corn and wheat receive a phosphate and potash fertilizer in all cases. 13 Table; VII.- — Clover vs. Timothy in Rotation with Corn and Wheat, Westport Experiment Field, 1917-1918 1 Average yields per acre Rotation Corn bushels 1917-18 Stover pounds 1917-18 Wheat bushels 1918 Straw pounds 1918 Hay pounds Corn, wheat and clover 56.4 3178.0 19.8 1965.0 None Corn, wheat and timothy 51.2 2953.0 14.4 1557.0 following clover j : Difference in favor of ! clover 5.2 225.0 5.4 408.0 vs. timothy treatment 1 These results are the averages of four plots each season (tiled and untiled, manured and unmanured) Table VII shows the average yields of corn and wheat for the two rotations. Since half of the land in each rotation has been manured, the legume effect doubtless has been somewhat masked by the manure which was applied for corn on the clover and timothy land alike. It should be said, too, that there was a considerable amount of clover mixed with the timothy on the non-legume plots, probably 20 to 25 per cent. Nevertheless, the increase of 5.2 bushels of corn and 5.4 bushels of wheat in the corn, wheat, clover rotation over the corn, wheat, timothy is con- siderable and shows a good legume effect on this land. • THE FRANCISCO EXPERIMENT The soil of the Francisco experiment field is typical of the hilly portion of the unglaciated area of southwestern Indiana. The surface soil is a yellowish or reddish silt loam with a reddish clay loam subsoil. The soils of this area are badly eroded and in many places gullied and are therefore very deficient in organic matter and nitrogen. They are also deficient in phosphorus and are usually acid. The experiment field lies on a ridge that has been under cultivation for about 30 years but is naturally much better preserved than the average land in the area. How- ever, it has been responding very profitably to manure, lime, phosphate and legume treatments. This field was laid out in the fall of 1915 and so far there have been only two corn crops and one wheat crop following legumes in the legume rotation to compare with the same crops in the non-legume rotation. The field was started with cowpeas and millet in the place of clover and timothy. The clover seeded in the 191^-16 wheat crop failed on account of extremely dry weather and soybeans were sub- stituted as the hay crop for 1917. This means that the 1917 corn crop and the 1918 wheat crop followed cowpeas and the 1918 corn followed soybeans as substitutes for clover in the corn, wheat and clover rotation. In the corn, wheat, timothy rotation, the 1917 corn and the 1918 wheat crop followed millet in the place of timothy in 1916. Fig. 3. Effect of legume on corn, Francisco field, 1918. Each shock is the produce of one-twentieth acre Corn, wheat and timothy rotation Corn, wheat and clover rotation 35.3 bushels corn per acre 47.5 bushels corn per acre Table: VIII. — Legume vs. Timothy in Rotation with Corn and Wheat, Francisco. Experiment Field, 1917-1918 Average yields per acre Rotation Corn bushels 1917-18 StoveT pounds 1917-18 Wheat bushels 1918 Straw pounds 1918 Hay pounds Corn, wheat, and clover 52.5 4192.0 20.4 1815.0 None following Corn, wheat and timothy Difference in favor of 42.8 3647.0 13.7 1215.0 legume vs. timothy legume 9.7 545.0 6.7 600.0 treatment In Table VIII are shown the average corn and wheat yields in the legume and non-legume rotations and the difference in favor of the legume. The only difference in the treatment of the two plots is that the one has had a legume preceding the corn and wheat crops and the other has not. Both areas received three tons of ground limestone per acre in the fall of 1915. The very good increases of corn and wheat in the legume rotation over the non-legume rotation clearly show the value of cowpeas and soybeans as substitutes' when clover fails. CAUSES OF CLOVER FAILURES Land that once produced good clover and now fails to do so has gotten out of condition in one way or another due to improper manage- ment. One of the first things to look for is injurious soil acidity. If this is found, liming is the remedy. Constant cropping and inadequate re- i5 turns may have so reduced the soil organic matter that this has become a limiting factor. Insufficient organic matter means bad physical condi- tions and the young clover plants die because the ground bakes, cracks and dries out badly. Reduction in organic matter also means less food for the nodule-forming, nitrogen-gathering bacteria and a lessening of the beneficial chemical reactions in the soil which make plant foods available and which are favored by decomposing organic matter. Poor management also results in reducing the available mineral plant foods in the soil, especially phosphorus, which at best is not abundant, and in some cases is the chief requirement to make clover do well again. Lack of available phosphorus usually goes hand in hand with lack of both lime and organic matter. Poor drainage is always detrimental to clover. Clover cannot stand ‘‘wet feet” and its natural deep rooting habit makes good drainage more important than in the case of grain crops. When clover fails, farmers are sometimes led to believe that it needs artificial inoculation. This is seldom if ever the case in this part of the country where clover has been so generally grown that the clover bacteria are present everywhere. Fresh inoculation is not the remedy. The trouble will be found in some improper condition of the soil. All of these causes of clover failure can be remedied by proper soil treatment. HOW TO SUCCEED WITH CLOVER Considering the causes of clover failure as stated, it is evident that certain things must be attended to before success with this crop can be attained. Many acres of clover are sown each year, only to fail because of some improper soil condition which could easily be remedied. Fortu- nately, the ideal soil conditions for clover are also the most favorable for producing other crops. All ordinary soils can be profitably put into con- Figr. 4. Effect of ground limestone on clover, North Vernon field, 1916. Each shock is the produce of one-twentieth acre. Manure only 3560 pounds hay per acre Manure and limestone 5520 pounds hay per acre i6 dition to produce clover, and what is good for clover will also be good for other legumes. If the soil is wet and in need of aeration, tile drainage is the remedy. All heavy loam and clay soils will be benefited by tile drainage and this must be provided before other treatments can give the best results. The lines of tile should be placed not more than three to four rods apart. This applies to heavy uplands as well as to lowlands that do not drain out readily. If the soil is acid it must be limed. Tests for acidity can be made by the county agricultural agent, or representative soil and subsoil samples can be sent to the Soils and Crops Department of the Experiment Sta- tion where they will be tested free of charge and the lime requirements reported. Ground limestone is the best and cheapest material for neutralizing soil acidity. Two tons per acre will be sufficient for medium or slight acidity. Some soils are so very acid that much heavier applica- tions are needed. Other forms of lime may be used but they are usually more expensive. Fig. 5. Effect of acid phosphate on clover, Westport field, 1918. Each cock is the pro- duce of one-fortieth acre Lime, manure and acid phosphate 4280 pounds hay per acre Lime and manure only 2560 pounds hay per acre Soils that have been heavily cropped and are out of condition will usually need available phosphorus. Acid phosphate, or