THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY 630.1 In Z b ^/93'2.IO NON CIRCULATING CHECK FOR UNBOUND CIRCULATING COPY Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from University of Iliinois Urbana-Champaign Aiternates https://archive.org/details/summariesofsoilf1982wian PURDUE UI^TIVER?ITT AGRICULTURAL EXPERIOTJT STATI5TT BULLETIITS 198-210 1917 - 18 LARAYETTE^ lUDIAUA |l98 il99 200 201 202 203 ^k)5 1 5^206 207 208 209 210 (,v 9 -V 4 ^ 0 CONTT^TTS Sviinrraries of soil fertility investigations by A. T, Wiancko and S, C, Jones Conirr.ercial fertilizers by W. J. Jones and others Strawberry varieties and cultural hints by J. Oskairp Varieties of blackberries and raspberries with notes on their care by J . Oskanip Fattening west-^rn lambs by J. H. Skirjier'and F. G, King Test of three protein -concentrates and two leguminous rcu^ages in milk production by 0. F. Hunziker and R. F. Caldwell Experimental studies in hog-cholera by R. A, Craig and R, A, Whiting Soil management investigations in a young apple orchard by C, G. Woodbury and others Winter steer feeding I Corn silage and le^^inous hay vs, leguminolis hay as, roughage for fattening steers II A limited feed of corn as compared v;itli a full feed of corn for fattening ca.ttle III Clover vs. alfalfa hay as roughage for fattening steers by J. K. Stdnner and G. F.- King Gooseberries and currants by J , Oskairp The pasteuriza^tion of sour, farrnikimijned cream for butter- making by 0. F. E\inziker and others Commercial feeding stuffs by W, J. Jones, Jr. and others The value of phospha.tes on Indiana soils by A. T. Wiancko and S. C. Jones PURDUE UNIVERSITY Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 198, Vol. XIX March, 1917 SUMMARIES OF SOIL FERTILITY INVESTIGATION S Published by the Station: LAFAYETTE, INDIANA U. S. A. BOARD OF CONTROL Addison C. Harris,® President .Indianapolis, Marion County Fax S. Chandler Charles Downing Samuel M. Poster John A. Hillenbrand. Cyrus M. Hobbs Joseph D. Oliver George W. Purcell William V. Stuart Indianapolis, Marion County Greenfield. Hancock County Fort Wayne. Allen County Batesville. Ripley County Bridgeport. Marion County •South Bend. St. Joseph County Vincennes. Knox County -LaFayette Tippecanoe County WiNTHROP E. Stone, A. M., Ph. D, .President of the University STATION STAFF HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS Arthur Goss, M. S., A. C George I. Christie, B. S. A Robert A. Craig. D. V. M Otto P. Hunziker. M. S Herbert S. Jackson. A. B William J. Jones, Jr.. M. S., A. C.^ John H. Skinner. B. S James Troop, M. S Alfred T. Wiancko, B. S. A Charles G. Woodbury, M. S Director .Sup’t Agricultural Extension Chief Veterinarian Chief in Dairy Husbandry Chief in Botany State Chemist ...Chief in Animal Husbandry Chief in Entomology Chief in Soils and Crops Chief in Horticulture ASSOCIATES AND ASSISTANTS John M. Aldrich, Ph. D.® Entomological Assistant Evelyn Allison, B. S Assistant in Botany Sherman L. Anderson, B. S Assistant in Creamery Inspection Paul R. Bausman. B. S.^ Inspector State Chemist Department James C. Beavers. B. Agr Associate in Soils and Crops Extension Reuben 0. Bitler. B. S.* * Deputy State Chemist Charles S. Brewster, M. S Assistant in Poultry Husbandry Turner H. Broughton, B. S Assistant in Creamery Inspection Harry D. Burnside, B. S. A.^ Inspector State Chemist Department Ralph E. Caldwell, B. S Associate in Milk Production Glenn G. Carter, B. S.-* Inspector State Chemist Department David B. Clark, D. M. C Assistant Veterinarian Carl H. Clink, B. S Assistant in Serum Production Thomas A. Coleman Ass’t State Leader Field Studies and Demonstrations Samuel D. Conner, M. S Associate Chemist in Soils and Crops Clinton O. Cromer, B. S Associate in Crops Carleton Cutler. B. S.^ First Deputy State Chemist and Microscopist (Feeds) John J. Davis. B. S.» Entomological Assistant in Charge Ralph B. Deemer. B. S.^ Deputy State Chemist Leo P. Doyle, B. S Assistant in Animal Pathology William F. Epple, Ph. G Assistant in Dairy Chemistry Frederick A. Fenton, M. S.* Scientific Assistant Martin L. Fisher, M. S Assistant Chief in Soils and Crops George M. Frier, B. S. A Associate in Charge of Short Courses and Exhibits Leslie R. George, B. S Assistant in Animal Pathology Mabel L. Harlan Assistant in Agricultural Extension Abner J. Hunter, B. S. A Assistant in Serum Production Cora A. Jacobs, A. M.^ Seed Analyst Sadocie C. Jones, M. S Assistant in Soils Lawrence C. Kigin, D. V. M Assistant Veterinarian Franklin G. King, B. S Associate in Animal Husbandry Marshall S. Libbert, B. S. A.^ Denuty State Chemist Herbert E. McCartney, B. S. A Assistant in Animal Husbandry Extension Edwin B. Mains. Ph. D Assistant in Botany Preston W. Mason, B. S Assistant in Entomology Shirley L. Mason, A. B.* Scientific Assistant Horace C. Mills, B. S Associate in Dairv Manufactures Harry A. Noyes, M. S...Research Assistant in Horticultural Chemistry and Bacteriology Joseph Oskamp. B. S Research Assistant in Pomology George A. Osner. Ph. D Associate in Botany Harry C. Paine, D. V. M Associate Veterinarian Allen G. Philips, B. S. A Associate in Poultry Husbandry Edward G. Proulx, M. S.* First Deputy State Chemist (Fertilizers) Harry J. Reed Associate in Horticulture Charles C. Rees. M. A Assistant in Botany Otis S. Roberts, B. S.* Chief Inspector State Chemistry Department J. Howard Roop, B. S.* Deputy State Chemist George Spitzer, Ph. G., B. S Associate in Dairy Chemistry Chester G. Starr, B. S. A Assistant in Swine Production and Management Herbert B. Switzer, B. S. A Assistant in Dairy Bacteriology Chester F. Turner. B. S.* Scientific Assistant Gilbert P. Walker. B. S Assistant in Soils and Crops Fred L. Walkey. D. V. M Assistant Veterinarian Rex a. Whiting, D. V. M Associate in Animal Pathology Lester Yoder, B. S. A Graduate Assistant in Horticultural Chemistry Nellie Tracy Secretary to the Director and Librarian Mary K. B loom .• rBookkeeper 1 In charge of. Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control 2 Detailed by U. S. Department of Agriculture — Seed Testing * Detailed by U. S. Department of Agriculture — Cereal and Forage Crop Insect Investigations * Connected with Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control ® Died September 2, 1916 ADVISORY COMMITTEE (UNDER LEGISLATIVE ACT OF 1909) J. P. Prigg, Daleville State Live Stock Association U. R. Fishel, Hope State Poultry Fanciers’ Association H. H. SwAiM, South Bend State Horticultural Society D. B. Johnson, Mooresville State Dairy Association D. F. Maish, Frankfort State Corn Growers’ Association SUMMARIES OF SOIL FERTILITY INVESTIGATIONS A. T. WiANCKo S. C. Jones INTRODUCTION It is the purpose of this bulletin to present in condensed form the principal results that have been secured up to the present time from the use of lime, legumes, manure and various commercial fer- tilizers upon some of the Station’s experiment fields devoted to soil fertility investigations. In each case, there is a brief description of the experiment field, followed by a summary table showing at a glance the crop increases, the cost of treatment and the net returns per rotation from each of the more important treatments. A brief discussion follows each table. Since the experiment fields are located in diflerent parts of the State and upon different types of soil, each reader should make a particular study of the results upon the field which comes nearest to representing his own soil conditions. VALUATIONS USED IN THE SUMMARY TABLES In computing the net returns from the experiments herein reported, the lime and fertilizer materials used have been charged as follows, including the ordinary cost of delivering to the soil : Ground limestone Limestone screenings Acid phosphate Raw rock phosphate Steamed hone meal Mixed fertilizer Nitrogen Phosphoric acid Potash $3.00 per ton 2.00 per ton 1.00 per unit^ .25 per unit 1.00" per unit 3.80 per unit 1.20 per unit 1.20 per unit All large initial treatments, where the time for their repetition is not fixed in advance, have been charged at their per rotation cost to date. Thus, wherever ground limestone or large initial appli- cations of rock phosphate are used, to get the per rotation cost to date, the initial cost has been divided by the number of years since the application was made and multiplied by the number of years in the rotation. 1 A unit of fertilizer is 1 per cent, per ton or 20 pounds 2 Includes value of nitrogen contained in the bone meal 4 The crop increases produced have been valued as follows: Ear corn Wheat grain Oats grain Soybeans Corn stover Wheat straw Oats straw Hay $ .50 per bushel 1.00 per bushel .35 per bushel 1.50 per bushel 3.00 per ton 2.50 per ton 3.00 per ton 10.00 per ton Some of these crop prices are above the average of the ten- year period covered by the Scottsburg experiment, but they are be- low the averages of the periods covered by all the other experiments. Anyone wishing to use other valuations can easily recalculate the data in the tables. No allowance has been made for the extra cost of harvesting the increased crop yields produced by the treatments, as this is a variable factor and depends upon local conditions. In the tables which follow, the crop increases have been com- puted from the progressive differences between the two nearest check plots. THE FIELD AT SCOTTSBURG, SCOTT COUNTY 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 on which the experiments are located is almost level on Series A, but rises gradually through Series B in a diagonal direction into Series C. The field was laid out in the fall of 1905 with three series of similarly treated plots to accommodate a corn, wheat and clover rotation. Each series con- sists of^ 22 one-twentieth acre plots, and the corresponding plots in each series receive the same treatment, with every third plot an un- fertilized check. All produce, except the second growth clover, is removed from the land. The complete treatment was applied to the first wheat crop on each series. The limed plots received 1000 pounds of ground lime- stone disked into the surface soil. The manure was applied at the rate of 10 tons per acre and disked into the surface. The rock phosphate plots received one ton per acre, disked into the surface, alone on one plot and with manure on the other plot. The other fertilizer materials were applied at wheat seeding time. The acid phosphate was applied at the rate of 150 pounds of 16 per cent, goods. The mixed fertilizers were applied at the rate of 300 pounds per acre. The manure, acid phosphate and mixed fertilizer appli- cations have been repeated once per rotation, the manure being 5 plowed under for corn and the fertilizers drilled in with the wheat, except that beginning with 1915 the acid phosphate and mixed fer- tilizer applications have been repeated on corn, thus doubling the amounts per rotation. In 1911, an application of two tons of ground limestone per acre was made on all plots, except an acid phosphate alone plot and certain untreated plots. The rock phosphate application of one ton per acre was repeated for corn and cowpeas on Series A and B in 1911, and for cowpeas on Series C in 1912. In the fall of 1911 three lines of four inch tile were laid crosswise of the plots, spaced about 59 feet apart, thus giving uniform drainage to all plots. At this time, also, the potash in the mixed fertilizer of the 2-8-2 formu- la -was doubled, making the formula 2-8-4, shown in Table I. At the time this field was laid out, it had been cropped contin- uously for at least two generations with no manure and but little fertilizer applied, and was considered badly run down. In the following table are shown the principal treatments, the average increases produced upon each crop in the rotation, the total value of these increases, the cost of the treatment and the net re- turns per rotation. A glance at the last column of Table I shows that all the treat- ments have produced handsome profits, except the rock phosphate used in addition to manure, which still has a deficit of $4.18. This deficit, however, will probably decrease from year to year if no ad- ditional application is made. In the case of the lime, the net return per rotation will also probably increase until another application is required. The largest net return has been secured from the complete fertilizer in which half the phosphorus was derived from bone meal. The acid phosphate alone has made the next largest profit per acre, but per dollar invested it has made the largest profit of all the treat- ments. In the mixed fertilizer, the 2 per cent, of nitrogen has paid a profit in all cases but the 8 per cent, has been used at a loss. In the case of the potash, 4 per cent, has given a profit, while 8 per cent, has been used at a loss. An interesting feature in the mixed fertilizer treatment is the fact that phosphorus derived wholly from bone meal has not given as good returns as the phos- phorus derived wholly from acid phosphate, and that where half the phosphorus has been derived from bone meal and half from acid phosphate, the profit has been largest of all. The small aver- age hay increases are due to the fact that the clover repeatedly failed. 