some other avail- able phosphate, such as bone meal or basic slag, should be applied heavily to the preceding grain crop. At least 300 pounds per acre should be ap- plied so as to supply the needs of both the grain crop and the clover fol- lowing. On limed land, the available phosphates are best. On slightly acid soils, heavy applications of raw rock phosphate may sometimes be used satisfactorily in the place of available phosphates for clover and other legumes. In such cases, the raw rock should be applied at the rate i7 of at least one ton per acre without the previous use of lime. Raw rock phosphate when applied to soil has an acid neutralizing power equal to about one-fourth that of ground limestone. When applied without lime to acid soils, the soil acids react with the raw phosphate, making some of it available as well as tending to neutralize some of the soil acidity. On very acid soils this is not sufficient and a liberal application of ground limestone should be made and this followed with an available phosphate. If the soil is in need of organic matter as will be evidenced by its light color and bad physical condition, some form of decomposable or- ganic matter must be provided. For this purpose, there is nothing better than a good dressing of manure. This not only supplies organic matter but also provides available plant food and favors beneficial bacterial ac- tion in the soil. When manure is not available, straw or other crop resi- dues may be used or a green manuring crop grown and plowed under. Soybeans and cowpeas have been found to be excellent crops as green manures with which to begin the improvement of a run down soil. After such a crop has been turned under, if the other needs have been attended to, there will be no trouble in getting a stand of clover and when this is once well established the plowing under of the second growth will help out the manure and crop residues that may be returned to the soil to build it up in organic matter. The most practical method of seeding clover is with a small grain crop. Seeding on wheat or rye in winter or spring is most common. At LaFayette, seedings made early in February on bare, frozen ground have been most satisfactory. The advantage of this practice over March seed- ing is that there is a better chance for the seed to settle into the soil by repeated freezing and thawing, thus preventing germination with the first warm day and killing by the next cold snap as often happens with March seedings. Top-dressing the wheat with manure or straw after seeding the clover will materially increase the chances of getting a satis- factory stand and should be done whenever possible. Tate spring seed- ing on wheat should be done after the ground is dry enough to work. The ground should be lightly harrowed with a spike-tooth harrow, going crosswise of the wheat drills, and the clover seed sown immediately after- wards. By this method much of the seed will fall in the harrow marks or be washed in and covered by the next rain. The use of the special clover and grass seed disk drill is to be recommended wherever late spring seeding is regularly practiced and any considerable amount of seed is sown from year to year. Some successful farmers regularly make two seedings of clover, putting on half the seed in winter and half in spring. Oats is not as good a crop with which to seed clover as wheat, be- cause its more leafy growth shades the ground more and is thus more likely to smother the young clover plants. It also occupies the ground later into the summer and when harvested often leaves the tender clover exposed to damaging heat and drought. To get a strong growth of clover with oats, the oats must be seeded thinly so as to leave more room for the clover. Two bushels of oats to the acre should be the maximum when clover is seeded with it. The thinner stand of oats need not neces- sarily mean a smaller yield of grain, since the heads will be larger and the clover will certainly have a better chance to develop. i8 When a spring seeding of clover fails, too many farmers break the rotation and plant corn or some other grain crop again the following year. This is a mistake, because with each omission of clover the conditions that cause failure become worse. Under such conditions it would be much better to try summer seeding of clover or to use an annual legume to take its place in the rotation. Summer seeding of clover may be done on a specially prepared seed bed after harvesting the grain crop in which the spring seeding failed. The ground should be plowed right after har- vest and worked down to a fine, compact seed bed and by repeated har- rowing at intervals of io days or so, put into condition for sowing clover alone from the first to the middle of August, watching for a time when the moisture conditions are right and using eight to io pounds of seed per acre. Seeding should be done after, rather than before a rain, so as to avoid crusting of the ground before the clover can germinate and come up. The chances of success with such summer seeding are at least fair unless a prolonged period of drought is encountered. Some farmers are securing successful stands of clover by seeding in standing corn at the time of the last cultivation or later in the summer. This method, however, is more risky than seeding alone on specially prepared ground, because with the competition of the corn, the clover is more likely to fail for lack of moisture. ACID TOLERANT LEGUMES Some legumes will stand more soil acidity than others. Red clover, alfalfa and sweet clover must have soils well supplied with lime. Cow- peas, soybeans, hairy vetch, alsike clover, white clover and Japan clover are all more or less acid tolerant and may be used to advantage on acid soils that for one reason or another cannot be limed. Cowpeas and soy- beans will stand the most acidity and good crops of these may be grown where red clover would fail. They may be used either as hay or grain crops. Alsike clover will stand some acidity and may also be used on land that is too wet for red clover, which also applies to white clover. Japan clover is being used successfully on acid soils in southern Indiana. Hairy vetch is good for acid sandy soils. It should be said, however, that all of these legumes will do best on non-acid soils and if acidity is present, the land should be limed if possible. SUBSTITUTES FOR CLOVER 'Failure to secure a stand of clover should never be allowed to cause the rotation to be broken and the land seeded back to a grain crop. In the experience of this station with its several experiment fields, clover failures have frequently occurred, due to unfavorable spring conditions, drought or winter-killing. Whenever this happens an annual legume is used to take the place of the clover. Soybeans or cowpeas may be satis- factorily used for this purpose. Ordinarily, soybeans will be preferable and the crop may be used either for hay or for grain. On southern Indi- ana clays or on northern Indiana sands, the cowpea may be preferable. These annual legumes will have almost as good an effect upon the soil as a crop of clover and in themselves may be just as valuable* i9 Fig:. 6. Soybeans make an excellent substitute when clover fails. They can be used either as a bay or g:rain crop. Every round of the rotation should include at least one legume GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt a systematic rotation of crops, including clover or some other legume, at least once every three or four years. Wherever clover fails to do well, apply two or more tons of ground limestone to the acre. See that the land is properly drained and practice good tillage methods. Feed as much of the produce as possible and carefully conserve and return to the land the manure produced, as well as any unused crop residues. Apply from 150 to 200 pounds per acre of acid phosphate or some other available phosphate to each grain crop in the rotation. In a per- manent system, where manure is applied for corn, enough phosphate for the whole rotation may be most conveniently applied when seeding wheat or oats. Under certain systems of farming, where the crops are not all fed on the farm, it will pay, under normal conditions, to add some nitrogen and potash in the fertilizer, If acid phosphate or other available phosphate cannot be secured, a mixed fertilizer as high as possible in available phosphoric acid should be used. 20 RECENT PURDUE PUBLICATIONS RELATING TO SOIL FERTILITY Experiment Station Bulletin No. 157. Experiment Station Bulletin No. 210. Experiment Station Bulletin No. 213. Experiment Station Bulletin No. 222. Experiment Station Circular No. 66. Experiment Station Circular No. 76. Experiment Station Circular No. 79. Unproductive Black Soils The Value. of Phosphates on Indi- ana Soils The Value of Lime on Indiana Soils The Value of Manure on Indiana Soils The Lime and Fertilizer Needs of Indiana Soils Increasing Crop Yields for War Needs Indiana Soils Need Phosphates PURDUE UNIVERSITY Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 227 June:, 1919 Fig. 1. Egg production from pens fed tankage and meat scraps, and from a pen given no meat-feed FEEDING EXPERIMENTS WITH LEGHORNS Published by the Station: LAFAYETTE, INDIANA U. S. A. 7 The average farm poultry flock of Indiana does not produce as many eggs as it could under improved conditions. One of the im- portant things that would increase the “lay of the hen” is better feed- ing, and the chief phase of this feeding would be more animal protein. The egg contains a high per cent, of protein in the white or al- bumen but grains are very deficient in this element. Thus, to manu- facture a large number of eggs something besides grains must be fed. Skim-milk and meat scraps have been fed at this station with good results, but the Indiana farmer has tankage for his hogs and cotton- seed meal for his cattle and so wants to know their value for poultry. In the experiment reported in this bulletin, tankage is found to be a valuable feed and cottonseed meal a worthless one for poultry. FEEDING EXPERIMENTS WITH LEGHORNS A. G. Philips SUMMARY PART I THE FEEDING VALUE OF TANKAGE AND MEAT SCRAPS IN RATIONS FOR LAYING PULLETS Leghorn pullets, if heavy layers, consumed about 82 pounds of feed per year. Pullets that were poor layers used within 18 pounds as much, feed as the good layers. This amount of feed, if of the proper kind, may increase egg production over 100 eggs per bird. When given an opportunity, pullets ate eight to ten times as much oyster shell as grit. Results indicated that the presence of animal protein in a ration increased the efficiency of the other feeds given. Although the egg production varied from year to year, the general tendency was for meat scraps and tankage to be equally efficient. The pullets in the pen fed tankage laid an average of 183.5 eggs; in the meat scraps pen, 179 eggs; and in the no meat-feed pen, 59.35 eggs per year. Under war time conditions, it cost slightly over $2.00 to feed a laying Leghorn pullet for 12 months. It cost an average of $0,128 for feed to produce one dozen eggs in the tankage pen, $0,136 in the meat scraps pen and $0.33 in the no meat- feed pen. It cost less to feed a pullet when no tankage or meat scraps were fed, but it cost more to produce one dozen eggs. The amount of feed required to produce one pound of eggs was 3.6 pounds in the tankage pen, 3.77 pounds in the meat scraps pen and 9.32 pounds in the no meat-feed pen. Sudden severe lowering of temperature in the winter retarded egg production of Leghorns. The highest egg producing months, regardless of the ration fed, were March, April and May. The income was the highest during the spring months when the prices for eggs were the lowest. The profit over feed costs was $4.17 in the tankage pen, $4.60 in the meat scraps pen and $0.43 in the no meat-feed pen. The feeding value of tankage was $1371.00 per ton and of the meat scraps was $1051.00 per ton. The three pens involved in the experiment produced eggs of similar fertility but the tankage-fed pen was consistently lower in “hatchability” of eggs than the other pens. The eggs of the meat scraps pen hatched slightly better than those of the no meat-feed pen. A Leghorn pullet produces about 25 pounds of manure on the roosts each year. There was nothing to indicate that the rations given had any influence on the mortality of the flocks. 4 PART II THE FEEDING VALUE OF COTTONSEED MEAL VS. BUTTER- MILK IN PURDUE STANDARD RATION VS. BUTTERMILK IN DOUBLE GRAIN RATION Leghorn pullets in this experiment consumed about 65 pounds of dry feed and 90 pounds of milk. Pullets fed cottonseed meal as the chief protein concentrate, derived practically no food benefit from it. They laid no better than birds fed no protein concentrate of any kind in other experiments. Poor layers consumed less than heavy layers. Too much grain in a ration cuts down the egg production. Pullets in the cottonseed meal pen laid 55.69 eggs ; in the double grain pen, 137.85 eggs; and in the standard grain pen, 166.87 eggs per year. The double grain ration cost less to feed, because of the large amount of the grains fed in proportion to the mash. Under pre-war conditions, it cost slightly over $1.00 to feed a Leg- horn pullet for 12 months. To produce one dozen eggs it cost an average of $0.10 for feed in the double grain pen, $0.09 in the standard grain pen and $0.20 in the cottonseed meal pen. In the standard grain pen the Leghorn pullets produced one pound of eggs from 3.28 pounds of feed. Sudden lowering of temperature of several degrees seriously re- tarded egg production. The average profit over feed was $0.32 in the cottonseed meal pen, $1.79 in the double grain pen and $2.45 in the standard grain pen. Cottonseed meal did not influence the fertility but it did lower the “hatchability” of eggs somewhat. Increasing the grain did not influence the fertility or “hatchability” of eggs. PART III THE VALUE OF CONFINEMENT VS. SMALL YARD VS. FREE RANGE FOR LEGHORN HENS AND PULLETS The larger the free range, the greater is the consumption of land- given feed. These differences were not as marked with the pullets as with the hens, and with both they were slight. The total consumption of feed was similar to that shown in Part II. The pullets laid about 60 more eggs each than the hens. The number of eggs laid by hens and pullets on free range averaged 128.75 eggs; in the small yard 124.4 eggs; and in confinement 112.3 eggs for one year. 5 It was surprising to find the slight differences in egg production as influenced by the amount of range permitted. The pullets in confinement were rather consistant in producing fewer eggs than the other birds, and the birds in the small yards laid fewer eggs than the ones on free range, during eight of the 12 months. Hens, on the average, do not lay eggs in the winter. Poultrymen must depend on pullets for winter eggs. Data on the influence of the amount of range on fertility and “hatchability” were very conflicting. There was a greater mortality among the confined birds than among the other birds. PART I THE FEEDING VALUE OF TANKAGE AND MEAT SCRAPS