6 Table L — Summary of Results on the Scottsburg Experiment Field, 1906-1916 — Averages per Acre per Rotation of Corn, Wheat and Clover Average per acre crop increases Treatment 1 Value of Cost of Corn stover Wheat straw Hay Net bushels pounds bushels pounds pounds increase treat- ment returns Lime^ 6.0 336 2.2 172 204 $ 6.94 $ 3.63 $ 3.31 Manure 19.5 1439 9.3 985 648 26.24 10 tons - 2.62 per ton Manure plus rock phosphate 20.5 1497 10.1 1071 713 28.14 6.08 4.18 over manure Rock phosphate Acid phosphate 8.4 631 3.5 313 73 9.30 6.08 3.22 (0-8-0) 3.9 223 4.8 460 161 8.47 1.42 7.05 Mixed fertilizer (2-8-0) 6.1 337 6.9 645 95 11.65 3.05 8.60 Mixed fertilizer (0-8-4)^ 4.7 270 6.3 574 85 10.13 2.36 7.77 Mixed fertilizer (8-8-4) « 6.1 263 9.7 878 64 14.51 7.20 7.31 Mixed fertilizer (2-8-8) 4.5 236 8.5 789 39 12.26 4.75 7.51 Mixed fertilizer (2-8-4)^ 7.3 520 7.4 565 24 12.67 3.70 8.97 Mixed fertilizer (2-8-4)^ phosphorus 5.7 672 5.6 458 202 10.86 2.99 7.87 in bone Mixed fertilizer (2-8-4) « half phos- phorus in bone 8.2 573 7.3 582 159 13.64 3.35 10.29 Acid phosphate alone ^ (0-8-0) Acid phosphate 7.8 243 5.3 488 208 $11.00 $1.42 $9.58 (0-8-0) over lime 2.9 227 4.1 263 1.41 6.78 1.42 5.36 Average yields of regular checks 28.9 2436 9.9 986 532 Average totals per acre per rotation 1 Lime alone was applied at the rate of 1000 pounds per acre of ground lime- stone at the beginning and two tons in 1911 Manure is applied at the rate of 10 tons per acre for corn The rock phosphate was applied at the rate of one ton at the beginning of the experiment, and a second ton in 1911-1912 The acid phosphate (0-8-0) and all mixed fertilizers were applied at the rate of 300 pounds per acre on wheat only until 1914, after which the same amounts were applied to corn also 2 Crop increases are over no treatment. All other plots were limed in 1911 3 For the first six applications the potash in the mixed fertilizers was 2 per cent, instead of 4 per cent. 7 THE FIELD AT NORTH VERNON, JENNINGS COUNTY The North Vernon field is located on a flat, poorly drained, whitish gray silt loam area of low productivity, commonly known as “crawfish,” “slash land” or “white clay,” which is widely repre- sented throughout southeastern Indiana. The field consists of three series of 22 one-twentieth acre plots each and carries a corn, wheat and clover rotation, with the corresponding plots in each series re- ceiving the same treatment. Every third plot is a uniformly treated check. Knowing beforehand that the untreated land would not pro- duce clover, it was decided to adopt the plan of giving the check plots some sort of rational treatment. They were, therefore, limed the same as all other limed plots and have received the standard manure applications of six tons per acre per rotation, applied to corn. The topography of the experiment field is almost level, with scarcely enough slope for surface drainage. Some preliminary in- vestigations showed that tile drainage and liming were the first requisites in improving this type of soil. After the field was laid out in the fall of 1911, parallel lines of four inch tile were laid 44 feet apart, crosswise of the plots in such a way as to give all parts of all plots equal drainage. To correct the acidity of the soil, finely ground limestone was applied at the rate of four tons to the acre in the spring of 1912. The whole field was then seeded to soybeans and uniformly treated throughout the season. The crop was har- vested for seed and the straw uniformly spread back upon the land. After the soybean harvest, one series of plots was seeded to wheat. In the spring of 1913, corn was planted on the second series and soy- beans (in place of clover) on the third series. Since then, the reg- ular rotation of corn, wheat and clover has been practiced, with all the produce removed from the land, except the second growth clover. The experiment on the North Vernon field was planned to de- termine if it would pay the farmer, on this soil, to use acid phosphate or raw rock phosphate with manure on corn and some form of mixed fertilizer on wheat after providing good drainage, liming to correct acidity, establishing a good crop rotation, utilizing the produce on the farm, except the wheat grain, and returning reason- able amounts of manure to the land. Provision was also made for the use of fertilizer alone as compared with manure and fertilizer, and to study the efifect of the clover by substituting timothy as the hay crop on certain plots. The manure, acid phosphate and rock phosphate are applied for corn, while all mixed fertilizer applications are made on wheat. The rates of application per acre, per rotation, are as follows : manure, six tons; acid phosphate (14 per cent.), 200 pounds; rock phosphate (30 per cent.), 350 pounds; mixed fertilizer (2-8-4), 200 pounds. The mixed fertilizer is made up of nitrate of soda and dried blood (half of the nitrogen from each), acid phosphate and muriate of potash. 8 Although this field has been in operation only a few years, very pronounced results have been secured. In the following table are shown the principal treatments, the average increase produced upon each crop in the rotation, the total value of these increases, the cost of the treatment and the net returns per rotation. Table: II. — Summary of Results on the North Vernon Field, 1913-1916'^ — Averages per Acre per Rotation of Corn, Wheat and Clover Average per acre crop increases Average totals per acre per rotation Treatment Corn bushels stover pounds Wheat bushels straw pounds Hay pounds Value of increase Cost of treat- ment Net returns Lime (over manure) 13.5 1374 9.7 654 1242 $25.54 $ 7.20 $18.34 Legume (over timothy in rotation, no fertilizer) 3.1 340 2.4 157 680 8.07 8.07 Legume (over timothy in rotation, fertilizer on wheat and corn) . 6.1 974 6.9 339 927 16.47 3.97 12.50 Manure (over lime) 26.1 2193 7.3 634 436 26.71 6 tons 4.45 Fertilizer (over lime) 4.9 887 12.1 1223 624 20.53 3.97 per ton 16.56 Fertilizer (over lime and manure) -2.7 235 8.0 624 597 10.76 3.97 6.79 Acid phosphate (over lime and manure) 5.1 704 2.1 428 354 8.10 1.40 6.61 Rock phosphate (over lime and manure) 6.0 997 .3 . 201 147 5.77 1.31 4.46 Average yield of check plots 70.3 5024 14.7 1468 4067 1 Although the lime was applied in 1912 and the manuring and fertilizing were begun in 1913 on corn and wheat, respectively, the 1914 wheat was the first to have received the full treatment, and the corn and clover harvested in 1915 were the first of these crops that had received the full treatment. Therefore the corn and clover yields recorded in the table are the averages for 1915 and 1916 only, and the wheat yields are the averages for 1914, 1915 and 1916 only 9 In Table II, the net return so far of $18.34 per rotation for the lime application clearly shows the need of lime on this soil. Clover has practically failed and no other treatment has given satisfactory results in the absence of lime. The return from manure, $4.45 per ton, is phenomenally large, showing that organic matter and nitrogen are important needs of the soil. The use of clover or soybeans in the rotation, instead of timothy, has increased its value $8.07 with- out fertilizer and $12.50 net where fertilizer was used on wheat and corn. Complete fertilizer has proven profitable in all cases. Even where used in addition to lime and manure, it has given a profit nearly double the cost. The use of acid phosphate over lime and manure, has been the most profitable fertilizer treatment per dollar invested. The rock phosphate has also produced satisfactory re- turns. THE FIELD AT WORTHINGTON, GREENE COUNTY The Worthington field, consisting of about 10 acres, is located on Knox silt loam, commonly called “clay,” which is the predom- inating soil type of The rolling uplands of that section of the State. The land had been farmed for many years and had become consid- erably run down in productiveness. This field was started at the same time and is in every respect a duplicate of the North Vernon field, except that it has a few addi- tional plots on which crop residues are compared with manure in combination with other fertilization, and that the ground limestone application was only two tons per acre instead of four tons as at North Vernon, due to the fact that the soil was found to be less acid. The principal results of the more important treatments are shown in the following table. 10 TablK hi. — Summary of Results on the Worthington Field, 1913-1916^ — Averages per Acre per Rotation of Corn, Wheat and Clover • Average per acre crop increases Average totals per acre per rotation Treatment Corn bushels stover pounds Wheat bushels straw pounds Hay pounds Value of increase Cost of treat- ment Net returns Lime (over manure) 13.8 761 1.5 208 2165 $20.62 $ 3.60 $17.02 Legume (over timothy in rotation, no commercial fertilizer) -1.5 -40 -2.3 -143 22.19 7.80 7.80 Legume (over timothy in rotation, fertilizer on wheat and corn) -1.7 115 -1.7 21 2277 , 9.05 3.97 5.08 Manure (over lime) 10.2 338 4.7 507 800 14.94 6 tons 2.49 fertilizer (over lime) 3.9 -108 5.9 409 835 12.47 3.97 per ton 8.50 Fertilizer (over lime and manure) 2.3 186 4.8 408 410 8.73 3.97 4.76 Acid phosphate (over lime and manure) 1.9 135 • 1.3 123 1415 9.69 1.40 8.29 Rock phosphate (over lime and manure) -.9 -20 -.8 -80 610 1.67 1.31 .36 Average yield of check plots 49.7 3130 10.9 991 3521 1 Although the lime was applied in 1912 and the manuring and fertilizing were begun in 1913 on corn and wheat, respectively, the 1914 wheat crop was the first to receive the full treatment, and the corn and clover harvested in 1915 were the first of these crops that had received the full treatment. Therefore the corn and clover yields recorded in the table, are the averages for 1915 and 1916 only, and the wheat yields are the averages for 1914, 1915 and 1916 only Table III shows handsome returns from all of the treatments, except rock phosphate. The returns from liming have been much the same on the Worthington field as on the North Vernon field, al- though the acidity of the surface soil was considerably less. The value of the increase in one rotation has paid more than three times the total cost of liming. The use of clover or soybeans in the rotation, instead of timothy, has increased its value $7.80 with- out fertilizer and $5.08 net where complete fertilizer was used on wheat and acid phosphate on corn. The six-ton application of ma- II nure has produced crop increases worth $2.49 per ton of manure. The fertilizer treatment, consisting of acid phosphate on corn and complete fertilizer on wheat, has produced a net profit of $8.50 when used in addition to lime and $4.76 when used in addition to both lime and manure. This is a good showing and very positively answers, in the affirmative, the principal question that was asked in the plan of the experiment, namely: will it pay to use fertilizer after providing good drainage, liming to correct acidity, establishing a good rotation of crops, feeding all of the produce that can be profitably utilized on the farm and returning the manure to the land ? The affirmative answer to this question has been much more pronounced on the North Vernon field. The acid phosphate used in addition to lime and manure has produced crop increases worth about six times its cost. Rock phosphate, on the other hand, has produced a profit of only $ .36 per rotation. THE FIELD AT WESTPORT, DECATUR COUNTY The Westport field is located on the same type of land as the North Vernon field. It was laid out to determine the value of tile drainage and to study the effect of lime, manure, phosphoric acid, potash, and the growth of legumes on both drained and undrained land. The regular rotation is corn, wheat and clover, with all pro- duce, except the second growth clover, removed from the land. The field contains three series of six one-twentieth acre plots each of drained and the same of undrained land and carries a three year rotation of corn, wheat and clover. Three lines of four inch tile placed 66 feet apart and at a depth of 30 inches extend across the three drained series, which are end to end with the three un- drained series. In 1915, corn, oats and soybeans were grown on both the drained and undrained series. The plots were fertilized in the spring of 1915 but limestone was not applied until the following fall. The corn series were seeded to wheat in the fall of 1915, and the soybeans series to rye to be turned under for corn in 1916. The limestone was applied to these four series and worked into the soil as the land was prepared for wheat and rye. At the same time the limestone was spread broadcast as a top dressing on the other series, which were in young clover. All limestone applications were made at the rate of four tons per acre. Manure was applied to the corn land at the rate of eight tons per acre. It was applied to the south half of all plots on both the drained and undrained areas. The first application was made in the spring of 1916. Fertilizers of the basal formula 0-10-5 applied to the corn crop at the rate of 200 pounds per acre, and at the rate of 300 pounds per acre to the wheat crop, the potash being omitted on the phosphorus alone plots. The following table shows the results for 1916.* 12 Table IV. — Summary of Results on the Westport Field on Corn, Wheat and Clover Rotation, 1916 Treatment Average per Corn > Stover bushels pounds acre cr Wheat bushels op incre Straw pounds ases Hay pounds Value of total increase on first rotation Limestone (over P K) 12.6 270 1.31 119 169 $ 9.11 Manure (over lime) 11.1 501 not yet mar lured 6.30 P (over lime) -2.96 -98 1.37 125 1124 5.45 P K (over lime) .26 226 1.26 121 1156 7.69 Drainage^ 23.4 1140 4.63 316 190 19.74 Average yield of check plots 39.5 2172 5.30 474 3240 1 Averages of the six drained plots over the averages of the six undrained plots in each series Although some of the crops have not yet received the full treat- ment, the results for 1916 are presented here because they show how quickly liming and drainage may become effective. The drain- age effect is particularly striking. In 1915, the first year of crop- ping after drainage, the increase for drainage was 18. i bushels for corn and 2.9 bushels for oats. The crop increases secured in the first two years have already more than paid the entire cost of drain- age. The soybean crop, which took the place of clover in 1915, was not weighed. The fertilizer results for one year do not warrant any conclu- sions. There has been practically no effect on the 1916 corn crop ; the effect on wheat was fair, considering the severe fly damage, while the residual effect on clover has been remarkably large. Ap- parently phosphorus is the element that is most needed. THE FIELD AT WANATAH, LAPORTE COUNTY The Wanatah field is located on a very acid peaty sand area, and represents a type -of unproductive black soil which failed to re- spond to the drainage and fertilizer treatments found effective in the greater part of the Kankakee region. The soil treatment and the results of the experiments upon this field have been published in Bulletin No. 170 of this station, in which it was shown that the unproductiveness of this soil was due to the toxic effects of soluble salts of aluminum formed in the soil in con- siderable amounts, and that this could be remedied by the addition of sufficient quantities of lime to neutralize the acidity. For convenience, the principal results of the field treatments are presented in the following table. Anyone interested in the de- tails of this study should secure a copy of Bulletin No. 170. 