IN RATIONS FOR LAYING PULLETS Experiments in the feeding of poultry were inaugurated at Purdue University in 1910 and the work with Leghorns for the first four years was published in Bulletin No. 182, November, 1915, and the work with Plymouth Rocks for the following three years was published in Bulletin No. 218, August, 1918. Practically all of the feeding work has been with the study of protein feeds, using two breeds to check results. The object of this experiment was to determine the feeding value of commercial “digester” tankage as compared with commercial meat scraps in rations for laying pullets. Tankage has become very popular on the general farm but its value in feeding chickens is not generally known. TIME The different experiments were conducted between the following dates : Experiment No. 1 — November 3, 1916 to November 2, 1917 Experiment No. 2 — November 3, 1917 to November 3, 1918 Experiment No. 2 is a repetition of Experiment No. 1 HOUSING AND YARDING The pens were each 10 feet by 12 feet, built in pairs, with concrete floors, muslin and glass fronts, Purdue trap nests and were modern in every way. Each pen had a yard 130 feet by 150 feet in area, planted to young fruit trees. An eight-foot strip of sod was maintained around each lot; four rows of corn were grown between the trees in the summer and a rye cover crop planted over the entire area in the fall. This made what was thought to be as nearly ideal farm conditions for poultry as it was pos- sible to secure on a new experimental farm. The lots were naturally devoid of trees and the soil was made up of Sioux sandy loam. It was first class for poultry but poor land on which to raise crops. The houses faced the south and the land gently sloped to the north. 6 STOCK The birds consisted of Single Comb White Leghorn pullets, hatched from stock on the Purdue farm. There were 30 pullets in each flock, which were early hatched and similar in size, vigor and development. Each flock had pedigreed full sisters in every other flock. In other words, 30 sets of “triplets” were taken from the pedigreed pullets and one set placed in each pen. This plan permitted the breeding in every pen to be exactly like the others and reduced to a minimum any differ- ences in egg laying due to differences in stock. Two cock birds were placed in each pen during the hatching season and changed from pen to pen every few days. RATIONS The rations used were the same as those used in previous experi- ments, except as to animal protein, and are considered to be practical on the farms of Indiana. The rations were as follows : Tankage: Pen Grain 10 pounds corn 10 pounds wheat 5 pounds oats Mash 5 pounds bran 5 pounds shorts ‘3 pounds tankage Meat Scraps Pen Grain 10 pounds corn 10 pounds wheat 5 pounds oats Mash 5 pounds bran 5 pounds shorts 3.5 pounds meat scraps No Animae-Feed Pen Grain 10 pounds corn 10 pounds wheat 5 pounds oats Mash 5 pounds bran 5 pounds shorts In making up the rations, the plan was to use the meat scraps ration as a basis and supply as much protein through the tankage as there was in the meat scraps. The meat scraps and tankage were purchased from commercial packing houses in large enough quantities to last for two years. It was estimated that three pounds of the brand of tankage used were equal in protein to three and one-half pounds of the meat scraps used. Whenever possible, the grains were purchased in large quantities from nearby farms and the other feeds were obtained from local eleva- tors. This kept the feed price to a minimum. The grain ration was changed to suit certain feed conditions, par- ticularly with the corn and wheat, but since all pens were treated alike, any change was not thought to influence any results. In the fall, one pound of oil meal was added to the mash, and grit, oyster shell, ground bone and water were always available. During the winter, when the birds were confined, mangel wurzels were used as green feed. The bran and shorts were fed together as a dry mash and the grains were mixed and fed together. The tankage and meat scraps were mixed with the mash. PRICES OF FEEDS The prices of feeds as charged were the same as those paid for the feeds. They varied from month to month, although the feeds bought in quantity remained the same for several months. The following state- ment shows minimum and maximum prices paid for feeds during the two experiments. 7 Minimum and Maximum Prices of Feeds per One Hundred Pounds Feed Experiment No. 1 Experiment No. 2 Corn __ _ _ $1.71— $3.75 2.10- 3.55 $2.16-$3.48 3.55 Wheat _ _ Oats _ _ __ _ 1.37- 1.50 1.50- 2.03 Bran _ _ 1.50- 2.35 1.85- 2.10 Shorts _ _ __ _ 1.70- 2.85 2.30 Tankage _ _ _ _ _ _ 2.20 2.20 Meat scraps _ 2.60 3.75 Oil meal _ _ _ 2.85 3.20 Ground bone __ _ 2.25- 2.35 None fed Grit . __ 0.59- 0.66 0.66- 0.98 Oyster shell _ . 0.59- 0.66 0.66- 0.89 METHODS OF FEEDING AND CARE The mixed grains were placed in a bucket in each pen and the dry mash put into a hopper. The feeding was so managed that the grain and dry mash were both consumed in the same length of time, thus insuring an even balancing of the ration. No particular trouble was experienced in keeping the balance, although care had to be given to insure it. The grain fed in the early morning was scattered in a deep straw litter, and in the evening the birds were given all the feed they would clean up. This meant feeding about one-third of the grain in the morning and two-thirds in the evening, thus increasing the appetite for the mash throughout the day. The dry mash and skim-milk were always accessible and green feed was given when the birds could not obtain it Table I. — Average Consumption of All Feeds, per Bird, in Pounds Feed Tankage Meat scraps No meat-feed Experi- ment No. 1 Experi- ment No. 2 Aver- age Experi- ment No. 1 Experi- ment No. 2 Aver- age Experi- ment No. 1 Experi- ment No. 2 Aver- age Corn _ _ __ 27.79 20.332 24.06 29.12 19.949 24.54 25.42 17.211 21.31 Wheat 11.89 20.332 16.11 12.43 19.949 16.19 10.78 17.211 14.00 Oats 9.92 10.665 10.29 10.39 8.773 9.58 9.05 8.606 8.83 Total grain 49.60 51.329 50.46 51.94 48.671 50.30 45.25 43.028 44.14 Bran 9.93 10.665 10.30 10.39 10.046 10.218 9.04 8.606 8.82 Shorts __ 9.93 10.665 10.30 10.39 10.046 10.218 9.04 8.606 8.82 Oil meal 0.36 0.152 0.256 0.37 0.152 0.256 0.31 0.150 0.23 Total mash 20.22 21.48 20.85 21.15 20.24 20.69 18.39 17.36 17.87 Total grain and mash 69.82 72.81 71.32 72.09 68.91 70.50 63.64 60.39 62.02 Tankage 5.96 61.06 6.033 Meat scraps _ 7.27 7.032 7.10 Ground bone _ _ 0.54 0.27 0.45 0.23 0.41 0.20 Grit 0.54 0.342 0.44 0.45 0.304 0.377 0.41 0.345 0.38 Oyster shell 3.16 3.526 3.343 3.41 3.24 3.32 1.60 1.630 1.62 Total dry feed _ _ 80.02 82.785 81.40 84.67 79.491 82.08 66.06 62.365 64.21 8 in the yards. Free range over the large lots was allowed except for a few cold weeks in winter and the birds were always contented. The curtains over the open fronts were closed at night in cold weather and used as outside awnings in the summer. The same man took care of all pens and every care was given to prevent lice, mites, etc., and to insure san- itation. In Table I is shown the average consumption per bird per year of each feed given. In order to compare one pen with another easily and fairly, certain groups of feeds are totaled separately with the total dry feed. The meat scraps and tankage are not considered here as part of the mash because they were fed in different amounts ; hence would make the totals unfair. Considering either the grain, or mash and grain together, there is a negligible difference be- tween one