13 Tabi^E V. — Summary of Results on the Wanatah Field, 1910-1914 — Averages per Rotation of Corn, Small Grain and Legume Treatment ^ Average per acre crop increases Average totals per acre per rotation Corn bushels Stover pounds Oats bushels straw pounds Soy- beans bushels^ Hay pounds^ Value of increase Cost of treat- ment Net returns Lime alone 13.0 664 -.4 4.1 500 $11.69 $ 8.10 $ 3.59 Fertilizer alone (2-10-8) .3 -97 15.6 -.3 5.23 5.84 -.61 Fertilizer (2-10-8) (over lime) 10.3 773 19.0 770 4.3 517 18.63 5.84 12.79 Fertilizer (4-10-8) (over lime) 5.0 854 31.3 900 3.6 433 19.87 7.36 12.51 Fertilizer (4-0-8) (over lime) 4.9 583 14.6 400 -.2 -133 8.55 4.96 3.59 Fertilizer (0-10-8) (over lime) 7.1 855 21.7 350 1.4 817 16.04 4.32 11.72 Rock phosphate alone 1.9 173 7.9 27 2.9 167 6.61 2.10 4.51 Rock phosphate (over lime) 4.3 467 15.3 103 -1.6 533 8.48' 2.10 6.38 Average yield of check plots 5.2 388 12.9 246 8.9 789 1 Limed with two tons of ground limestone in 1910 and two tons in 1911. Mixed fertilizer applied at the rate of 400 pounds and rock phosphate at the rate of 1000 pounds per acre 2 Only half of the soybean crop and half of the hay crop counted in computing value of increase because each was grown half of the time in the three-year rotation An examination of Table V shows that lime alone gave fairly good returns on corn, soybeans and clover. Oats grew rank but fell down long before it was ripe and failed to fill. Fertilizer alone was used at a loss. Where both lime and fertilizer were applied good profits were secured in all cases. Where phosphorus was omitted the profits were reduced from $12.51 to $3-59? showing that this element is the principal fertilizer need of this soil. Rock phosphate gave good returns, both alone and with lime. Acid phosphate was not used alone on this field. On account of difficulties with the tenant on the farm, the Wanatah field was seeded to grass in 1915 to be left until better con- ditions for its continuation can be secured. THE FIELD AT SOUTH BEND, ST. JOSEPH COUNTY This field is located on the County Farm of St. Joseph County. It was started with the object of making a comparative study of acid phosphate, bone meal and raw rock phosphate as sources of phosphorus under a good system of rotation and crop management. 14 The soil is a brown sandy loam of somewhat better than average quality, but fairly representative of large areas of sandy soil in St. Joseph and neighboring counties. The field consists of three series of 14 one-twentieth acre plots each and carries a rotation of corn, wheat and clover, with soybeans put in the place of clover whenever the latter fails. All the produce, except second growth clover, is removed from the land and a reasonable amount of manure is re- turned. As the soil was found to be acid, it was limed with a uni- form application of four tons of limestone screenings to the acre. The phosphates to be compared on this field are therefore used in addition to a uniform lime and manure treatment. The phos- phates are applied at three different rates to determine the most profitable amounts and to give a wider range of comparison for the different materials. The rock phosphate is applied in single doses for each two rounds of the rotation, while the acid and bone appli- cations are distributed to all the corn and wheat crops. The initial applications were made in 1914 and the whole field planted to soy- beans. In the following table are shown the average results to date from the three different phosphates. The three different rates of application are averaged at this time because the bone and acid are differently proportioned for corn and wheat and will not be even until the end of the second rotation. Table: VI. — Summary of Results on the South Bend Field, 1914-1916^ — Averages per Acre per Rotation of Corn, Wheat and Clover Average per- acre crop increases Average totals per acre per rotation Treatment 2 Corn bushels stover pounds Wheat bushels straw pounds Hay pounds Value of increase Cost of treat- ment Net returns Steamed bone meal (over lime and manure) 3.3 -83 2.3 244 -28 $ 4.00 $ 3.50 $ .50 Acid phosphate (over lime and manure) 1.5 341 3.7 216 26 5.37 3.50 1.87 Rock phosphate (over lime and manure) 2.1 -138 .7 65 -124 1.00 3.50 -2.50 Average yield of check plots 37.7 3077 22.9 2050 3745 1 Only two corn and wheat crops have been grown. The whole field was in soy- beans in 1914, and soybeans were again used in place of clover in 1915 2 Average of the three rates of application in each case. The acid and bone are applied to each corn and wheat crop and average 70 pounds P 2 O 5 per acre per rotation. The rock phosphate applications average 280 pounds P 2 O 6 per acre, all put on at the beginning of the experiment 15 Table VI does not show any very pronounced phosphate ef- fects on this field up to the present time. It seems that so far the manure (6 tons per acre per rotation) is meeting the demands of the crops for phosphate to such an extent as to need little help from the added phosphates. THE PHOSPHATE TEST AT BEDFORD, LAWRENCE COUNTY This experiment is located on the Moses Fell Annex Farm about six miles northwest of Bedford. No soil survey of the area has been made but the field seems to be representative of most of the uplands of Lawrence and neighboring counties. The soil is residual from the underlying limestone. It is a yellowish brown silt loam, underlaid by a more reddish subsoil. Notwithstanding its limestone origin, this soil was found to be acid. The experiment on this field was planned to study the relative merits of steamed bone meal, basic slag, acid phosphate and raw rock phosphate in supplying phosphorus needs of crops. ^ A special fea- ture of the experiment is the comparison of rock and acid phos- phates in several different proportions alone, with lime, and with both lime and manure. As nearly as could be learned, the field upon which the experi- ment is located has been cropped for about two generations with little use of manure or fertilizer and had been in meadow for sev- eral years. There was a thin growth of timothy, blue grass, red top and broom sedge. This was plowed up in the spring of 1914 and two preliminary crops were grown without any soil treatment. The 1914 crop was corn, which was removed from the land. The 1915 crop was soybeans, plowed under in the fall. The field was under- drained in the spring of 1915 with parallel lines of four-inch tile laid 44 feet apart and crosswise of the plots so as to give all parts uniform drainage. Ground limestone was applied to all limed plots at four- tons per acre after the soybeans were plowed under. The phosphates were broadcasted and disked into the surface on one of the three series of plots, which was then seeded to wheat. In the spring of 1916, the next series was prepared for corn. Manure at the rate of six tons per acre and the phosphates were disked into the surface shortly before planting. The third series was again seeded to soybeans without any treatment. The results of the treatments on the first corn and wheat crops are here presented because of the marked contrasts that have been produced by the different phosphate treatments. i6 Tabi^e: VII. — Summary of Results on First Corn and Wheat Crops on the Bedford Field — 1916 I Average per acre crop increases I Total Treatment Corn bushels stover pounds Wheat bushels straw pounds value of increase Acid phosphate alone 48 pounds P 2 O 5 17.0 -20 6.5 580 $15.68 Rock phosphate alone 192 pounds P 2 O 5 10.6 246 4.2 454 10.44 Acid phosphate, 48 pounds P 2 O 5 (over manure) 9.9 433 3.8 380 9.88 Rock phosphate, 192 pounds P 2 O 5 (over manure) 5.9 153 3.6 266 7.11 Acid phosphate, 24 pounds P 2 O 5 (over lime and manure) 10.1 -76 3.4 393 8.83 Rock phosphate, 96 pounds P 2 O 5 (over lime and manure) -.7 -273 1.3 23 .42 Acid phosphate,- 48 pounds P 2 O 5 (over lime and manure) 14.1 13 4.4 560 12.18 Rock phosphate, 192 pounds P 2 O 5 (over lime and manure) 8.4 -293 .7 240 4.76 Acid phosphate, 72 pounds P 2 O 5 (over lime and manure) 13.2 693 6.7 610 15.10 Rock phosphate, 288 pounds P 2 O 5 (over lime and manure) 4.4 147 1.1 -50 3.46 Acid phosphate, 1000 pounds P 2 O 5 (over lime and manure) 26.4 900 6.8 620 22.13 Rock phosphate, 2000 pounds P 2 O 5 (over lime and manure) 3.3 120 .4 150 2.43 Acid phosphate, 48 pounds P 2 O 5 (over lime and manure) 14.1 13 4.4 560 12.17 Steamed bone meal, 48 pounds P 2 O 5 (over lime and manure) 8.7 120 .7 183 5.46 Basic slag, 48 pounds P 2 O 5 (over lime and manure) 3.3 -80 3.6 507 5.76 Lime, 4 tons (over manure) -3.1 226 -.2 - 7 -1.40 Manure 10.5 87 .1 74 5.57 Average yield of check plots 37.6 3700 2.8' 645 . 1 The small wheat yields were due largely to Hessian fly damage In Table VII it will be seen that acid phosphate has produced . large returns in all cases. Bone meal has given the smallest returns of the available phosphates. Rock phosphate has given satisfactory returns where used alone, where used with manure, and in one case where used with both lime and manure. The larger applications have been used at a loss. As the average of six different applica- tions, the rock phosphate has produced in the first corn and wheat crops increases valued at $4.77, while the average for the six cor- 17 responding money values of acid phosphate has been $13.94. A very striking thing is the fact that the abnormally large applications of 450 and 1000 pounds of acid phosphate per acre have more than paid for themselves the first year, while the same money values of rock phosphate, carrying four times as much phosphorus, have re- turned less than one-sixth as much. THE FERTILIZER TEST ON THE UNIVERSITY FARM This field is located on a brown silt loam underlaid by gravel at a depth of about two feet, which the Bureau of Soils has classified as Sioux silt loam. The field consists of 13 sixteenth acre plots, and carries a rotation of corn, oats, wheat, clover and timothy. It was laid out in 1889 and the different treatments were begun in 1890. One plot has been manured with horse manure at the average rate of 19 tons per acre per rotation. Another plot has received an average dressing of 28.5 tons of cattle manure per acre per rotation. The other plots have received commercial fertilizer as shown in the fol- lowing table. All nitrogen applications have been at the average rate of 187.5 pounds of nitrogen per acre per rotation,- All phos- phorus applications have been at the average rate of 95.5 pounds of phosphoric acid per acre per rotation. All potash applications have been at the average rate of 144 pounds of actual potash per acre per rotation. All manure and fertilizer applications have been di- vided between the corn, oats and wheat in the rotation. The corn has received approximately one-half, the oats, one-quarter and the wheat, one-quarter of the total applications. During the first nine years, ammonium sulphate was used as the source of nitrogen, and dissolved bone black as the source of phosphorus. Since that time nitrate of soda and acid phosphate have been used. Muriate of potash has been used throughout as the source of potash. According to the information available, the originators of the experiment had in mind supplying, in the manure and fertilizer, about two-thirds of the total plant food needs of crops of 75 bushels of corn, 60 bushels of oats, and 30 bushels of wheat. The manure applications were calculated to carry about the same amounts of plant food as the complete fertilizer application. Fresh manure has been used at all times. The average results per rotation are present- ed in the following table. i8 Table VIIL — Summary of the Fertilizer Test on the University Farm, 1890-1916 — Averages of Twenty-seven Years on a Five-Year Rotation of Corn, Oats, Wheat, Clover and Timothy Treat- ment Average per acre crop increases Average totals per acre per rotation Corn stover Oats straw Wheat straw Clover Tim- othy Value of Cost of Net bushels pounds bushels pounds bushels pounds hay hay increase treat- returns pounds pounds ment Horse manure 13.6 1437 8.4 349 13.1 1527 2807 852 $45.72 19 tons $ 2.40 Cattle manure 14.9 1513 8.1 535 13.7 2256 2245 1004 46.12 28.5 per ton 1.62 N P 10.3 946 2.5 459 12.9 1751 795 166 28.02 tons 47.59 per ton -19.57 N P 8.2 468 1.7 381 9.3 1241 223 127 18.57 40.39 -21.82 P K 10.7 795 8.8 55 10.5 920 1091 383 28.72 11.97 16.75 N K 8.0 563 1.9 287 4.2 833 180 199 13.07 42.82 -29.75 P 1.8 331 4.5 199 6.0 599 856 100 14.80 4.77 10.03 N 2.6 192 .8 197 .1 350 -160 8 19.40 35.62 -16.22 K 7.0 635 1.0 -10 1.5 83 237 -14 7.50 7.20 .30 Aver- age yield of checks 37.3 2137 43.7 1425 •18.5 1861 2328 1357 1 Nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potash An examination of Table VIII clearly shows that the nitrogen applications on this field have been much too large to yield a profit. Phosphorus alone and the phosphorus and potash combination, even though used in very large amounts, have yielded handsome profits. It is worthy of note that potash has produced its best increases on corn, and the phosphate has done best on wheat, oats and hay. Horse manure has produced good returns per ton even though the application has been abnormally large. The cattle manure has pro- duced only a little more crop increase than the horse manure, al- though the application was a half greater. It will be observed further that the heavy applications of bc/th manure and fertilizer have maintained the wheat yield well up to the 30 bushel mark, and that the applications have been profitable. The phosphorus and potash combination has also been profitable on the other crops in the rotation. Phosphorus alone has not been profitable on corn. Potash alone has about paid for itself on the corn and the slight profit has come from the residual effect on 19 clover. Comparing the value of the crop increases in the third and fifth lines of the table, it will be seen that the large nitrogen appli- cation not only failed to give an increase but was actually detrimen- tal, since the P K plot yielded crop increases worth $28.72 while the N P K plot yielded only $28.02. The oats crop on the plots receiv- ing nitrogen generally fell down before ripening and the hay crops were not as good. The failure of nitrogen to make a better showing is further explained by the fact that this soil is naturally well sup- plied with nitrogen, the untreated plots still showing .23 per cent, of total nitrogen, and the probable losses through leaching into the gravel subsoil. All of the produce has been removed from the field throughout the experiment. OTHER NEW EXPERIMENTS UNDER WAY During the last two years, the Station has begun several im- portant lines of soil fertility investigations on the Wilson Farm, which was acquired especially for soil and crop improvement exper- iments. This farm lies immediately to the east of the city of La- Fayette and consists of 120 acres of what is commonly known as ‘‘black and clay” soil, which represents the greater part of the middle half of the State. The “clay” is Miami silt loam and the “black” is Clyde silt loam as cbassified by the Bureau of Soils in their soil sur- veys of other counties in the State. A uniform drainage system for the whole farm has been completed. By preliminary cropping the most uniform parts of the farm were selected and the following experiments started. A comparison of ten different systems of cropping, comparing 38 one-half acre plots. A comparative study of the more important phosphates used as fertilizers. This is similar to the Bedford experiment de- scribed in this bulletin. A complete fertility test of the Miami silt loam. A comparison of the effects of “grain