year and the next with the same pens or between the averages of the tankage and meat scraps pens. The no meat-feed pens ate slightly less than the other two pens, each year. Fowls eat a much larger amount of oyster shell than grit when given free access to both, but the no meat-feed pens consumed about half as much oyster shell as either of the others. Roughly estimating, it required about 82 pounds of feed for a Leg- horn per year, which would mean slightly less than one-fourth pound per day of grain, mash and mineral feeds. It will be noted later in this publication that the egg production of the no meat-feed pen was low but that the feed consumption was high. On the basis of 82 pounds for a good layer and 64 pounds for a poor layer, it was the difference of 18 pounds that caused the high egg production. It is not always the problem of how much a hen eats but what she eats that may con- trol egg production. A very large proportion of the feed is needed and utilized for maintenance of the body functions and often it re- quires but little more to supply the hen with what TA/iH/> 6 £ /V£at /Yo /VpjT-fepp she needs for heavy egg Fig. 2 . The relative proportion of feed consumed that production. The pOOT-lay- waste u d ed in the mam,facture of egg9 ’ to that which was ing hen ate much less oyster 9 shell because she did not need it. The 18 pounds difference in consump- tion between the animal feed and no meat-feed pens was made up largely of meat scraps or tankage and to these feeds may be given much credit for production. Table II. — Average Number of Eggs per Pullet, per Pen, per Year Experiment No. Tankage Meat scraps No meat-feed 1 184.89 191.22 74.5 2 182.16 166.79 44.56 Average 183.53 179.09 59.53 In Table II is shown the egg production which is the most important part of the experiment. In Experiment No. r, the meat scraps pen laid seven more eggs than the tankage pen and n 7 more eggs than the no meat-feed pen. In Experiment No. 2, the meat scraps pen laid 16 eggs less than the tankage pen and 122 eggs more than the no meat-feed pen. Egg production in all the pens was very high in Experiment No. 1 and in Experiment No. 2 the tankage pen production was higher than would generally be expected. No reason is known for the variations one year with the next in the meat scraps and no meat-feed pens. Such variations are not what would be desired, but the tankage and meat scraps pens averaged so closely together that these feeds might be considered of similar feeding values. The birds in these pens laid so much better than their sisters in the other pens that the feeding values of tankage and meat scraps are very high. It must be remembered that each pen had full sisters in the other pens and it was interesting to note, that as a rule, a good layer in one pen had a sister laying well in the other pens. It will be noted in Bulletin No. 182, that the meat scraps pens in 1911 and 1912 did not lay as well as in 1917 and 1918. This increase is the result of pedigree breeding, permitting the use of known sisters from high producing ancestry in the feeding experiments. Noting the figures in Table II, it is very evident that the six pounds of tankage or the seven pounds of meat scraps fed to each bird, as shown in Table I, were of extreme value in producing eggs. The 18 pounds difference in feed consumed increased the egg production 124 eggs in the tankage pen and 120 eggs in the meat scraps pen. It pays to feed animal by-products in a ration for laying fowls. IO Table III. — Cost of Feed per Bird, per Year, and Feed Cost of Pro- ducing One Dozen Eggs Experiment No. Tankage Meat scraps No meat-feed Cost feed Cost one dozen eggs Cost feed Cost one dozen eggs Cost feed Cost one dozen eggs 1 2 .$1.68 2.029 $0,112 0.114 $1.80 2.11 $0,116 0.156 $1.37 1.554 $0,229 0.432 Average $1.85 $0,128 $1.96 $0,136 $1.46 $0.33 The figures in Table III show the costs involved in the two experi- ments. The costs during the second year were greater than those during the first year due to increasing feed prices but the differences between the tankage and the meat scraps pens were small. The feed cost of the no meat-feed pen was al- ways less because less feed was consumed. The feed cost for the tankage pen was always slightly less than for the meat scraps pen because the tankage was cheaper. However, a cheap feed bill where no meat scraps or tankage was fed did not cause a low cost per dozen eggs. In Experiment No. 2, 1918, the poorly fed pen pro- duced eggs at $0,432 per dozen, a price higher than the Indiana farmer aver- aged for his eggs on the market. If, as many peo- ple think, the feed bill is one-half to two-thirds of the total expense of pro- ducing eggs, then those who do not feed tankage and meat scraps are prob- ably keeping hens at a loss. A feed cost of 13 or 14 cents per dozen permits of some profit and shows that it is advisable to spend money for feed. The high cost of feed is not as much a problem today as is the question of low egg production. If egg production is high the feed cost will not be excessive, even if the cost seems almost prohibitive at times. To make money, some money usually has to be spent and tankage and meat scraps are profitable feeds at prices demanded today and at the prevailing prices of eggs. Fig. 3. The cost of feeding a hen for one year and the feed cost of one dozen eggs I One manufacturer of tankage stated that he was afraid to recom- mend his feed for chickens for many reasons, but from the standpoint of egg production and cost of same there seems to be no indication that it is not as good as meat scraps. Table: IV. — Average Number Pounds of Feed 1 to Produce One Pound of Eggs Experiment No. Tankage Meat scraps No meat-feed 1 3.46 3.54 7.07 2 3.74 4.00 11.57 Average 3.60 3.77 9.32 1 Grit, shell and bone not included In Table IV is shown the efficiency of the three rations given. Broadly speaking, the tankage and meat scraps pens did equally well in transform- ing raw material into a fin- ished product. The lack of animal by-products in a ration decreased the effi- ciency of the grains, bran and shorts and made egg production very expen- sive. It appears that the presence of tankage or meat scraps in a ration in- creases the digestive effi- ciency of the other feeds. One pound of eggs from three and three-fourths pounds of feed shows effi- cient feeding and where such results can be ob- tained, the question of feed cost need not be an item of consequence. It is not eco- nomical to leave animal- feeds out of a hen’s ration. In Table V is given the average monthly egg pro- duction of each hen and the average for the two years. It is by monthly averages that the poultryman measures his egg production and determines whether or not his flock is laying sufficiently well. It will be noted that regardless of rations, March, April and May were the highest egg producing months. In fact, some people believe that any hen will lay in the spring but only TatikaOE. Meat5crap5 /To Meat-Fee p Fig. 4. The number of pounds of eggs produced from feed consumed 12 • • • • • • > • -P • > O Pi rO u fH >> g to ft -P o S this would be quite an item to the birds’ credit. Table: XII. — Mortality of Birds in Pens Experiment No. Tankage Meat scraps No meat-feed 1 4.0 4.0 6.0 2 10.0 7.0 6.0 Average 7.0 5.5 6.0 Table XII gives the mortality of each pen. The data indicate little and since the two years are so much at variance with each other it is doubtful if it amounts to anything. The mortality in Experiment No. 2 seems abnormally high but the records do not indicate that the ration had