farming” and “stock farming” upon the productiveness of the soil. A study of the soil fertility value of corn stalks plowed under vs. left to decay on the surface. A study of the best place to apply stable manure in a corn, wheat and clover rotation. A study of the amount of raw rock phosphate that must be applied and maintained in the soil to continuously supply the phos- phorus needed by crops. Two new outlying projects, started in 1916, are the “Hunting- ton experiment Field” of about 12 acres, located near Huntington, 20 I ^ Indiana, where the main objects are to compare sugar beets with corii in rotation with oats and clover and to study the fertilizer re- quirements of sugar beets, and the “Francisco Experiment Field” in Gibson county, which is designed to show the effects of lime, legumes, phosphorus and potash on the rolling upland, light-colored, silty soil of southwestern Indiana. All of the above new experiments have been outlined in the re- ports of the Department of Soils and Crops in the 1915 and 1916 Annual Reports of the Station. SUMMARY This bulletin reports the results of the principal soil treatments on seven outlying experiment fields and one of the older series of plots on the University Farm. Leaving out of consideration the Westport and Bedford fields, which are only a year old, the principal treatments have produced results as follows : Ground limestone has yielded good returns on all of the fields where it was used, with profits ranging from $3.31 to $18.34 per acre per rotation. Manure has yielded returns ranging from $1.62 to $4.45 per ton per rotation. On limed land, mixed fertilizer has been used at good profits in all cases. At North Vernon and Worthington, where mixed fer- tilizer is applied to wheat on manured land, good wheat increases have been secured from the use of 200 pounds per acre of 2-8-4 fer- tilizer following corn, which had received six tons of manure and 200 pounds of acid phosphate per acre. Rock phosphate used without manure at Scottsburg and Wan- atah has yielded profitable returns. With manure, it has been profit- able at North Vernon and Worthington, while at Scottsburg and South Bend it has been used at a loss. Acid phosphate, either with or without manure, has given large profits in all cases. Per dollar invested, it has been by far the most profitable of all the fertilizer treatments, either alone, with lime, or with both lime and manure. Clover instead of timothy in rotation with corn and wheat has increased the value of the rotation by $8.07 at North Vernon and $7.80 at Worthington where no fertilizer was used. On fertilized land, the legume has increased the value of the rotation by $12.50 at North Vernon and $5.08 at Worthington after paying for the fertilizer. PURDUE UNIVERSITY Agricultural Experiment Station Buclktin No. 199, Von. XIX April, 1917 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS Pimiislied iiy tie station: LAFAYETTE, INDIANA U. S. A. C3WMKU I r^V-»L_ , ^ Addison C. Harms,' President V“^VZV"Z.V.'lnd/anapSis,' Marion County G^ent^^d. Hancock County pv^ncs^M l\"V"”'’.BridKeport,’ Marion County Joseph D Oliver... Vincennes, Knox County WT??TrM^V ^Stuart V'V.V.'.V. LaPayette. Tippecanoe County WTNTHROP k SiONEi'X' mT'p^' President of the University STATION STAFF HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS Director in Herbert S. Jackson. A. B...... qtatc Chemist Skinner ’ B^S Husbandry John hL skinner, h. s Chief in Entomology il^^Rfn^T^^TANCKo '' b' s A Chief in Soils and Crops Ch^lL G wSun?; M. sXTZ XXZr;::.. Chlet m Horticulture R q ^ -V Assistant in Botany Sherman L Andersen B. S ;::::::::;::;::inspecto? Stat^ CheSStVeplrtSent J^Ses'^C BeaTees-. B. Asr;;;;:;;:;;;;;;;;;;;.;: Associate in Soils^aml_ crons Jx^tens.on cSa5Ss°S ^Bee“sSe®'m ■■ s' Poultry Husbandry H 'RrSuShton B S Assistant in Creamery Inspection HaS D^Burns?de B S A‘i Inspector State Chemist Department msnector state Chemlst^Department caS”h^ clink’^’b°s’'* *' ^ ;;;;;;;;;;;.'.'.':;::::".'.';.'.'"!;;Assistant in serum production Thomak a C?leman "VV/.V.'.'.V.V/.^Ass’t State Leader Field Studies and Demonstrations sSSuEL 4‘ CONNER. M, S. Associate Chemist ^.n ^Smls^/nd Crops Carleton^Cutler^^B % ^ prYst' Deputy 'stale' Chemist Microscopist (Feeds) 55gN^ L^dS™b: ^^tomological ass Stant m Leo^P Doylb^^B^S^’ V.V; V:.V'.V.'-V."';.V.'.'As^ in Animal Pathology p fVpte Ph"G - Assistant in Dairy Chemistry Margin I ^fSmr’ M^S Y".'.';!!;.! Assistant Chief in Soils and Crops GeoS M Frier B S A.'.r"''''.'''.'.' Associate in Charge of Short (bourses and Exhibits maret T HV.RLAN ' Assistant in Agricultural Extension Ab 5S j;.HUN™ErB:;'s: : Assistant m SerumJ^roductmn Coba A. ".....V. Assistant in Soils Sadocie C. Assistant Veterinarian ^KrNKLm G^T'Kii?, B.°s....; -::-X'"xr;rz Walter H. Larrimer. B. S.3.. Deifutv State Chemist HoR^A^r?^ c^' B^s ^ in Dairy Manufactures ;;;;'::'':'r;;;;/::Assfc!^frV%S^ ?T T r ■ PHimPs'^B^S \ 'X';.'.'.'.. Associate in Poultry Husbandry “• ?"£LSi; E; cSFSTlR^G^STARg^B^S ^/^■■■E:;;.E::V;Asslstant‘'in''Swine'^P^^^^ SeSber? I iwi5SER® R>,-A.-.-. Assistant in gairy Bacteno^^^^^^ GfuBERT^/'wASKlS’ B I :: :::: m soiis and cr9ps Associate in Animal Pathology L?^?1r^Y^er®^B^S a ^ :;:'':::;::GY'adua'e ''AEsi'stant m Horticultural (Jhemistry 1 In charge of Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control 2 Detailed by U. S. Department of Agriculture — Seed Testing ^ x . 3 Detailed by U. S. Department of Agriculture — Cereal and Forage Crop Insect Investigations on « a i * Connected with Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control 3 Died September 2, 1916 ADVISORY COMMITTEE (UNDER LEGISLATIVE ACT OF 1909) * • a- T P PRirr Daleville State Live Stock Association J- P- frigg, uaieviiie qta+p Poultry Fanciers’ Association S: p: MA™H?PrSort . state com Growers’ Association COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS W. J. JONES, JR. E. G. Proulx R. B. Deemer R. O. Bitler H. C. Mugg* The main points of the law governing the sale of materials for ma- nurial purposes in Indiana are summarized in the following: Manufacturers Registration. Before offering or exposing for sale, selling or dis- tributing, hy saviple or otherwise, any material for manurial purposes in this state submit the required certificate accompanied by fees and order for State Chemist’s labels to the amount of 500 or some multiple for each brand it is desired to offer for sale. Attachment of State Chemist’s Labels. Attach State Chemist’s labels to all packages of 200 pounds or fraction, whether of one ounce or 200 pounds, including sample bottles, and furnish with similar quantities when bulk sales are made. Bo not make unlabeled shipments expecting to furnish labels at a later date. Such procedure does not meet the requirements of the law and places your customers in position to violate it unintentionally. No ex- cuse can be accepted for the sale of unlabeled fertilizer. Labels. The registration of a brand being permanent the only way to make a change in guarantee is by a distinctive change in thd name of the brand, the submission of a new certificate and the payment of min- imum fees. Never make any change on the official label. Such alteration constitutes a misdemeanor and subjects any agent selling fertilizer with such altered labels attached to prosecution for violation of the law. Maintain Guarantees. Be certain that all shipments made into Indi- ana equal or exceed in every particular the guarantee, this means for each plant food, not equivalent values, on the State Chemist^ s labels furnished with the shipment. Materials under the law. The term “commercial fertilizer” is defined to include all materials used for manurial purposes except barnyard manure, marl, lime, wood ashes and plaster and these in order to be en- titled to exemption must be sold in their original condition and under their respective names. Rulings 12 A and B. Attention is called to rulings 12 A and B pub- lished in each report since 1914 covering registrations on forms 1902 and under names indicating the use of animal by-products only. Fertilizers sold under the name of Raw Bone, Bone Meal, Ground Bone, Steamed Bone, Tankage, Bone and Potash, Bone and Potash mixture, etc., must be free from acidulated materials, ammonium sulfate, nitrate of soda, rock phosphate, lime, all fillers, and must contain animal by-products only. Where it is desired to use reinforcing agents or fillers the fertilizers must be offered for registration under names which do not indicate the presence of animal by-products only. Excuses for failure to comply with these rulings cannot be accepted in the future and where fertilizer is found on sale in violation of same, registration will be cancelled and further labels refused. Full text of the law and working regulations of the department in so far as they relate to persons or firms who wish to register fertilizer for sale in this state and blank forms for making such registration will be furnished on request. Agents, Dealers, Distributors Read the law. Write to this department for a copy of the law and acquaint yourself with its provisions. Companies. Consult the State Chemist’s reports each year and repre- sent manufacturers with good records of inspection. Resigned Jan. 1, 1917 4 Labels. The only label recognized under the law is that 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, pachage, or any quantity of any commercial fertilizer which does not have attached to the packages or available for bullc shipments the State Chemist ’s label for each 200 pounds or fraction. In connection with the preceding it is to be noted that the law re- quires the labels to be attached to the packages of fertilizer or to accom- pany bulk sales at the time of delivery, and the delivery of the fertilizer with subsequent delivery of the labels on the plea of oversight, hurry, accommodation, etc., cannot be accepted as an excuse for such viola- tions, and prompt report of all unlabeled sales will be made to the prose- cutor. Refuse to accept any unlabeled shipments until labels are avail- able and such shipments will cease. Do not accept or deliver unlabeled fertilizer expecting to be excused through subsequent delivery of labels. Such procedure does not meet the requirements of the law which are that the State Chemist’s labels and the fertilizer must be delivered at the same time. No excuse for making un- labeled deliveries can be accepted. Altered Labels. Do not accept any sample, package or quantity of fertilizer with State Chemist’s labels showing alterations. The label as issued is always printed, contains all the facts required by law and any alterations thereon constitute a violation of the law. Sample bottles. Make contracts on the basis of the guarantee on State Chemist’s labels and compare said guarantee with that on State Chemist’s labels attached to packages or furnished with the shipment and be certain that they are in agreement. Deficiencies. Examine the report of inspection of any sample secured from goods in your possession very carefully and if report shows the sam- ple deficient sufficient to carry with it the advice that shipment should be withdrawn from sale do so promptly and report the amount and date of withdrawal to this department. While there is good ground for claiming that a dealer has no means of knowing until a report is received whether guarantees are maintained, after 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 the sale and in all such cases prompt complaint will be filed with the prosecutor by this department. Equivalent values. In the case of deficiency in a certain plant food, manufacturers often (too often) make claim that since the percentage of another plant food is in excess of guarantee sufficient to bring the sam- ple up to the guaranteed equivalent value no objection should be made on account of the deficiency. If the plant foods, nitrogen, potash and avail- able phosphoric acid could replace each other in plant production such a claim would be entirely reasonable and the purchase of fertilizer would become merely a purchase of so many dollars worth of plant food without regard to kind or quantity, but since nitrogen cannot perform the func- tions of either potash or phosphoric acid, nor can either of the last two mentioned take the place of nitrogen or one another, it is essential that the particular plant food desired and purchased be secured and not an equal money value of another. It is just as logical to sell sugar when coffee is desired as to substitute one plant food for another. Comparative values are a means of comparing similar brands but should be used only for such purposes and care should be taken to con- sider from whence the values come, since in many cases, through the use of untreated rock phosphate as a make weight 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. The plant food or foods required by the soil and crop to which they are to be applied together with proper cultivation and the application of 5 other principles of good farming and not the application of so many dol- lars’ worth of fertilizer without regard to kind or quality are the essen- tials of maximum crop production. Sales. Study the needs of the soil in your locality and sell your cus- tomers high grade fertilizer containing the ingredient or ingredients needed to give the most profitable results. Handling and storing fertilizer. The local dealer being directly re- sponsible for the fertilizer he offers for sale in Indiana, care should be taken to keep fertilizer in a clean, waterproof building, the different brands in separate piles with sufficient space between to prevent mixing if the bags burst, with proper labels attached to each package. Represent companies whose past record of inspection shows that they are maintaining their guarantees. 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. Refuse to accept any fertilizer which does not have attached to pack- ages or accompanying bulk sales State Chemist’s labels, (see reproduction, page 6), having printed thereon guarantees agreeing with those on sample bottles or in contract at time of purchase. The law only requires that the person or persons selling the fertilizer furnish the amounts of plant food guaranteed on the State Chemist’s labels furnished with the shipment, hence it is essential if you purchase fertilizer guaranteed to contain 1.6% nitrogen, 2% potash soluble in water and 8% available phosphoric acid that the official labels contain this guarantee and no other. Do not have fertilizer in your possession v/ithout State Chemist’s labels to cover each 200 pounds or fraction. When reports are received showing that fertilizer purchased does not meet the requirements of the law notify the prosecuting attorney of your district of the violation. When inspections are desired do not forward samples but observe carefully the instructions under Samples, page 7. Consult the inspection reports and cooperate with this department by purchasing from companies whose record of inspection shows they are maintaining their guarantees. WATCH FOR STATE CHEMIST’S LABEL ACCEPT NO OTHER Only one label is recognized as legal under the Indiana Fertilizer Law and this is the one, see reproduction page 6, which must be purv'jhased from the State Chemist and always hears his fac simile signature. The State Chemist’s official label is always printed, contains all the facts required by law, must be attached to all packages and accompany bulk sales for each 200 pounds or fraction whether said fraction be one oz. or 200 pounds and fixes the legal standard of composition for all fertilizer offered or exposed for sale, sold or distributed in Indiana. Do not under any circumstances accept any fertilizer unless the official labels are avail- able and do not accept any shipments with altered State Chemist’s labels attached. 6 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 phosphoric acid, (P 2 O 5 ). Purdue University Agricultural7 Experiment Station, LaFayette, Indiana. State Chemist. Use of annual reports. In order that purchasers as well as agents and dealers may obtain the most value from the annual reports, the fol- lowing suggestions are offered: First. Determine the formula you wish to purchase. Second. Consult Table IX to ascertain the manufacturers having fer* tilizers of the desired composition registered for sale. Third. Consult Tables II, III, IV to ascertain the inspection records of manufacturers selected from Table IX. Fourth. If details of the inspection of any particular brand are de- sired consult Table VI and for additional information write to the State Chemist. Fifth. Purchase of manufacturers whose records of inspection are such as to justify the belief that they will deliver fertilizer as guaranteed. Sixth. The index 4:0 each report is so arranged as to enable the pre- ceding suggestions to be followed with a minimum expenditure of time and labor. ADMINISTRATION The administration of the 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 of whom 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 former. Receipts and expenditures. The revenue for carrying on the work of inspection is secured from the sale of State Chemist’s labels. All fees are made payable to the State Chemist by whom they are paid into the treasury of the Purdue University Agricultural Experiment Station on the 25th of each month. All expenditures are on vouchers and duplicate re- ceipts and the accounts of the department are audited by the State Board of Accountants. Inspections. The number of shipments into the state has become so numerous that it is impossible to secure a sample from each shipment. 7 nor is this necessary to secure adequate inspection and protection, but at present 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 or of companies with poor records of inspec- tion this number is increased so as to insure that the results of the in- spection are representative of the fertilizer sold in the state each year. In the 1916 inspection one sample was secured for each 94 tons and one sample analyzed for each 97 tons sold in the state. Requests for special inspections are almost invariably complied with. Samples. Manufacturers are not required to forward samples. When an analysis is necessary for the purpose of making guarantee it must be secured from a commercial chemist. The only samples analyzed are those taken by our regular inspectors from goods properly labeled on the open market. Consumers, agents or dealers desiring inspections are requested not to forward samples but to write to the State Chemist stating the manufacturer, brand, official num- ber (which is always at the top of the official label), amount of fertilizer on hand and any special reason for des/iring the inspection. 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. For reasons fully set forth in previous reports which are briefly; first, in order for the analysis of a sample of fertilizer to be of value it must be drawn in such a manner as to be representative of the entire shipment and such a representative sample can only be taken by persons with special training and with a sampling tube which will take a full core the entire length of each package sampled; second, unless the sample is so drawn as to be representative, its legality cannot be sustained in the courts; third, the inspection in Indiana is more general than in most states having similar laws, and since the only funds available for the work of inspection are those received from the sale of labels, the number of samples which can be analyzed is necessarily limited by the revenue and the staff available. Analyses. The 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 manu- facturer or brand which he is analyzing but works solely by the labora- tory number assigned the sample on its arrival. In the 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. 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 this department can be shown. Reports. The results of the inspection of all samples are rci^orted to the manufacturer, 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 forward to the agent and persons from whom sample was secured. Requests are frequently received that we report inspections within a certain time limit. Unless some exceptional reason exists for so doing such requests cannot be granted since under the most favorable condi- tions 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. Consumers should purchase not on the basis of a certain time limit but with the proviso that if inspected and found defi- cient the manufacturer will rebate on said analysis. This is perfectly fair 8 to the manufacturer whose interests are fully protected through the ten days’ advance notice he receives of such samples. Enforcement. 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 Act and any citizen of the state may call violations to his attention. Since reports of the results of in- spection are made to all parties to the transaction it is expected 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. Official Duties. The official duties of the State Chemist are restricted to the inspection of fertilizers and feeding stuffs and the settlement of disputes between coal oil dealers and inspectors. The official work re- quired takes the entire time of the staff of the department and no mis- cellaneous work either gratis or for pay can be undertaken. Analyses of fertilizers and feeding stuffs must be restricted to samples secured by our regular inspectors. Analyses of water, soils, rocks or similar materials are not made by this department. Commercial work or outside remuneration cannot be accepted by any employee of this department. CASES REPORTED TO PROSECUTORS The following cases for selling fertilizer without labels were reported to prosecutors. o and potash 9 3 3 42. Rook phosphate 4 51. Tobacco stems 1 53. pried marmre 4 2 1 ____ 56.’ Peat 1 1 1 Totals 267 102 40 6 12 5 43 1 The brands listed above were deficient in fertilizing ingredients as follows : 25 Ingredient No. below guarantee 10 to 20 per cent. 20 to 30 per cent. 30 to 50 per cent. 50 and over per cent. 1 Ni't.rngfin 33 95 36 12 12 42 8 6 25 1 2 4 0 9 , Pntfl ph 3. Available phosphoric acid 4. Total phosphoric acid Totals 176 62 32 6 RESULTS OF INSPECTION The results of the 1916 inspection are very favorable when compared with those of previous years but the increased number of samples in the “Not within 10 %” and poor mixing columns while slight are entirely too large to show the careful mixing and chemical control that is necessary to prevent violations of the law. It is realized that the war has produced conditions with regard to some materials that make it difficult to control the supply and in the case of potash especially the composition of the sources available is very vari- able but in view of these conditions and the absolute necessity that the production be increased to a maximum more care should be exercised to insure that all fertilizer shipped meets the requirements of the law in every particular. Never in the history of the fertilizer trade has care in purchasing, manufacturing, chemical controlling and meeting all the re- quirements of the law been so essential. The past 17 years inspections are compared in the following: Year Per cent, equal and within 10% of value of guarantee Per cent . with in- gredients 20% below guarantee Year Per cent . equal and within 10% of value of guarantee Per cent, with in- gredients 20% below guarantee Year Per cent, equal and within 10% of value of guarantee Per cent, with in- gredients 20% 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 96.7 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 While a slight decrease of 0.5 per cent, is shown in the “Equal and 10 per cent, columns,” and an increase of 0.7 per cent, in the “20 per cent, column” when compared item for item there is a very slight if any choice between the results of the T5 and T6 inspections. It will be noted that in the annual summary two companies. Central Phosphate Co. and Farmers Ground Rock Phosphate Co. have their rec- ords in black type showing that 20% or more of samples inspected were not within 10% of the value of the guarantee. Since the samples In- spected were of untreated rock phosphate there seems no excuse possible for the shipments being deficient except carelessness. The results Table I show that of 35 classes available for comparison: 28 equal or exceed the guarantee in every particular, 33 are above the; average value $2.19 per ton with a range of 12 cents for class 7, acidi phosphate and potash, K 2 O, 1-2.5% one equals the value and one, acid phosphate and potash, K 2 O, 2.5 to 5% is below value $1.12 per ton. One class just equals the guarantee, 2 classes are below in nitrogen respectively 0.6% and 0.1%, three classes are below in potash, two being 0.1% and one 0.2% K 2 O, and one 0.8% below in available phosphoric acid. Eleven hund- red and seventy-four samples had an average of $2.13 per ton above guar- anteed value. 26 The average retail price of 31 classes is $11.94 per ton above the found comparative value and in four class $8.22 less. Short Weights. For the first time in many years a claim was filed that short weight shipment had been made into the state and on investiga- tion it was found by Inspector Bausman that supposed 125 lb. packages received by Louis Neipert, Ft. Branch, of J. H. Woods, Princeton, local agent International Agric. Chem. Corporation, averaged 121 lbs., or 4 lbs. under weight. This matter was carefully investigated with the result that the reason for shortage was not discovered, as Supt. C. R. Boland of the manufacturers, certified shipment was weighed over Sawyer Beam scales and check weighed over check scales. The manufacturers refunded Mr. Woods on the basis of cost price and shortage and the latter filed receipts showing the refund had been prorated among his customers on the same basis. If short weight shipments are suspected notify this department at once and do not accept until an investigation has been made by an official Inspector. Shipments without Labels. Too many shipments without. labels were found in the 1916 inspection, a majority of the offenders being florists and seed dealers in Chicago, unlabeled shipments having been found con- signed by the following, all of Chicago. A. L. Randall & Co., D. B. John- son, Vaughn Seed Store, I. H. Kahn & Co., W. W. Barnard Co., J. Oliver Johnson. In view of the fact that the law requires that all fertilizer found in the state be accompanied by State Chemist’s labels the provision applies to manurial materials for florists the same as for farmers. Do not accept, sell, or deliver any fertilizer of any kind or in any quantity unless a label bearing the fac simile signature of the State Chem- ist (see page 6) is attached to each 200 lbs. or fraction and furnished with similar quantities in bulk. PRICES USED IN SECURING THE COMPARATIVE VALUES OF FERTILIZERS Owing to the uncertainty of prices of fertilizer materials in the open markets many fertilizer controls have omitted fixing values for fertilizer ingredients the current year. Since these values as used by this depart- ment are not for the purpose of fixing the commercial values of fertilizers but for comparative purposes only it has been decided to continue past practice and the values which appear later have been decided as fair on the basis of present market condition after consultation with manufac- turers, agents, dealers, market reports and information collected by our inspectors. These values will not give the price 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 pur- chasers in calculating the relative values of similar brands offered for sale by different manufacturers. The following prices were used in securing the comparative values of samples reported in this bulletin. Nitrogen, 20 cents per pound; $4.00 per unit. Potash soluble in water, 25 cents per pound; $5.00 per unit. Soluble and reverted (available) phosphoric acid, 6 cents per pound; $1.20 per unit. Total phosphoric acid in bone, tankage and basic slag, 4 cents per pound; 80 cents per unit. Total phosphoric acid in rock phosphate, 1 % cents per pound; 25 cents per unit. Insoluble phosphoric acid in mixed fertilizers containing nitrogen, 2 cents per pound; 40 cents per unit. 27 Insoluble phosphoric acid in precipitated bone, cents per pound; 70 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 1917 the following prices have been adopted: Per lb . cts. Per unit or per cent. $ All fertilizers Nitrogen fNi 25 5.00 Potash (K26) soluble in water 30 6 . 