anything to do with it. In Experiment No. i three deaths were due to roup, two were from reproductive troubles, two were caused by worms, one death was from heat, one from leg injury, one from tumors, one from pneumonia, etc. In Experiment No. 2 eight died from reproductive troubles, six from unknown causes, three from roup, four crippled and one by heat while on nest. PART II THE FEEDING VALUE OF COTTONSEED MEAL VS. BUTTER- MILK IN PURDUE STANDARD RATION VS. BUTTERMILK IN A DOUBLE GRAIN RATION FOR PULLETS The results of four years’ work in feeding skim-milk, meat scraps and fish scraps were published in Bulletin No. 182. At the end of that time it was deemed advisable to determine the value of cottonseed meal for chickens as it was so easily available and so generally used on Indiana stock farms. It was the belief of many that Leghorns would do well on a ration containing more grain than recommended by the Poultry Depart- ment, for they are active birds and should utilize efficiently an extra amount of heat-and-energy-forming material. All evidence available indicated that buttermilk was equally as valuable as skim-milk, which in turn had proved at Purdue to be as efficient as meat scraps or fish scraps. TIME Experiment No. 1 — November 3, 1914 to November 2, 1915 Experiment No. 2 — November 3, 1915 to November 2, 1916 MANAGEMENT The housing, yarding, trap nesting and record keeping methods were the same with these experiments as for the tankage experiment, described in Part I of this bulletin. While the pullets were not pedigreed they were of Purdue stock, divided evenly into groups of 30 birds each and handled and cared for as in the tankage experiment. RATIONS AND FEEDS The rations used were the standard Purdue rations : Cottonseed Mead Pen Grain 10 pounds corn 10 pounds wheat 5 pounds oats Mash 5 pounds bran 5 pounds shorts 5.3 pounds cottonseed meal Double Ration Pen Grain 20 pounds corn 20 pounds wheat 10 pounds oats Mash 5 pounds bran 5 pounds shorts 50 pounds buttermilk Standard Grain Ration Pen Grain 10 pounds corn 10 pounds wheat 5 pounds oats Mash 5 pounds bran 5 pounds shorts 50 pounds buttermilk In making up the rations, the plan was to use the standard grain ration as a basis and to supply as much protein in the cottonseed meal as in the buttermilk. The cottonseed meal was purchased from a commer- cial concern and a sufficient supply obtained to last for two years. The buttermilk was purchased from the Purdue Creamery and was fairly uniform in composition. The same method of buying feeds, shifting proportions of grains and supplying grit, shell, etc., was used as in other experiments. The buttermilk was fed in open pans and not mixed with the bran and shorts. i8 PRICES OF FEEDS The prices of feeds herein charged were the same as paid for these feeds and are given in the following statement : Minimum and Maximum Prices of Feeds per One Hundred Pounds Feed Experiment No. 1 Experiment No. 2 Corn _ _ $1.25— $1.44 1.25- 2.16 $1.25— $1.71 1.60- 2.10 Wheat _ — Oats _ 0.94- 1.66 0.94 1.25- 1.50 1.60 Bran _ _____ 1.50 Shorts 1.60- 1.70 Oil meal __ 1.80 1.95 Cottonseed meal _ __ _ 1.60 1.60 Buttermilk _ 0.24 0.24- 0.30 Ground bone _ _ 2.25- 3.50 2.25 Grit _ _ 0.53 0.53- 0.59 Shell _ _ __ _ 0.53 0.53- 0.59 Table I. — Average Consumption of All Feeds, per Bird, in Pounds Feed Cottonseed meal Double grain Standard grain Experi- ment No. 1 Experi- ment No. 2 Aver- age Experi- ment No. 1 Experi- ment No. 2 Aver- age Experi- ment No. 1 Experi- ment No. 2 Aver- age Corn 16.27 21.18 18.73 27.12 29.28 28.20 22.26 25.24 23.75 Wheat 9.49 10.23 9.86 14.63 14.34 14.48 12.24 12.30 12.27 Oats 6.44 7.85 7.05 10.32 10.90 10.61 8.63 9.39 9.01 Total grain 32.20 39.26 35.73 52.07 54.52 53.30 43.13 46.93 45.03 Bran 6.44 7.83 7.05 5.24 5.45 5.34 8.49 9.32 8.90 Shorts 6.44 7.83 7.05 5.24 5.45 5.34 8.49 9.32 8.90 Oil meal 0.17 0.31 0.24 0.14 0.20 0.17 0.18 0.35 0.26 Total mash _ _ 13.05 15.97 14.51 10.62 11.10 10.86 17.16 18.99 18.07 Total grain and mash 45.25 55.23 50.24 62.69 65.62 64.15 60.29 65.92 63.10 Cottonseed meal 6.83 8.30 7.56 Buttermilk _ _ 52.40 54.40 53.40 85.40 93.90 89.60 Ground bone 0.29 0.72 0.50 0.41 0.42 0.41 0.38 0.67 0.52 Grit 0.63 0.72 0.67 0.57 0.42 0.50 0.79 0.67 0.73 Oyster shell 1.34 1.84 1.59 2.55 2.83 2.69 3.15 3.60 3.37 Total feed 58.34 66.81 62.67 118.62 123.69 121.15 150.01 164.76 157.32 Table I shows the feed consumed per bird. By consulting the total grain and mash figures, the best comparison can be made, for it is not fair to compare the weight of buttermilk with cottonseed meal. The birds in Experiment No. 2 in every pen ate more than those in Experi- ment No. 1. The double grain pen, even with more of the palatable grain, ate practically no more total feed than the standard grain pen but both pens ate more than the cottonseed meal pen. The total feed consumed i9 was slightly less than shown in the tankage experiments but the egg production was also less. Table II. — Average Number of Eggs per Pullet, per Pen, per Year Experiment No. Cottonseed meal Double grain Standard grain 1 46.6 139.17 159.49 2 64.78 136.53 174.25 Average 55.69 137.85 166.87 Table II shows the chief effect of feeding the three rations, — the egg production. There was some variation between one experiment and the other but it was slight. The most important result in this experiment was that on the standard grain ration, the pullets laid 166.8 eggs; on the double grain ration 137.8 eggs, and on cottonseed meal 55.6 eggs. This gives hi eggs to the standard grain ration as an advantage over the cottonseed meal and 29 eggs to the same ration for feeding less grain and more milk and mash. While Leghorns apparently can utilize more grain than is usually expected, it does not pay to offer it to them ; an extremely high price for mash and a very low price for grain would be the only justification. Table III. — Cost of Feed per Bird, per Year, and Cost of Producing One Dozen Eggs Experiment No. Cottonseed meal Double grain Standard grain Cost Cost one Cost Cost one Cost Cost one feed dozen eggs feed dozen eggs feed dozen eggs 1 $0.79 $0.22 $1.06 $0.10 $1.12 $0.09 2 0.93 0.18 1.09 0.10 1.21 0.09 Average $0.86 $0.20 $1.07 $0.10 $1.16 $0.09 Table III gives the costs of total feed required for each dozen eggs. The cottonseed meal pen ate the least feed, consequently the cost was the least. The standard grain pen cost about nine cents more than the double grain pen but such differences are not very indicative. Each year com- pared favorably with the other, showing the average to be worthy of consideration. The eggs were produced cheaply in two pens but if the no meat-feed pen of the experiment, mentioned in Part I, was compared with the cottonseed meal pen, little difference would be noted. The cotton- seed meal was of little value and the birds did no better than if they had not received it at all ; apparently it is not very digestible for poultry. Although the cost was slightly greater, the egg production being larger, made the standard grain ration slightly more efficient than the double grain ration when measured in cost per dozen eggs. Costs of nine and 10 cents per dozen are pre-war prices but the comparisons can still be made. 20 Table IV. — Average Number Pounds of Feed 1 to Produce One Pound of Eggs Experiment No. Cottonseed meal Double grain Standard grain 1 9.98 7.18 7.94 2 8.12 7.28 7.60 Average 9.05 7.23 7.77 1 Liquid buttermilk included, calculated as one-tenth dry matter. Grit bone, grit and oyster shell not included Table IVa. — Number Pounds Dry Feed Required to Produce One Pound of Eggs Experiment No. Cottonseed meal Double grain Standard grain 1 9.98 4.02 3.37 2 8.12 4.02 3.20 Average 9.05 4.02 3.28 Tables IV and IVa show that a hen is a very efficient transformer of grains into eggs. The actual number of pounds of feed consumed, in- cluding liquid milk, in Table I shows that the cottonseed meal was not efficient. Since the liquid buttermilk should be expressed as dry feed to be counted in with the grains and compared with cottonseed meal, it was estimated that buttermilk was nine-tenths water. With milk reduced to a dry basis the standard grain ration produced a pound of eggs from every 3.28 pounds of feed, somewhat more efficiently than did the double grain ration. It was necessary to furnish one-third as much of the standard grain ration to produce one pound of eggs as it was the cotton- seed meal ration. Cottonseed meal is not a good poultry feed. Table V. — Average Per Cent. Egg Production, per Month, per Pullet- Two Years Month Cottonseed meal Double grain Standard grain Experi- ment No. 1 Experi- ment No. 2 Aver- age Experi- ment No. 1 Experi- ment No. 2 Aver- age Experi- ment No. 1 Experi- ment No. 2 Aver- age November— 28 days __ 8.9 18.4 13.65 19.0 26.0 22.5 18.0 44.7 31.3 December 0.2 6.4 3.3 3.0 9.4 6.2 10.0 27.8 18.9 January 6.2 12.0 9.1 29.0 22.0 25.5 20.0 19.7 19.8 February 25.0 24.0 24.5 34.0 39.9 36 95 44.0 40.0 42.0 March 23.0 29.0 26.0 67.0 62.5 64.75 70.0 64.0 67.0 April 34.0 38.0 36.0 75.0 70.0 72.5 7.7 70.0 73.5 May 17.0 37.0 27.0 74.0 69.9 71.9 71.0 71.0 71.0 June 16.0 23.0 19.5 55.0 53.0 54.0 65.0 72.0 68.5 July 6.5 8.5 7.5 37.0 43.0 40.0 53.0 50.9 51.9 August 8.0 10.0 9.0 29.0 24.0 26.5 39.0 42.8 40.9 September 2.0 6.9 4.45 18.0 22.0 20.0 43.0 44.0 43.5 October 2.0 0.6 1.3 11.0 8.0 9.5 16.0 20.0 18.0 November— 2 days ___ 3.0 2.8 2.9 0 4.0 2.0 0 4.6 2.3 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 50 25 20 15 10 5 v c 2 i 21 • • • • • 0 • -P • o Pi P u u >> H 60 ft -p CD a) 0 $ Pi p p P 0 0 ft ft a < a c n 0 6. Average monthly per cent, egg production from pens fed cottonseed meal, double and standard grain ration 22 In Table V is given the monthly measure of egg production, that is the per cent, production. The pullets in Experiment No. 2 were better birds so far as being in laying condition is concerned and gave a much better winter egg production than those in Experiment No. 1. November was a better month than December and it was colder during Experiment No. 1 than during Experiment No. 2. Cold weather with humidity is harmful to Leghorns and they respond quickly to any sudden lowering in temperature, particularly if it is a heavy drop. The double grain ration, with two exceptions, seemed to average a little lower than the standard grain ration throughout the year and dropped back a great deal in hot weather. This might indicate the propriety of keeping up the mash consumption during the heat of summer and possibly even increasing it. What the birds picked up on range did not make up for the shortage of animal-feed. The egg production of the cottonseed meal pen started out well while it had a reserve of the feed the birds were grown upon, but in about two weeks they dropped down to almost nothing. These birds did their best laying in April, the same as the other pens, but they were constantly below them. Poultrymen always want winter eggs because the market prices are high, but it must be remembered that the price is controlled by the supply and a heavy winter egg production over the country would break the egg market. Winter eggs are the exception, not the rule, and a poultryman who ob- tains over 20 per cent, in January is doing remarkably well. Table VI. — Average Price in Cents, per Month, of Eggs, Sold from the Purdue Farm Month Experiment No. 1 Experiment No. 2 November __ __ 39.0 48.0 December _ __ 42.0 48.0 January _ _ _ __ 45.0 40.0 February 33.0 32.0 March _ __ _ _ __ _ 21.0 24.0 April _ _____ 20.0 20.0 May 20.0 20.0 June 20.0 21.0 July _ _ _ __ _ 22.5 23.0 August 24.0 27.0 September 28.0 38.0 October 37.0 50.0 In Table VI are shown the net prices received for eggs after the expenses for express and egg cases had been paid. The marketing methods of the Purdue Farm were not as good during the days of these experiments as they were during the tankage experi- ments, (Part I) but in the winter some eggs were shipped to the east. During the other months of the year the eggs were sold in Indiana. Price is a thing that must be sought and increased when possible, as a slight 23 improvement may turn a loss into profit. The larger the quantity avail- able to sell at one time, the better the chances are for high prices. Table VII. — Average Income and Profit Over Feed, per Pullet, per Year Experiment No. Cottonseed meal Double grain Standard grain Average income Average profit Average income Average profit Average income Average profit 1 2 $0.94 1.42 •^9 O p 0^. h-1 CO Cn $2.76 2.97 $1.70 1.88 $3.17 4.06 $2.05 2.85 Average $1.18 $0.32 $2.86 $1.79 $3.61 $2.45 Table VII shows the income and profit over feed from each pen. A discussion of these terms was given on page 15. The cottonseed meal pen paid for its feed, with very little balance. Considering other cost items, it would have been fed at a loss. The double grain and standard grain pens were kept at a profit and because the standard grain pen laid the largest number of eggs it was the most profitable. Table VIII. — Summary of Averages Cottonseed meal Double grain Standard grain Total number pounds feed consumed per bird_ Cost feed per bird ______ 62.67 $0.86 0.20 121.15 1 $1.07 0.10 157.32 $1.16 0.09 Cost producing one dozen pggs Number pounds dry feed to produce one pound eggs _ _ _ __ 9.05 4.02 2 3.28 2 Egg’s per pullet 55.69 137.85 166.87 Income per bird _ _ _ $1.18 0.32 $2.86 1.79 $3.61 2.45 Profit over feed __ __ 1 Includes liquid buttermilk 2 Buttermilk changed to solids by dividing by 10 Table VIII collects the average figures in Tables I to VII inclusive, into the one table for easy comparison. The standard grain pen birds were heavy eaters but they were also heavy layers and brought the largest in- come and made the most profit over feed. Cottonseed meal is worthless as a poultry feed when no other protein feed is given and should not be fed. In Table IX is given the fertility and hatching power of the eggs in the two experiments. In Experiment No. i the cottonseed meal had the best fertility and the standard grain pen the poorest. This was reversed in Experiment No. 2 and the average does not show that cottonseed meal was harmful to the fertility of eggs. Table IX. — Per Cent. Fertility and Hatching Power of Eggs Experiment No. Fertility of eggs Cottonseed meal Double grain Standard grain 1 97 90.9 89.9 2 89.6 93.3 96.2 Average 93.3 92.1 93.05 Experiment No. Hatching power of eggs Cottonseed meal Double grain Standard grain 1 70.5 75.7 83.6 2 65.9. 