00 - Soluble and reverted phosphoric acid (PiOs) 6 1.20 Mixed fertilizers containing nitrogen Insoluble phosphoric acid (P^Os) 2 0.40 Precipitated bone Available phosphoric acid (P2O5) _ _ _ - - 6 1.20 Insoluble phosphoric acid (P2O5) ___ 4 0.80 Animal by-products, bone, tankage, etc. Total phosphoric acid (P2O5) - 4 0.80 Basic slag Total phosphoric acid (P2O6) - 4 0.80 Rock phosphate (floats) ' Total phosphoric acid (P2O5) 11/4 0.25 Rock phosphate and low grade slag Total phosphoric acid iy 4 0.25 Mixed fertilizer, acid phosphate, etc., containing no nitrogen Insoluble phosphoric acid 0 0.00 In order to ascertain the comparative value of any fertilizer in 1917 proceed as follows: In acidulated fertilizers containing nitrogen: Multiply $5.00 by the guaranteed per cent of nitrogen. Multiply $6.00 by the guaranteed per cent, of potash soluble in water. Multiply $1.20 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. If it is desired to obtain the estimated comparative value of bone: Multiply $5.00 by the guaranteed per cent, of nitrogen. Multiply $0.80 by the guaranteed per cent, of total phosphoric acid. Examples: If it is desired to ascertain the estimated comparative value of an acidulated fertilizer guaranteed to contain: 2% of nitrogen, 2% of potash soluble in water, 8% of soluble and reverted (available) phosphoric acid and 2% of insoluble phosphoric acid the calculation be- comes: $5.00 X 2 = $10.00 $6.00 X 2 = 12.00 $1.20 X 8 = 9.60 $0.40 X 2 = 0.80 Estimated comparative value per ton $32.40 28 To secure the estimated comparative value of an acidulated fertilizer guaranteed to contain: 5% of potash soluble in water, 10% of soluble and reverted (available) phosphoric acid and 2% of insoluble phosphoric acid, multiply: $6.00 X 5 = $30.00 $1.20 X 10 = 12.00 Estimated comparative value per ton $42.00 To secure similar information for a raw bone guaranteed to contain: 2.5% nitrogen, 24% total phosphoric acid, multiply: $5.00 X 2.5 = $12.50 $0.80 X 24 = 19.20 Estimated comparative value per ton $31.70 COMMENTS BY MANUFACTURERS, AGENTS AND THIS DEPART- MENT REGARDING SAMPLES. REFUNDS Manufaetiirer Inspec- tion No. BB Date refund reported Refund per ton $ Total refund $ To whom paid Am. Agri. Chem. Co., Bowker Works 5654 June 6 0.58 4.65 .Tn.s Bmdi Pn Central Phosphate Co. _ 5899 5923 Nov. 17 Nov. 17 1.02 1.50 20.40 37.62 W. C. Jackson W. C. Jackson Cincinnati Phosphate Co. Empire Guano Co. _ _ 5895 6028 Dec. 28 Dec. 80 0.80 1.14 3.20 2.28 - Cook Bros. H. R. Erwin Farmers Ground Rock Phos- phate Co. _ 6004 Dec. 4 1.23 27.00 Fred Niederhaus Federal Chemical Co. 5270 June 5 0.77 38.40 Ind. Seho’l Feeble Minded Hirsh, Stein & Co. - 5962 Nov. 2 1.36 2.72 Harley Pearson 6348 May 23 .60 12.00 Spriesterbach Bros. Hoj'kins Fertilizer Co. 5457 July 29 July 29 1.50 1.88 Hubert Karnes 5458 1.50 3.75 Hubert Karnes Jones Fertilizer Co. 6453 June 5 0.50 7.50 Burnsworth Bros. Kaufman Fertilizer Co 5986 Dec. 28 1.44 8.64 Y. D. Deardriiff Packers Fertilizer Co. (Cincinnati) E. Rauh & Sons Fertilizer Co._ 5954 5844 Dec. 4 Oct. 27 0.28 3.42 4.20 3.42 - McCray Grain Co. C. E. Hubbard Read Phosphate Co. — 5744 Oct. 9 1.26 25.20 W. A Kendall 5756 Sept. 14 1.20 1.80 Benj. Jones Southern Fertilizer Co. . 6084 Jan. 11 1.56 2.44 Mulberry Hdw. Co. Swift & Company 5896 Feb. 3 1.06 21.20 _ J. J. Overmeyer The payment of refunds does not meet the requirements of the law and this department does not recognize such payment as in any way affecting the right of any one in the state to call cases of deficiencies in all samples to the attention of the prosecutors. Where refunds are made the agent is required to prorate among purchasers and file receipts with the State Chemist’s Department showing such distribution. SHIPMENTS WITHDRAWN FROM SALE Armour Fertilizer Works. B. B. 5265, 5268. M’fr’s call attention to the fact that these unlabeled shipments found in the possession of the Flick Floral Co., and J. F. Knecht & Co., florists at Fort Wayne, were pur- chased of the Vaughn Seed Store and that the Armour Fertilizer Works are not responsible for their shipment into Indiana without State Chem- ist’s labels. F. F. Buhner. B. B. 6402. This shipment withdrawn from sale on Sept. 28, by W. R. Bolles, Ewing, on account of absence of labels was cer- tifled on Oct. 10, as being labeled with official labels No. 4171. Darling & Co. B. B. 6082, 6167. These shipments withdrawn from sale respectively by H. E. Pitman, Bedford, and Morrow Grain Co., Wabash, on account of 1.3% and 1.6% deflciencies in available phosphoric acid were relabeled No. 6901 and arrangements made for replacing on sale. 29 B. B. 6220. Under date of Feb. 10, Fred Sumine, Silver Lake, advises that the one ton of this shipment withdrawn from sale on Jan. 1, ’17, will be used by him. B. B. 6259. A. C. Keene, Elkhart, under date of Oct. 9, certifies that labels No. 6258 have been received to cover this shipment. Empire Guano Co. B. B. 6293. Balance of this shipment, ® 2 o tons, was withdrawn from sale on account of deficiencies of 0.1% K 2 O and 0.5% available phosphoric acid and will be used by the agents, D. W. Neely & Son. Farmers Fertilizer Co., Columbus, O. B. B. 6251, 6301, 6302. 6306. These shipments found without labels in the possession of Peter Messner, Etna Green, and the latter three at Geo. Wagner’s, Butler, were labeled the former on Sept. 29 and the latter on Sept. 25. The manufacturers offered as an excuse for the violation that a new superintendent who was un- acquainted with the necessity for attaching State Chemist’s labels had just been employed. Receipts showing delivery of tags by agents were filed. Delivery of labels subsequent to delivery of the fertilizer does not meet the requirements of the law. Hirsh, Stein & Co. B. B. 6348. After extended investigation the manu- facturers paid a rebate of 60c per ton on this shipment and the agents, Spriesterbach Bros., Charlestown, used the 6 tons remaining unsold. Hopkins Fertilizer Co. B. B. 5438, 5469, 5470. On July 22, H. F. Fisher, Memphis, advises that 0.6 tons No. 5438, % tons No. 5469, 2.8 tons No. 5470 have been withdrawn from sale on account of deficiencies in available phosphoric acid in the former two and in potash and available phosphoric acid in the latter. B. B. 5458. This shipment withdrawn frojn sale by Lubert Karnes, Martinsburg, on account of deficiencies in nitrogen and potash was re- labeled No. 6311, retail price reduced $1.50 per ton and replaced on sale. SHIPMENTS RETURNED Manufacturer Inspec- tion No. BB Date Amount returned tons Agent Empire Guano Co. 5560 Aug. 31 2.8 Marion Campbell, Corydon 5562 Aug. 31 7.2 Hirsh, Stein & Co 4653 July 3 0.9 H. E. Pearson, Wabash 5502 Aug. 7 10.1 Jas. M. Lee & Co., New Albany 6165 Mar. 22 8.8 H. E. Pearson, Wabash International Agri. Chem. Corporation ___ 6015 Jan. 2 4.0 T. H. McGeorge Co., Covington 6017 Jan. 2 6.0 6030 Sept. 30 4.5 A. T. Lett, Petersburg Jones Fertilizer Co. 5355 June 28 3.6 Ben. L. Perry, Columbus 5694 Oct. 16 3.6 Allen & Parish, New Palestine 5695 Oct. 16 1.6 Kentucky Fertilizer Co., Branch Federal Chem- ical Co. _ 5805 Sept. 25 2.5 C. H. Billman & Sons, Shelbyville Louisville Fertilizer Co.-- 5485 July 18 2.0 J. Gienger & Co., Jeffersonville 6051 Jan. 5 0.8 J. S. Newhouse & Co., Cumberland 6052 Jan. 5 0.3 Morris & Company ___ _ 5780 Oct. 26 1.0 A. P. Andrews, Muncie E. Ranh & Sons 5450 Agent E. Bierly, Pekin Return requested by manufacturers Swift & Company 5390 July 7 2.0 Geo. E. Stouffer & Co., South Bend 5543 Aug. 24 0.2 A. T. Turley, English 5971 July 18 2.6 IG. Wolff & Sons’ Co., Hamilton (Ferris & W'ysong, Pleasant Lake 5972 July 18 3.1 5973 ] r 5979 [ July 18 \ 3.0 5980 J 1 5981 Nov. 22 4.9 Hammell Milling Co., Fremont Virginia-Carolina Chem- ical Co. 5776 Aug. 29 1.0 Clark Transfer & Storage Co., Anderson 5778 Aug. 29 4.0 6071 Jan. 9 4.1 J. N. Hamilton, Star City 30 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, lbs. ton Agent American Agricultural Chemical Co. 6463 Salt 102.6 J. E. Elliott, Dupont Amer. Ag. Chem. Co., Bowker Fertilizer Wks. 5731 Gypsum 159.4 Salt 110.2 6059 Gypsum 132.2 C. Stewart & Son, Martinsville Salt 149.2 Amer. Agr. Chem. Co., Miehigan Carbon Wks. 6207 Gypsum 160.2 R. E. Eldrod, Pekin Salt 128.0 Armour Fertilizer Works 5871 Silica equi. to sand 347.0 Thos. Hickey, Hobart 6284 Sand 161.4 Kost & Becker, Corydon 6430 Sand 154.2 Arthur Sale, Rochester 6491 jGypsum 42.4 J. C. Pierce, Columbus )Sand 71.6 6568 ) Gypsum 42.4 Susott and Gerich, Elberfeld (Sand 210.6 6625 Salt 100.0 Heidet Bros., Ferdinand Buhner Fertilizer Co 5430 Water soluble P 2 O 5 % 0.61 Manufacturer 6402 Gypsum 81.6 W. R. Bolles, Ewing &427 Sand 420.6 Geo. B. Lucas, Ewing Groves Fertilizer Works, Joslin-Schmidt Co 6101 Salt 97.4 Victoria Milling Co., Jasper 6349 Salt 122.0 Edgar Hass, Charlestown Hirsh, Stein & Co 6077 Sand 115.6 Josiah Chess, Mitchell 6081 Sand 99.6 Dobson & Ramsey, Bedford 6113 Sand 173.0 A. M. Bonnert, Dubois 6576 Sand 132.6 F. A. Stunkle, Daubstadt Morris & Company 6115 Sand 268.8 Geo. P. Wagner, Jasper 6146 Sand 125.8 Harry Brooks, Orleans Quebbeman & Son 6283 Gypsum 132.6 Manufacturers Sand 79.6 Smith Agri. Chem. Co... 6567 Gypsum 47.2 Cyrus & Owens, Elberfeld Sand 151.2 Swift & Company 5348 Salt 102.0 Getz & Leman, Bremen 5543 Salt 92.8 A. T. Turley, English 5903 Salt 95.0 John Werner, Rochester 6009 Salt 106.8 T. S. Nugent, Louisville 6150 Salt 83.6 T. E. Lindley, Paoli 6151 Salt 92.8 i 6639 Salt 100.0 Roy Keaton, Morgantown American Agri. Chem. Co.. Under date of Jan. 11 Mr. Sarvene advises that this shipment found in the preceding table was made from the Cin- cinnati factory and that the Detroit Sales Dept. 3-20 hone meal will be withdrawn from Indiana markets. Armour Fertilizer Works. Mr. Wehner writes under date of Nov. 6 that the salt present is probably due to concentrated tankage manufac- tured from tank water in which scraps of pickled meat may have been in- cluded. That the sand present was due to a misunderstanding of Ruling 12A by the superintendent. Affidavit filed that Ruling 12A will be ob- served in future. Hirsh, Stein & Co. Under date of Dec. 14 et al. Mr. G. W. Watson files objections to statements on our preliminary reports regarding the presence of sand in samples listed above. Mr. Watson claims that any sand present in these fertilizers is not added but is present in the bone as treated and handled in their process for manufacturing raw bone. Affi- davit in substantiation of his claim was filed by Mr. Watson under date of Jan. 23. Morris & Company. Under dates of Oct. 2 and Dec. 12 Mr. Geo. Raasch advises that the presence of any other materials than animal by-products 31 in inspections B. B. 6079, 6115, 6146, is due to misunderstanding of Ruling 12A. Mr. L. C. Williamson furnishes affidavit that no such violations will occur in future. Louis Quebbeman & Son. Report on Jan. 11 and to inspector who made special trip that they can offer no explanation and believe that some error has occurred regarding presence of gypsum and sand in inspection B. B. 6283. This department has been unable to find error in its work. Swift & Company. Through J. S. Tolson under date of Aug. 9, submit affidavit that all shipments after Oct. 31 will meet the requirements of Ruling 12A in all particulars. SAMPLES SENT TO MANUFACTURERS. COMPARATIVE RESULTS BY MANUFACTURERS’ CHEMISTS American Agri. Chem. Works, Detroit Sales Dep’t. and Michigan Car- bon Works. Inspection No. B. B. 5344 5721 Analyst Guar- antee Ind. State Chemist M’fr’s Chemist Guar- antee Ind. State Chemist M’fr’s Chemist Nitrocen (N) % 2.0 2.1 2.12 2.0 2.1 2.05 Potash solnblfi in water % 1.0 1.0 1.09 1.0 0.8 0.76 Available phosphone aeiri tPyOst 8.0 7.0 7.24 8.0 7.5 7.73 Insoluble phosphoric acid ('PaOk'I % 1.0 4.4 4.30 1.0 1.8 1.70 Total phosphoric acid (P2O5) % 7.0 11.4 11.54 9.0 9.3 9.43 Inspection No. B. B. 5750 5813 Analyst Guar- antee Ind. State Chemist M’fr’s Chemist Guar- antee Ind. State Chemist M’fr’s Chemist Nitrogen (N) % Potash tKaOt soluble in water % — 2.0 2.3 2.31 .... .... — Available phosphoric acid (P2O5) % -- 'sTo ’7’2 '7'47 ii’o iSA 13789 Tnsnluble phosphoric acid tPoOr;') 1.0 3.2 3.02 2.3 1.98 Total phosphoric acid ('P^Ok') % 9.0 10.4 10.49 15.7 15.87 B. B. 5494, 5501, 5948, 5975. M’fr’s report results of this department confirmed. Armour Fertilizer Works. B. B. 5871. No report analytical results received. Central Phosphate Co. Inspection No. B. B. 5899 5923 Analyst Guar- antee Ind. . State Chemist M’fr’s Chemist Guar- antee Ind. State Chemist M’fr’s Chemist n^nt.al phosphoric acid ('P>0:;'> % 32.0 27.9 27.99 28.0 22.0 22.33 Darling & Company. B. B. 5539. No report analytical results received. Empire Guano Co. B. B. 5562. No report analytical results received. Farmers Ground Rock Phosphate Co. Inspection No. B. B. 6004 Analyst Guarantee Indiana State M’fr’s Chemist Chemist Total phosphoric acid (P2O5) % 30.0 25.2 25.5 32 Hirsh, Stein & Co. B. B. 6113. No analytical results received. Hopkins Fertilizer Co. B. B. 5612. No analytical results received. International Agri. Corporation. Inspection No. B. B. 5679 Analyst Guarantee Indiana State Chemist M’fr’s Chemist Nitrogen (N) % 15.6 15.3 15.48 Morris & Company. B. B. 5780, 6079, 6146. No analytical results re- ceived. Packer Fertilizer Co., Indianapolis. B. B. 6510. No analytical results received. Rasin Monumental Co. B. B. 6836. No analytical results received. Read Phosphate Co. B. B. 5541. No analytical results received. Swift & Company. B. B. 5888, 5941, 5950. No analytical results re- ceived. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. Inspection No. B. B. 5776 ' ' 6529 Analyst Guar- antee Ind. State Chemist M’fr’s Chemist Guar- antee Ind. State Chemist M’fr’s Chemist Nitrogen (N) % _ __ __ _ . 2.4 1.0 11.0 1.5 12.5 1.4 1.0 12.4 0.6 13.0 1.4 1.11 12.28 0.62 12.90 0.8 2.0 8.0 1.1 1.9 8.0 2.7 10.7 1.12 1.86 8.23 2.52 10.75 Potash (Kl'O) soluble in water % Available phosphoric acid (P2O5) % Insoluble phosphoric acid (P2O5) % - Total phosphoric acid (P2O5) % SPECIAL REMARKS E. Rauh & Sons’ Fertilizer Co. B. B. 6177. This sample sold under the name of Superphosphate guaranteed to contain 14% available phos- phoric acid, on inspection was found to be an ammoniated superphosphate containing 1.1% nitrogen, 10.5% available phosphoric acid. After investi- gation and in view of the fact that the shipment was made in bags branded Superphosphated Manure it is evident that through error Superphosphate labels were attached to the wrong packages, the fertilizer shipped selling at $20.00 and that purchased at $18.00 per ton. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. B. B. 6071. The inspection of this sample reported to the manufacturer on Dec. 8 showed 10.5% available phosphoric acid against 12% guaranteed and was returned to factory. Under date of Feb. 15, 1917, Dr. F. B. Carpenter, chemist, reports that the return shipment showed 12.16% available phosphoric acid. 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. A summary of samples so furnished as well as results reported by the manufacturers’ chemists will be found on page 31. The results as reported in Table VI are official and final. Table I summarizes the results of the inspection samples for the year 1916, according to composition. Table II summarizes the results of the inspection of samples secured in the spring, 1916. 33 Table III summarizes the results of the inspection of samples secured in the fall, 1916. Table IV summarizes the results for the inspection of samples for the year 1916. In Table IV manufacturers having 20 per cent, or more of brands in- spected ‘‘Not within 10% of Value of Guarantee” are given in black type. Table V summarizes the results of the inspection of samples for the year 1916 by counties. In Tables II, III, IV and V an extra column showing the number of samples having $1 or more excess comparative value due to the presence of excess insoluble phosphoric acid has been made necessary by the in- creasing use of untreated phosphate as a make weight. In reaching con- clusions regarding comparative values as shown in the summaries this fact should be kept in mind and the analytical results in Table VI con- sulted. 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, guaranteed and found composition and the names and addresses of persons from whom samples were obtained. In Table VI ingredients guaranteed one per cent, or less showing a deficiency of 20 per cent, of the total guarantee and ingredients guaran- teed over one per cent, showing a deficiency of 0.3 per cent, are printed in bold face type. If deficiencies are shown by ail the ingredients such results also appear in black type. In the preceding total phosphoric acid deficiencies are only so marked in fertilizers in which the available phos- phoric acid is not guaranteed. In comparing the standing of manufacturers Tables II, III and IV should always be used in conjunction 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 contains the names and addresses of manufacturers who have certified materials for home mixing on sale in 1917. Table IX contains a list of brands, and names and addresses of manu- facturers certifying them as on sale in 1917. The registrations being per- manent any registered brand may be legally sold at any time without re- gard to its publication in this list provided a State Chemist’s label is at- tached to packages and for bulk shipments for each 200 pounds or fraction. ATTENTION FERTILIZER PURCHASERS To cooperate with this department to the best advantage observe the following: Do not accept any fertilizer in any quantity 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 who maintain guarantees, do not have brands in the “Not within 10% of value” column, few and preferably none in the “20%” column, and an infre- quency of bold-faced figures. Note that prosecutions for deficiencies are not a part of the official duties of the State Chemist. The facts are given in the fertilizer bulle- tins (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%” column or cooperate with this department and purchase from manufacturers whose inspection results show guarantee uniformly maintained. TABLE II — Summary of Results of Inspection of Samples Secured Spring, 1916 34 eO^tl aiqniosni ssao -xa oj anp aniBA ssaaxa aioui JO jBHop I qjiM. ‘oj^ 0 0 - CO 0 CO OrHOOO->^r-lrHOmOOO 00 OOOOinOO 03 OOC >0 aajuBJBuS Aioiaq •juaa jad oi sjuaipajS -ui aJoui JO auo qjiM ’o^v i rH 0 0 0 - 0 'gtiOOrHIMlO(M'^rHt-i-IOOlOOOOr-IQOOOr-lr-l'?-H {33 eajuB -jBuS JO arqBA jo -juaa jad 01 uiqjiAV jou -oj^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 OOOOOCqrHOOOOOOOOOOOi-IOOOOOOO aajuBJBnS jo aniBA jo •juaa jad oi utqjiM -oj^ 0 i-H 1— t fN 0 rH OCOOOOOCOrHlOrHrHOCJOCOOOOOeOOOOi-lOOO aajuBjBuS oj an^BA UI iBiiba ‘o^j i-i CM CO (M (M CO - Oi '^OOrH(MOiO’^CCOCOOOOrHT-H|> 0 '^'^Tj< Cvj rHrirH COCOrH(N jBinaijiud AjaAa ui aajuBjBnS oj [Buba 0 rH 1 (N 0 (N rH C< 3 C< 10 (M' 3 00 (M-g*(l> (M rH rH (N 1-1 rH i-H SaidCCtBS JO •Ojyj I CO H b C-’ Da D 3 Q D 5 ” S d g S g S3 o o fl « d 3 d CO a d is! « ro CrI O 6 ^ o o a bD bjo^ O C 3 03 fe bccc bfi 03 < 3 _^ OJ 03 ^ U I ^ O j_, o r 6 •Sco^O Q 4 J ^ V — C 3 t-i .O o ^ ^ o; N -5 ^ w o -M ^ «a fe ;P S a ft ... ^ ' ° Q.^O d 3 « ^ 0 , 4 ^ 6 S| Ml <3r-ig dd3 dO d.S 3 o 3 d O ogS ' '&:o o o o d® OO d d S3 a 'do .a .3 9 03 42 -JS d d -d N - _ »a a < 1 < 3<3 3 W a a «3 <3 03 ^ es W g-. V O Cl o 3 ^ d S 2 ^ ” c ^ c d ^ d a a f. 03 C 3 .JW.^-.("r.r— l^ ' u ci a 3 d g 2 2 .a 3S 1 ‘ [Hcd?*o 3 o 3 o 3 c 2 o,i:;^^^ fiPdWWP^pHpHpHpHpHOOWP^ 35 OOi-tONOOOOONOOOOOOi IOOOOOOOOOO,-IOOOOOrHOCOOOOOO50Oi-(OOOiHOOi-li-IO0O O O O O O O I OOOOpHOOrHO (M O O O c IO(MOOCOi— li— lOOOOOOCOOr— lrHOOOOCO'rJ-(OOrHTjoooooocoooooo OOOOOOOOOOOOOOrHOOOrHOOOOOOOOOOO DOOrHCOrHOCOrHCOO(NCOOrHr-iOOrHO(Mi lOrHOMOO^OOOOOOCOO, ' CO CO r-l tH (» 5i-HCrHin00r-IC0C0rH(M, ^ CO *G0i— 'rHlOOiOi— li— ^OX^OrHOr-ti-HCOr-(OOCOi— lLOCOOCC'OrHCl>-Ce(MrHLnr-ICOCOrHrMOOOi— IO(NrHClJ i-H-rHcsioooorHincoocooOT-ioq ft8 ts' CO O H a > i eS o 6 OQ 4 J OJ ® ^ N ' '-3 « « ' Mas ■ ■ I O IS «2 ' ■ >> .ld< ,^s§ fcj . .wa>>a 3 i- g«S5 q G a p 3 03 S .bq o >>:5 a -M CO :3 C 3 03 \ ^ -fl ) 'm M o) iSSii r ^ o -i ^ t-, o o o si'-go iaco g ^ £ M QJ O' “tj O' QJ „ T" -G g ^ ^ .s G 5 " " G 03 QJ fin Ph fl; Oh c? ■216 6 ^ aP^ O) fl 02 I §9 <11 Q o S . o fjo'ra S G c g.N Gq-QH.-G fan o a I ^ '^O O o a o S -ill •S-§^|S 55 22 H -S £ ^ W Oh 02 :/2 '02 o i O r^aj^^*'-'WCOa;c3CJ •SN^siGflGNaN - a tuos a G O G ’43 G 43 OSoOO^^feQi^ ^.9<»4j£GaSgxq ^■n:G.^G-5,,:a-g.H 03iiiOSG;^q_,QjOP SSS^SiJSgiSS TABLE IV — Summary of Results of Inspection of Samples Se cure d 1916 38 20<"O«0>-lOOr-IC3«0C0r-li-H 1—1 i-iC-li-l r-ll33 C'1-^rH noj jad aajuBjBnS jo aiq^A MOjaq sj'Bnop s o'i 1 -on 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Or-IOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO uoj jad 1 aajuBjBnS jo ani^A Avojaq sjBiiop g oj t ’om 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OOOOOOrHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO uoj jad aajn^jBnS jo anjBA MOjaq SJBqop oj g -om 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Or-HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO uoj jad aaju’BJBnS jo anjBA Avojaq sjBiiop 8 0^ S ’ON 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OrHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO uoj jad aajuBj^nS jo anjBA Avojaq sjBuop g oj x -o^j 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0(N000eMrHi-Hi-l0i-(000OOOOfMO-^(Mi— lOOOmOl—IOO'^OOOOON aajuBJBnS Avopq •jnaa jad og sjuaipajS -ui ajooi JO ano qjiAV ’o^ 1 j 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OOOOOOOOO.-HOOOOOOOOOOOOOCMOO aajuBJBn^ MOjaq 1 -jnaa jad 08 sjnaipaJS -UI ajoui JO auo qjiAV ’oj^ ! 0 0 0 0 0 0(MOOOOC<300i-l(MOOOr-IOOOO(MOOO«300 aajuujBnS Avopq , -juaD jad 03 sjuaipajS -UI ajoui JO auo qjiAi ‘o^ rH 0 0 CO 0 0 0 OlOOOOO'>3r-lrHl>CDt>COOWrHCM;^CiiHOO 1—1 03 M p; p. i c3 c3 :mw( ®‘- o o a a 5 « bo bo a 3) 3 »2 03 C 3 .a -o i^aa a a 3 £3:;p3.aai 5 5^(^000 'Q oT M i an £ R :r c •" o a S o 0 S3 %xi 1 g ^ a i=i A 1-1 Ph ^30 .§l1w a> cj c3 3 «p, p p^ss.s|| 5-«'E.S|S| 03 . fcH O P ►> 03 POOWHpq^ W , O Pi QJ 4) 03 q ^ ^ll' P 03 o; cu • Pm W WWI •fniVo r Works. fThe Joslin-Schmidt 39 'COT-»OOr-*0 00Or-ii> ooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo >000000 OOOOOOOOrHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO lOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOi— lOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO • 000000 OOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOr^OOOOOOOr-lOOOr^OOOO(^^ 1 -^OTHOOOOO OOl-HOOOO -rfr-lO(MOr-iOOOOOOT-lOOOOOOOOOOOOOO(MOOO'«^lOOOrH (M(MO'^OOC»5OC0i-tOOOOOOOC0OrHrHOOOOOC0OOOOC O O I-H CO ^ (N tn wr ) o o a 0 . 2 ' 8 - 9 1 ^ O? is atnwM. d a )x: ^ Qj d r'l d CQ CO 3 d 35 05 Oj'ti v a 2 d -S O O ^3 O) .d o ^ Q _ bfl O 1.-4 f-i .SO >4^0 o _ 1-5 'CcL-- df^ d • 4-4 o "2 « “ 5 r !0 S-G W r-< ^ ^ -2 ^ 4) O ^ P-, S cj-io d M .OTd 03 03 .2 O 4J O d W o a d &0 BdoT® cn d: d; O , r r o -d -(N'rJi(M(MT-COCllO'«^Oi-i'^OtCr-'i-HO'^^;CCC uoj jad aa^utJjBnS jo an[T?A aAoqB ajout jo lenop i 'Om OCO':OOr-((Mi-H'?iCOtO(NOC:OrHlOt'^CCCOlCT*i>Oi-l aa^UGJGnS jo aniGA jo •^uaa Jad ox U!qX!‘«^ XOti 'ON Or-i 000000000 O 0 O 00 O 0 i-(O 00000 OO 0 O*OOLOOCOCOCOT--' 0 '^Oi-^C 5 '^COlOi-i'^lCr-COQ 0 C 0 1—1 lO CO No. of samples analyzed IBJOJ, rHTtOOrHLOOCCL^ (Mr-i (MrH Oi-^ CO (Ni-fi-ii-n rH i-tinrH 11 Bd; OOCOOOOi-Ht^-^COOOlOOCOlOOO(M 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 i t 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 > i 1 1 I 1 1 1 i 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 < 1 1 1 i I 1 1 > 1 1 > > 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 { 1 1 1 1 I I i 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 < 1 i 1 I • 1 1 1 1 1 ■ 1 > > 1 1 1 1 ( 1 1 < 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 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 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 I 1 1 1 1 > 1 1 1 1 * 1 t 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 i > I * > 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 I 1 ( 1 <>■ 1 > 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 « 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 i 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 t 1 1 1 i i 1 t t 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 < 1 < 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 t t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 < 1 >'« 1 1 ‘ i ! i I i I 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 > > ■ 1 i ■ ■ 1 1 1 i > 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i t 1 i 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 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 i 1 i i 1 i i ■ ■ 1 1 ■ ■ > 1 ' 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 > 1 1 1 i ( > < 1 I > 1 I 1 I < I 1 ' * < ■ ' 1 1 ( 1 1 1 1 1 I i 1 1 1 Ill 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t ' 1 1 i 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 ■ t <> 1 > > 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 > 1 1 ' 1 ! ^ 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 t 1 > 1 1 ■ 1 > ■ 1 1 1 _ > 1 1 1 0 ^ 1 t 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 > i 1 1 f C i ■ > 1 iS 1^3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -c ' ' 1 ' ' 1 1 i !a : '2 ■ 0 till III H Pt P l®C! llori 4 <^'^'..«hnrH‘' » 1 ‘ : g 0 » g ^ ! 41 ir5(MOCC)!N!M(MrHCO^OCOi-lrH(MX^lMO-^i— 1- CO CO (^^I-IOO(^]I-IOO(MOlO(^^r-^I-^^^Or-^r^OI-l^^iOOOI-ITt^^HI-l(^^(MCi^00l0050JC0MH00lrt05'^O00OC0CCin rHrHrH OCrHOOOOOOC=)OOOOOi-tOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCDOOCOOOi^OOOr-OOOOOOOi-HO CD 1 "" C']iH,-HC<50^(M(MCl>l0C0C5C''lOi-.(MOOLn->i<-^C0rHrHG500l0ClC0OOC0OC0C0C500(Ml0C0t-lC0ri0iC0C'ie0OTti0;rH(M00 0r)C<5i-HC0 CO C<1 rH 1 — (r-li-Hi— irH i— I i-H CO i-H i— irH ii— I r^i— li— ii— i i— i— i— iCO.— l i — 1 1183 l^(NCqcOCOC^10000lCi--01>^COCOOC<10r-i'rJ^lCLOlCl>I^lCCOlO'^OOlCGO’^OOCOlOOO(>lOOI:^'rf'lOOCOOOCDCCt^*^ C'lC'l rHi-n CO 870 O-^O^t^CCOi— ■^'^(CO(MO(MOO'^OC5i-lrHC'1C»0010fOCOC5COOOOOCOt~Ot^rH,-l(MOOCOlc:rH-^(M(MCOC;C''lCO>0 1> CO COi-H i-l i-( -Tti i-Hi-l i-ir^r^-ifCOfMi-i rir-iC'li-'i-i (M rH 1867 1 »CO^lO^^H^^^He005(^lCCCOCOt^|-^(^^OOC5^Hat’COHi^t~H^^CO;CHtl(^^T^lOr^CO(^I'^^COOOHt^OrHrHOCOONC'<^^^;050COCO 626 1 CX)rHOCOOG^10XK5C^110CiX^rHi^C^ll>OiC^OCO<>1COLOCOO:iCOCOCiOOlOLOCriOir:)C'l-^COi'-C'll>10QC:iO^OC'ti-t ^r- ^ ^ (M rHCOOlr-ii-ii^r-i ^COr^r-i I ^ ! i l> i Jefferson Jenunings Johnson Knox Kosciusko LaGrange Lake _ ___ ___ _ LaPorte ___ . Lawrence Madison Marion Marshall Martin _ Miami Monroe __ ___ Montgomery _ Morgan Newton __ Noble Ohio Orange Owen Parke Perry ___ Pike _ Porter Posey Pulaski Putnam ___ Randolph Ripley Rush _ Scott Shelby Spencer Starke St. Joseph Steuben Sullivan Switzerland Tippecanoe Tipton _ Union _ Vanderburg ___ . _ Vigo Wabash Warren Warrick ___ _ Washington ___ __ Wayne _ Wells ■_ _ White Whitley Totals 1 TABLE VI. — Report of Inspection of Fertilizers Collected in 1916 42 0 £ 2 « a^ •4uaD aad ‘IP401, 'Xuao aad •aiqniosui o-o 3 J 3 •xuao aad P ‘paiaaAaa puB aiqniog •}U80 jad ui aiqnios ‘o^H •:tuao jad •luao aad •aAno^ puB aiqn -los aa:^BAv ib;oj:, •;uao aad ‘oiubS -ao aiqniosui aa^BAi. aA^DBui CO O » C<1 CO o »o O O rH »0 ?0 C^i> O O (N O O O I O 00 o iass Lf^co lOlT-iOiOX^CO C3 00 I o d 00 cx) d d CO to CO CO O 03 00 O ^ d cd 06 d 06 cd o o O (M (M O -^^HIOCOOOOOOOO 01 d d d rH i-I d rH i-H d d o' d i>- 00 f- 00 d d d d d 00000 •;uaa aad ‘oiubS -ao aiqniosui aa^BAV aAij^V •:^ua^ aad ‘oiuBSao aiqnios aaiB M •:}uaD aad ‘s:hbs B tuouiiuBpuB sa:jBj:j -I’u ui axqnios aa:xBA\ aa; uotxaadsui IBtOTJJO 0^ S a 52 ® ss -d® iO 5 d d d d d C, !- i ' i i '•§ <3 1 1 ® o3 il i ' P ! 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 t t t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 t 1 1 1 1 iSS igp, ,£« \S^ 1 OJ 0 >h E-i if" 1 ^ a 1 0 § ! c« 1 1 03 ' ^ ! ^ 0 1 ^ 1 ^ G> 1 Oi 1 1 cd ! 0 i>>.a i ■ S ' uu ^ ' IC Ift 10 lA I > -M ^ . t>(^ i-^a: i 5 S 1 ^ xlxl 88 ? 0© go d ti CO CO c dSoqSooSooS © (O CH 3 O d >■' wsf '2^ ^ PI ®3 ^ 03 p s a.^- a ° 1=1 o 3 I— I '0 -5 >-5 T 3 1-5 'H a cc p <11 3 3 3 "is fH t: " t>cfe to P M a> "-So S 3 oW SP <3 op 03 <1 'O 03 Jrs 13 o o apq fl'O co^ i o rH cH 1 <00 OiCJ^OirSrHOi-frH Id d d d r-I d 1-1 d d ii-lOOO O I-H C 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 i 1 1 < 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III 1 111^1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111 11 ! i 1^ ' 1 I 1 ^ 0 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 i I 1 1 1 1 1 i 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 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ill 1 5r! I 1 1 1 ' G !g g 1 .52 ft 'll ! >j S > > 05 ^ ^ i.i■i■§5S ^ S G G -G OP 05 05 G 1 'S 1 OP Ig ! ^ 1 0 ! ^ \ > iG^I 1 ca.Gts t> -tJ G 1 0^ G 1^ 0 2 ll^ •s2 1 W2 OP 1 t-t 05 1 05 ;h 1 ' > 1 1 05 lg|-S >> ■ .£ -p G G ^ a > 1 G 0 G ^ ! Igg3 1 1 0 Ph rj 1 rQ 05 .d; 13 bag 0 1 G 0 oft G 1 G ' I'd ^ Cw 05 1 ^ 1 JO 1 OP i.a Ito 1 '1 'il ■ 1 1 1 ”3 I';* ;h >, j tc -p G y ! G ftoG 1 05 05 OP 05 !wiw i0f>MMpq 'cc '|1|00§IW ,0|> IS 1 ic <35 1 (M 1 CD C5 (50 1 00 C5 CO 0 0 1 C4 I 10 I 05 1 CO CO 1 05 LO CO Ifeg ISdSS 1 05 CO 05 1 <» (M IC (M 1 CO cc IS^ 1 CD CO 1 0 ' 1 05 IgfeSS 1 CO 05 1 10 to icio IScS 1 LCt) CO 05 -r 10 1 IC 10 lO CO CO 1 Oi 1 10 1 -tl 1 irb ITS «0 ® 1 ^ 10 CO 05 CO 1 10 to 10 to CD IS li iQDOOOgOi^OOOOOO iCOCOOCDOCDl^t^l^f-l^ ! (M IM -.G3 G G .a O' G ^ c/2 a ^0 H.” o G --G § g“ G! G Qj oa^ ^ d o |« 2 <->03+^ 'a G “ <102^ G +0-G I 2 I +H ^ (U OP a« IS G G •— tH G . g CO . 03 0>G G S* gw £ o os 0 g § P'25 05wdWw 05 ^ s: o ^ o >1 . ^ < o o b o § 2 p o Ch a C G O S w Oi c- >> iB 'G C to d a>^ ft g, ft ^ ca ^ o3 05 .^: 05 ^ c<5 05 c3 05 fC G G Go o G G 0,0 O WPh I I I I I C 05 W G C5 ^ ^ 05 05 o ^ -M C5 — ' sw;g g«l S- d . ft m 22 ca “ 2 G c 5 ‘ — O ( O G Gi ca GS G G G CO G w y M ^ to OGa)_Gt,GyG "o Q.GG gG 2 Will ft w cj G ft ca G G G W 02 W Ph Report of Inspection of Fertilizers Collected in 1916 (continued) 44 o * •;uaD jad ‘I'BIOJ, "i^i Qj •:juaD aad ‘aiqniosui do •luao jad d 3 ‘pa^jaAaj puB aiqniog •^uao jad ‘aa^'BAV ui aiqnios ‘ns-B^Od; •:juao jad •:;uao aad ‘aApo'B pu-B aiqn -los aa:jBA\ •;uao jad ‘diubS -ao aiqrqosui Ja:^■BAi. aApoBui O lO 1-I CO O UO CO O ^ 00 o tH I-H r-J (M r-H mO 0^1 (M* CO CO* CO 1-1 r-J CO O 00 CO O C5 rH O O O CO O O O oi O 00 O O rH CO CO x> oi c O rH o r-» OI i-I rH d d r-I rH r-i r-i 00 O O O O d r-I ,H r-5 i-i d d d d Ol OI CO OI d d d d CO ^ dd O O O i>- OI o Ci CO Ol 00* 00 00* 00 CO 00 CO* I ’:^U0O a0d ‘oiu^S -JO oiqniosui j 04 'BAi ©Apoy ■;u0O a0(I ‘oru'BSao oiqnios a0;'BAi OI Ol d d Ol Ol Ol d d d d d d d d d m <35 CO in d d q d d d (» CO d d (M I> CO in <^5 CO d d d d •:juao jad ‘s:^[t;s BTirouiiuB puB sa:}Bj:^ -I'u UT aiqnios (M t-H O d d d (Ca CO d d CO CO in d d d M CO CO m CO l-H i-l I-H d d d d r: d fl C3 13 13 3 0 0 is 73 -o "73 fl 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 os '3 T3 c3 33 t 3 t3 3 3 i-( 3 3 3 CS 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 o ^ o cg'O'O'O'O nS'O'O ;h3333^(33 (533333333 30000300 C ca '3 'O 33 33 !h 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 O — — 3-1 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 3 01 ^ 02 3 is xi O 3 O ;-( <11 05 fcxi 05 w •S <11C5S ^ id ® jj a ^ i 3 “ 05 3h sh n; kWdPM is t>. o I d tifl 3^ 005 coinco CDCD 3 3 3^0 3 Sd3 O-d 3 Q O <1 log S dal ' M 3^^ B 3fi S .a m o 3-( <15 QQ if '3” 3+^ a OJ 0.? ' ao o. Pa 3 j3 tn d C 05 > O d S ® H 3 53 ! , . 