75.4 69.8 Average 68.2 75.55 76.7 In the hatching power of eggs, the cottonseed meal pen was con- sistently lower than the other pens but in too small a percentage to war- rant any definite conclusion being drawn. There is no indication that increasing the grain in a ration will help or harm the fertility or “hatch- ability” of eggs. Table X. — Average Number Pounds of Manure Produced at Night Experiment No. Cottonseed meal Double grain Standard grain 1 24.20 23.22 23.57 2 28.52 24.86 25.85 Average 26.36 24.04 24.71 As shown in Table X, the nightly manure production of the birds in the pens was rather uniform and was practically the same as that pro- duced in other experiments. Table XI. — Mortality of Birds in Pens Experiment No. Cottonseed meal Double grain Standard grain 1 5.0 2.0 7.0 2 2.0 2.0 4.0 Average 3.5 2.0 5.5 In Table XI is given the mortality of each pen. Cottonseed meal is assured by its enemies to be not only detrimental to egg production and hatching power, but to the health of the birds also. In Experiment No. i a mortality of five birds was high, but in the standard grain pen it was still 25 higher. In Experiment No. 2 it was very low. The average does not indicate that it is much worse than what might be found among heavy layers. As a rule, the heavy layers are the ones that show the repro- ductive and similar troubles, which accounts for some of the high mortality in the standard grain ration pen. PART III THE VALUE OF CONFINEMENT VS. SMALL YARD VS. FREE RANGE FOR LEGHORN HENS AND PULLETS In 1913, questions arose concerning the influence of the amount of range given the fowls upon the egg production and hatching results ob- tained in some of the feeding and breeding experiments then under way. A general opinion prevailed that free range was necessary for maximum success but as to just how valuable this was, unfortunately, information was meager. Hence a two-year test with white Leghorn hens and pullets was planned and the results are given briefly in this bulletin. DESCRIPTION OF EXPERIMENTS Work was commenced in November, 1913 with three flocks, each of 30 Single Comb White Leghorn yearling hens and repeated the fol- lowing year with three flocks, each of 30 Single Comb White Leghorn pullets. Each experiment was continued for 12 months. The birds were kept in houses similar to those described under the tankage and other experiments and the yards were planted to young fruit trees. Pen No. 1 was confined to house. Pen No. 2 had use of house and lot 10 feet by 80 feet. Pen No. 3 had use of house and lot 130 feet by 160 feet. Table; L — Average Consumption of All Feeds per Bird in Pounds Feed Experi- ment No. 1 Experi- ment No. 2 Aver- age Experi- ment No. 1 Experi- ment No. 2 Aver- age Experi- ment No. 1 Experi ment No. 2 Aver- age Hens Pullets Hens Pullets Hens Pullets Corn 14.84 22.63 18.74 13.67 22.84 18.25 12.72 22.26 17.49 Wheat 17.31 12.91 15.11 13.53 12.58 13.05 15.07 12.24 13.66 Oats 8.04 8.88 8.46 7.81 8.85 8.33 6.95 8.63 7.79 Total grain 40.19 44.42 42.30 39.01 44.27 41.64 34.74 43.13 38.94 Bran 8.0 8.87 8.44 7.77 8.78 8.28 6.97 8.49 7.73 Shorts 8.0 8.87 8.44 7.77 8.78 8.28 6.97 8.49 7.73 Oil meal 0.24 0.27 0.26 0.34 0.22 0.28 0.29 0.18 0.24 Total mash 16.24 18.00 17.12 15.88 17.78 16.83 14.23 17.16 15.70 Total grain and mash 56.43 62.42 59.43 54.89 62.05 58.47 48.97 60.29 54.63 Skim-milk __ 79.8 82.6 76.7 82.4 68.7 78.9 Buttermilk 85.4 88.0 89.0 Oyster shell 2.92 2.81 2.86 2.48 2.69 2.58 2.23 3.15 2.69 Grit 1.47 0.78 1.12 0.71 0.62 0.67 0.74 0.79 0.76 Total feed 140.61 151.41 146.01 134.77 153.35 144.06 120.68 153.29 136.98 * Mn 26 The ration used was the same as that used in the buttermilk pen of Part II of this bulletin, except that skim-milk was used during the first year and buttermilk the second year. The ration was fed as described in Parts I and II of this bulletin. In Table I is given the feed consumed per bird in each experiment. In each lot the pullets ate more than the hens, varying from 4.54 to 11.32 pounds of grain and mash. The more range allowed, the less food was given by hand, but the difference between the small lot and confined birds was negligible. A small lot did not reduce the hand-given feed materially but on free range, even though granaries, grain stacks and manure piles were not available, the birds ate at least five pounds less per bird. This is a big item in a large flock but not as large as some people think. The pullet consumption of grain and mash in these experiments was not as great as given in the other experiments discussed in this bulletin, and as the egg production was satisfactory, the reason is unknown. Table: II. — Average Number of Eggs per Bird, per Year Experiment No. Confined Small yard Free range 1 (Hens) 85.0 93.0 98.0 2 (Pullets) 139.6 . 155.8 159.5 Average 112.3 124.4 128.75 The figures in Table II show the egg production. As might be ex- pected, the pullets laid much better than the hens, but the differences between the three pens were not very marked. The difference between the small yard and free range flocks was much less than between the small yard and the confined flocks, but the small yard flock did much better than was expected of it. The averages of the pullets were good in all cases as were those of the hens. 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 • > o I and * 27 •• 7 - Average monthly per cent, egg production from pens confined, in small yard9 free range Table III. — Average Per Cent. Egg Production, by Months Month Confined Small yard Pree range Experi- ment No. 1 Experi- ment No. 2 Aver- age Experi- ment No. 1 Experi- ment No. 2 Aver- age Experi- ment No. 1 Experi- ment No. 2 Aver- age Hens Pullets Hens Pullets Hens Pullets November (15 days) — 0.07 15.0 7.54 1.7 20.0 10.85 1.7 18.0 9.85 December 3.6 14.0 8.8 0.6 12.0 6.3 1.7 10.0 5.85 January 7.0 2.3 4.65 4.6 17.0 10.8 2.5 20.0 11.25 February „ 21.0 41.0 31.0 18.0 40.0 29.0 14.0 44.0 29.0 March 41.0 55.0 48.0 42.0 68.0 55.0 36.0 70.0 53.0 April 57.0 53.0 55.0 53.0 75.0 64.0 48.0 77.0 62.5 May 63.0 56.0 59.5 63.0 71.0 67.0 62.0 71.0 66.5 June 39.0 57.0 48.0 59.0 60.0 59.5 52.0 65.0 58.5 July 17.0 56.0 36.5 38.0 65.0 51.5 49.0 53.0 51.0 August __ 11.0 46.0 28.5 17.0 46.0 31.5 29.0 39.0 34.0 September 7.7 31.0 19.35 3.4 19.0 11.2 18.0 43.0 30.5 October — _ _ 1.6 10.0 5.8 1.8 6.9 4.35 2.8 16.0 9.4 November (15 days) — 0.0 1.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 In Table III is shown the real results of the experiment, — the monthly per cent, egg production. Hens do not lay in winter and seldom begin to show any marked production before the middle of February. No one should depend on hens for winter eggs. Pullets lay poorly enough but they are the birds for winter production. December, 1914 and January, 1915 were very cold months with the pullets, the temperature for 15 days being below zero, so no good winter egg production was realized for that time. When the weather is such that combs freeze, pullets cannot lay. The hens did slightly better in the pens not on free range in February and March and equally well in April and May, but as soon as the weather became hot the birds in confinement dropped off in production a great deal. During June, July and August, egg production was directly proportionate to the amount of outside range available. It does not seem to be the food available outside that helps the egg production, but apparently it is the shade, room for exercise and mineral elements supplied from the soil. The data from fertility and hatching tests were so conflicting that they indicate nothing. In the case of the hens, the greater the range the poorer the hatch, but with the pullets the results were just opposite. In mortality, the loss was greater with the confined birds than with the others, due to the excessive heat of Indiana summers. The experiments do not show that it would be economical to supply hens with free range unless the land could be cropped and its efficiency increased. It is suprising how well hens and pullets will do with little room, if properly cared for. In recommending the amount of range necessary for fowls, it might be well to say “give all the room that can be spared but small areas may be considered adequate if cultivated freely.” ■ IIIMIU' I 3 0112 054221392