1® 3 tn ' 3 3 3 I— I 3'^^33^0303 «l.a ® “ “ S 5 s. ||^W:S_§OWo CQ 3 05 P, O CO rC o CC^ <150 M 05 x} imj 33 <35 “ O 3. 3 -g X3 §g|o A! !?? O d* " a <1^ is •d ai aid ^o|g <1J ^ O? oa gin^fq^SO Sh 3 =K IH * 0 *=^ o 6^ go; - a §s ^ % Cfi o) a^ =3 33 c O -M T saaS |aag aa o« d? ^ ^ ^ ^dw’^ &Q 5 |d oO=' 002 a 45 ot~ O'# oooNOOeooino oo ooo coooooco oioooo(m oiooooO' I M CO ■# eg I O oj 00 O o> o o oo' to" 00 CO O i-H )r-CMcococooOt^ )r-r— r— loodooto o to o lo 05 o o o 3 1 1 0 Ci 1 th d OOi005i-HOC)0 l-HOl-HOl-li-lt-lrH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 OC^Ol 03rHOrHCO OOOr-iocgcgegegegeg 1 Oit- 1 1 rH rH s d 1.84 1.93 1.82 1.82 1.95 3 d kD ^ CO § d d ID 1 00 1 i:^ CO d 1 d d • IC 1 d d CO d CO d 0.72 0.97 0.93 0.62 0.76 D d d ID 0 CO d 1 0 j>. 0 1 C ID 1 (N D1 j d d CO d 8 d 0.58 0.39 0.60 0.43 0.62 d HH ID CO (M d d 8 d 00 d ^ i S r4 d 1 d d CO CO d d tH (>3 kD CO d d 3 3 3 O 0 ^ 3 O OPh 4) ;_I 3 3 t-1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 Ph Ph CD Ph 373 oS'O 03 73 t_, 3 ;-i 3 tH 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 0 3 0 0Ph0^0;5^ „ 3 3 3 03 73 03 'a'O 03 '3 'O ^3-0 tH3t-i33t-i33tH33 33333333333 30300300300 0^0^[iH0^pH0^^ 132 3! I O) 05 'Iz;;?; So I 3|=.S I 3 .3 3! ■ .95 a « 'Hs- O O o ■ i^^oWo ' eg I CO . lo m ud S to I S 3 I 3 1 I o 5 g 3! O 3 3 < 1 W 45 C- I I U5 I I J,-— -}< I (50 I #1 I 0> I eg CO I 55 I lo i co j to to I irt I to I to I to I be ' .9 |3 3 .’i ►3 ^O ^ o 3 3 O O -CTO >1 >> o o 00 S IS® IS® Igg^ 00 I lO Ol I 0 eg I to i-i 3 S 5 g M73^ a o o c3 44 a> 3® 0035 35 i5fl0 _• 25 a 3! >> a >> ^ cH c5 Oi ft i5 C^’ S ^ . J rr' S .J PP rg 1 PP pp pp pp pp o 03 >1 3 s c « ^ ^ 3 ,§ '” tt) 2 o o S W) be 3 t-5 0 3 3 "a . ^ 02 02 cfeO "^9 9 2 o o, 175 75 ,33 03 03 ftt Report of Inspection of Fertilizers Collected in 1916 (continued) 46 ^ O •4U90 jad •:ju 0 D jad •aiqniosui ■:^uao aad ‘pa^jaAaa pu'B aiqn{og •;uaD jad *jai'BAi ut aiqnios “Us-B^od •;uaD jad ■;uao jad pu-B aiqn -[OS aa:^BM. ib;oj. •4uao jad ‘oiubS -JO aiqnfosui ja^BAi GAno^ui I O CO O 00 I »o 1-H o o I 3 O O 00 10 O O T}< O O CO 00 * Oi O I-I O O 03 M 00 00 * OGOOt^OO GO i> 00 ^ 10 ifi ic 00000 00 O 00 00 < o 1-4 o o 1 ' 00 o o o I d d d r 4 O 00 CO 1 - d d 1 '- i- odd 10 o o rH rH CO odd 00 o d d 00 o 00 1 d d d 1 00000 CC LO O J- r-( rH rH (N i-H O CO o o 1 c 4 1-1 c 4 c 4 o 00 0 CD Ot^ O CO d c 4 CO 1 > 00 I-H T-t C 3 1 I'd 1 1 <13 1 ‘ d ' 1 3r. » 1 ^ 1 'd ‘ iifi I i 03 1 j d ' ■ 1 1 l« 1 1 ■ ■ ' d ' ‘ 1 ' 'd^ 1 H 3 I J d _ ' 1 _'d 1 { g 1 ' ' dd csT) cs'O'O cS'O t^a^nCinsHcioiHt-ia c 3 j 3 c 3 D^i 03 PJ 3 pca 3 iriOPOOPOOOPO 03 -a ^H a ca 13 3 O 0 ;^ TJ-O o c 3 3 o o u '3 ”3 o 3 ' 3 '3 TJ OB'-; 03 ■'H cS'U'U'ij flflo^Ha 333 M 3 !Hn 3 MacG„„ 333c33333s33c333c3333o33 o~ Eh 333c33333s33c333c3333o33 0003000030300300330 EHfi 1 10 l-OI 04 1 0 CO 1 to 1 0 CO 1 10 10 CD 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 III! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 ' 1 ! d 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 i 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 i j 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 i 1 1 till 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II" II i i§£; i i 1 t 1 i 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! Eh 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 05 1 1^ i ' '3 1 1 1 1 1^3 1 1 •1 d ' ! ii? i '3 1 d 1 o3 1 1 1 III ' d ' ! i'E 1 ^ 1 >; 0 ! Eh 0 E* i I bJO 1 a 1 d M ‘ ' I 0 Henryvil English Marengo GreenfieL |33 ^ 2 . !■§ 1 C 1 V <0 iti a 1 <13 3 Id! 03 idS iti.i'g i-S'go 1 a 1 O) 1 ^ ! ^ I ^ 1 s ! 9 1 :3 •OJ 1 3 <" EhES 1 3 . tx'd 03 c3 0 X +H ►> 0 1 c3 0 c3 03 iPHOPE|t>CC l<3 1 5 Pekin Grabil Freeto Moroc Alban; Cp ^ CO ^ O CO <0 li-HCOCOCOCOtOt>t^l C o O OJ 4, V S a 22 ® 83 a^' u 2 Sft OJ "O N CO o . q3 ’ i H i a ^ la ;|‘a \ c3 ^ pu CO £ ^ bjQ ■ daoja'^S’^a, c 3 S d-S^S’^.a 3 CO a ^ ^ bj ^ 3 r-i rH § fe" ^ 3 ^ 23 1 ^? "a d . 0 < dW 2 '^ KH r_ . ^ Q 3 . ^ -aiw | 0 |* HC o ^ Q a« <13 d c3 aw o 0 £ ^ CJ aws OJ ^ «« C3 +H S Jh P oj ^ >3 ^ d 'S § g _2 5 'h1 QJ CC tUJ-^ 03 “ <3 d [H W ■ o 0 ' o-d a . O) 03 "3^ 5 « Ed o 3^ bijO d IPQ ao <3 ^ <0 ai <3 I O -w ^ cci . flo ^ 03 ^ d M 3 3 ■ |.|SS?g&|§ i«g«olSsS rCJ * * ♦ * 03 <13 « K d d ri, 03 . . Ui)^ fC 43 bfl . I >Kpu-S^^pq2E- O 03 * * CJ * S - ii 47 OT-tOO'^OOT-Cq pH O pH o I i-t oq d d d d d 1 d d CO CO CO d d d CO CO CO d d d d d d (N oD CO i d d d d d d '0t3'0 cS'O'O (TjtJ'O'O cS'O'^'O'O aaflMflfl^Hf3ciaciat^aa^Hcii=iatHaaci;-,cirtaa DD:Jo333s3PJ33Pac333o30!3Pis33=30!c3D3:3S 000300=300000:0003000^3000^30000 03 "3 csi'3 3 ^ 3 3 3 C3 3 3 0 3 0 OPhOEm 00 05 O iH O 1 d d rH rH i-J , CO t- CO IfS 05 d d d d d o o o o o o o o o o -tl CJ rQ M !h >) 2 -M (H 3 3 O > PMOf^ :3ss Ph CO o n> so CO I C^^ -H CO I lO lA 0^3 i 9 05 (U cs 3 o o3 M M PM i|5 3H I O OJ -ri M I o 3 I r — 1 ?H CJ 'pqp^PM^ S lig?g 1 iS 8 8 I lo CO I m lo CO ^ 1 O.tJ bJO CO ca O ^ ri «H ! -o 52 -3=3 9 1^15 ‘3 gill = 3!^i3 I 0 .O -303 OOOhI ico0PM«fi 05 (M b- W lO CO CO CO I eo --sc ^ CO 10 ® oocoooo5C5050oac>oo> ^COMCOr-"*^-' ■- I CO CO CO I CO CO CO iS8S .^r^i>r^oooooc> - ■*■ -O lA ^ lO S 3 •gS 60 M copq TS 3 3 O 3. a O ^ i o OS C35 60'-' 3 555 — =5 'I’ « S.a f -9 ^ ^ 60 0 m O Sh Bj a o d gtllcoPH § - pq 0O 3 31 w • a c3 tn oc . '3 i:? cj 05 s 0 3 aj O 5 a a-a M ai lpq5 gii ' ® 1=1 -rt 'O ^ 3 2 i dcoPSad^Pn'M * . g* . a .a O p go2 05 r-l rt .3 3 ^•"3 5-, -g a ®« g® ^xi S CO -a OT 5 ‘5 d ‘S 33^^ 3^ ® O r-, ® ^ C '3 3 ® Eh ® 6o 5 2^ a l|2 o a^ 9 'o 3 r1 ®3 3.S-C aa g 0 3 0 -H -Ph ® ® '2 •3 3 O a ^ < ■c^5 a • " S-d ^ o o • .2 ^ c- 05 cw ' g 3) -d ^5 D 0) w xn (Odd 72 PM Pm c 111 Report of Inspection of Fertilizers Collected in 1916 (continued) 48 •juaD aad oO fL 0 quaa jad •aiqniosui rPO •luao jad PL, c3 ‘paijaAaj puB aiqniog •juao jad ‘ja:>'BA\. ut aiqnios ‘qsB^Oti •;uao jad •luaa jad ‘aAiioB puB aiqn -los aa;BAv ib;oj, luaa jad ‘oiubS -JO aiqniosui jajBAV aApOBUI •^uao jad ‘oiubS -JO aiqniosui ja^BAV aAi^oy *:>uaD jad ‘ocubSjo aiqnjos ja^B AA •:juao jad ‘s:}X’^s BiuouiiuBpuB sa:;Bj; -I’u ut aiqrqos ja:;BA\ aa; uoi^asdsui 4; Sa 2 S o in o CO OCM O I ooj o > S'2 §'2 C !=l ci3 P C3 a 3 O P O O a 2 o - ”3 O tuD =1^ <1 ^ ' M I ai • ' I as Sh > o o . O 05 ^ ^ O Ift CO g;’ ^ (M 01 01 Ol CM C^J (M OrHC-J. I 03 03 p a ^ CO O P'P p ^at: ^ ^ ^ 1 >1 a o 03 C 3 a a O o 00 ; o-W o CJ >> ^ ® -p , O O) 1/3 >”3 ■ 2 a® sag o|i 5 -S« P s PLqPIag u c» P o p <=8 ® c “ 3 = 3 ^ [5h |Sh 0 ® ► =f » P =» O pq 3^0 Ah . 2^0 O) ” -lig^sp®';§£®flSss gg 55 «p ^0 03 “£ ^^ 00 PM 2 feWm a ® . • 0 O ft • O - 0 • . • o p o £ "5 J ; P>M‘g“rtH^Oi dddddddciddddcoooodt^oo(Nojdc rH 00 05 05 O < I d rH d d d rH* 1 lO CO J>- T d d d 1 o o o o o o o o 03 05 rH lO 03 03 d do d O O rH rH d d d d 00 IC 05 ^ CO O d d d d ^ ^ d d d d ^\oao ^ 00 d d d ggs odd CO ^ d d d d 58 d d OOOOrHOO 00 OOO 00 OO 05 03 i rH rH rH tH r-I rH rH O rH rH rH O rH rH d rH 1 Tt<000000050005000000005rH05'*^ .S'^ o QJ QJ OJ PMO^O ssii >H 2 3 QJ g G gi-g G 1 '=' 3 O) lo “ 1 >.-5 O G 'P5P1h gG 'Ss o QO Ol I rH F- ( ’ 00 (M I eo i 5 D 1 ^ CO I 05 o G a&b G ’> a O OG! W 'S O G^ ^ tH QJ 03 S WWcc la irjggg IS 1 S g fe CO G O -u 5fl O) bX) gG3 G ^ 'G •g GJ -G a " O O O 'S ^ pd rj O W bX) P > g 03 " O >> 2 „ ^2 ^ r n tj) G O +J-0 a OX2T3 G QJ « O G « PL|pqWiG|<;g ' 10 CP GC 00 )«lft>^ipt?5CDCPlft»OiPlOlOOCPOO«p] ;aaaaa?^^i88 8888888: 'iOiOiciiomiDiOCOCOcOcOco40®®cDCO' • x-f=- 05 ) g g «l CO > S CO I t-h e- t> F- SSooS§S33oScd3SSSo3o33o3oo o P 2«8 w ^ (15 CO 03 C3 GiG o 5 ocsj 1 ^ 03 og ^dlQ^ G S J .1 ■ CO (H G M • — io; O •;■ G 1 ' ° J, G 1 05 &r“ ga w° ^ 1=1 CO O Jh G riol 05 rr cj MG d^p4 S G w a s-s g h tuo ^ 05 . QW 1_J QJ . ^ 4h « G a 4 h S .goG'SSS < I i-i ^ JjIS I 3 “" (M 03 r“ b § agG ga^ G. CO O XI a ®.2 a G 03 o 2a 15 'o a (H G |« 8 |. = q 8 .(^‘S G Xh O G G G O . ^ O PMO G 03 |G a as 03 O QJ Cl • m . 05 ^ W 2 . a oG> OG OlT ow a> G a G 5 M g o G fp' W ) “ a lG S 3 xh G: rs 03 Q5^^.XtC" X' ' G'5 650°® 5 a a bfl WaGG^^ - O 05 . Sj- - diK^o gdad ti* * * 3 o 05 05 45 05 tn m ^ c C i) L. C3 c3 ■; Q be 45 « W fan 1 g'^S ul^y c G w G G c3 t-3 Hi a a a a egg O O G t3 G G 45 45 45 05 CO CO G G G aaa i 1 1 ££0000 a ^ ^ ^ c3 G 1 ^ rjJ „ „ 45 45 D D 2 G CO CO CO CO .g .5 c3 c3 c3 c3 oj c3 X! XI x; X5 +H -M ly o y o D C . . be G'm a'! 3 X W o a t. ^ ^ g 00 bo a c3 y CO „ bo yg‘'^Oc 3 ^o 02 *-■ y CO a CO y .g y y .a g g a'^gaggao g^ c g"^ G a"" cnlocn OM I I I I 11 a 2 CO 53 G g G > (15 r s O o ’-'U 50 o - fcO oS ^ o a •^U80 aad •:juao jad ‘aiqniosui •;uao jad ‘pa:>jaAaj pa's aiqniog •;uao jad ‘jai-BM. ui aiqnios ‘0^3! ’qs-B^OcE 1 •:iuao jad ‘l^ioj. i •^uao aad ‘aAiion puB aiqn -los aa:i'BA\. ibioj, a BA\ Sample taken at 1 Number | aa; uoT^oadsui IBIOIPO S3® ©is ao ^ 0) V Sa 5S ® rt o o o < . CD lO Oi o o d . » ^ —1 C3 C j> CO CO CD i> CO o I I-H 1-1 i-i I-H rH ID CO O Ci O ID - tD d d d d d d d d d d ID 05 (M CO CO d d d CO CO ^ rfi (M d d I d o o lo m oi I d d d I S oS I d d d I88S d d d 1 d d d TJ'O'O'O cS'C'O'O cS'O ascsa^^aciasHa p^srssosaaacsa ooooaoooao C3 "O s-i a 03 a a o g-a s-i a 03 a a o OPh 03 a a a o o ® C fl tn a a 03 a a a o o O fH ^ ca'a'a'c cs'a'O'o 03 'a'a'a tZcaafHaaatnaaa c3aaaaaaao3aaa aoooaoooaooo 1 t>c a , a o ' a 4 J ® 0 1 o 1 “ a~ -a I ^ ‘a > bfl i s i o|.s iSogS-S iPhHPQQPh IfrSi 1 S ^ is la t ® a3 be s > ^ > a: ^ . a r; oj OhCC^ 1 l=> 1 O I T) 1 >> 03 0 § 00 s > > ^ M'S Sa3 See u a 000 a >> >■. ® 82^ isss 1 iS d o 1 S iS a bfiO ,a s fe ^ H 02 OOoO&OQO^OCdOsCJOiOO^-ii-HMOO SS335oS8®88oD<5ocDfe«o 88; CD CO « I> 1— I rH I—H t C<1 (M C I'* J CO CO CO CO »-H 1-H rH , e a s a N; I s o o o o 00 CM l lOlDO'^t^OCOOOir^OOCDO rHi-Ioic^dooooodcodd'd'^ f-li-l C^(MrHi-lC'3oooor-tococc5 i i rH rH rH fH I 1 1 1 1 1 1111 1111 1 1 1 1 lilt 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 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 I 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 O CO O CO o o 1 t lo T-^ d o> 00 d c o « y ►-5 d (NCOLO^^IOOOOOC^COCOtJH odddddrHrHoddd 1 1 1 1 1 00 05 O to 05 o •» d d rH i-I rH Co’ ^ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O 05 o o 1 iM d oa d 1 OO'^CD'^IOOOOCOOOOOGO DaddddcsjOiHi-irHi-HiH ^ 05 d d iDlOCOCOCOCDlDCO*^ 05 m ^00 05 C 0 O 5 '<^s d 05 1 O ID ID 1 ID ^ d 1 d d d ^ d 8 d — H rH ID CO d d rH c> d 8 d o d Cd (N d d d d o d lO d 0.00 0.11 0.16 d 8 188 d 1 d d s d ID CO d ID d 0.00 0.00 8 d 8 d' rH d (M d CO CO Ns'S Ijj W Clj M ^ y ^ oj o he y io tr cS t- rt 3 ft 3 D, " 1 § c" ” S<2£5£ 3 y 3 y 3 ^ ^ ^ ^ 'S 5! '5 '3 M j ^ J 73 y 5 £3 ' n O C 3T3 cs'Q'O'O 03^3 oS'O oa'O'C'O ioSflflcSrtSaScGG 03 : 333033 o 333 cj 3333;3 y y d c 3 C3 3 ^ cy ,-* W ^ ^ ^ W pj ^ 303000303030003030 O(i UU '.'O ^ '•'J ^ >.SJ ^ ^ 30300303030300 3 ^ 3 ^ 3 ^ 3 ^ ;h 3 ^ 3 ^1 3 n 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 ' O(^0pH0pH0f 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 III III III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 V \ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'ft 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'ft 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ( 1 1 1 1 1 4 -> 2 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 I 1 1 O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 j'ft 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'ft 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 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 i 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 ' 1 ' 1 1 1 3 1 y 1 3 1 y 1 o 1 o ^ 1 1 3 1 3 1 y 1 1 p 1 o i 1 1 1 1 1 1 H > 1 1 3 j 3 1 1 1 1 1 fH 1 tH 1 3 3 1 1 tH IW im i- cc > i cS iw jW : 4 .m 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 3 i ft ft a 1 be 'i.S 1 bo 1 ^ 1 ft bo ft 1 3 o 3 1 o 1 s 1 O I a 1 j 43 ig 1 ft*^ 1 ^ HH 1 ^ 1 i-ft +j .'•ft 1 3 43 ift \B j I l’^ '<>>’>>> 1 y ^ y 1 1 OJ 1 1 02 ' W 02 Ifl| ICO 'i I ip «0 CO ft P. o y' y y ^ bo y y > 3 M bo • , — .3 M « 2 P/ ' £h Sh N 2 ^ ^ W O o OpH ■ '° O 03 O 2 C/3 ^ ^£30 ^13 ^ ft'-e ^ ^ f-i w i.w(Due;._o o ^ p^ww'^-gw 3pq ^ ^ r^ fT^ ^ ^ ^ OjO • . 03 ^ - ^ .'^03 *03 a - 3 ’^0203 3J^D5 p'kQ 2 ,?k 303 d 'V ■ s * * * * ♦ ^ < & ^ ^ So Sf^ O Ip. '§ft 3fq o >> 3 ft 3W 3 ft ^ +j> O O 3 -to 2 ft ^'§.|ft^ -2 ft a|-g 3 43 S -ft O W ^Ai. 9 ApOY qu99 aad ‘Diu'BSao aiqnios aaj'BAi •'4U9D jod ‘s:h;t 3S ■CTuouiiuB puB s 9 :)t;j:^ -Tu UI aiqnxos J9 :^ba\ aa; uono 9 dsui moi 350 O 00 O 01 O t-H O O C 5 O CO -3 CQ ci 06 O i-H C] ci i-H t-H r-t C] Cl i-H r-! C] C] t-H Cl Cl C] rH O Oi-l'^C1050tOOeDCOCOmCOOrHOCOClOl-HliOOCOOmC5r-OeO»-|05005 Cor^coc0idci'-^05ooooooeo050oo6cic]cic505c50c5coi'-t-r-i-coeoi05£!m o m 05 CO .-I i-H 0000- I O o 05 05 O O 00 I I-I rH O O r-j CO Cl 00 05 00 C0000505rHCOOOCOCOt-C]tOCOCOCOC0 1>-t'*COQOC5 05 05 '1-3 d O o o 0 O 1 10 10 10 CO I d d o d o I CC rX 00 <55 1 o d o o I (M J-- CO CO T COOICOCO"^ (COCO iooooo lO lOO lOOOO ! C 5 oi Oi O 0 : ^ 5 72 q-a :3 o ^ is IS I CO -M Cl CO I 10 05 CO o I CD l- 10 I 10 lO CO CD 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 II 1 I 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 +5 1 1 11 ' 1 ' 15 1 0 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 . 3 ! 1 CD 1 +j 1 1 1 1 Q 1 0 1 03 ' 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 111 ' 1 1 1 ' 0 i sm 1 's' toiCL, ' ^ ^ •S S i 1 lggo 3 1 \ 1 i i^g '3 1 a ^ ^ I m 05 1 o"^ IS • !qS -ft 1 10 o CD I 10 10 ~ 00 1 ^ CO O -S P 1 g g ■3^ g g i o F- CO Cl -H 1 CO 00 1> (3 co 00 1 C I Cl r*' 10 00 05 I CD CD t- 10 ID in in I in in m logs S '5 03 0 -- 03 C> .pL|KS!> ^D CD CD CD CD CD CD 53 O CO lO CO CO o r-I rH i-I rH C in Oi lO Ci O CO J O CO CO 1-H q d d o d d d d d d d 8dSSS d d d d d iHa 50 'Oooo G^qc- 0 0 0 0 0*00 c^q CO CO 05 CO ^ CO CO CO d d o o o o d o o o o o o o d d d d d d d d d d d d d^ d CO d d bjD ^ 0 'H •r-. (D . P w «ss ?°s ei a a a O O o r bD p ca U) V 5^ U r o 6^ U-d dCq sal d o „ „ ^ ^ ^ ca73 i:s73 7373 73 73 ^73 ca73 73'd ca73 73 73 73 5s73 73 73 73 73'073 ^7373 (HdPHdoodafcHa^dddfcHdcddtHddOddddMdd cadoaddddd53dcadddcaddddcadddddddo3dd dodooooododooodoooodooooooodoo is; VO VO I th o o -IH GO I c^q I CO ^ CO ^ • CO Ii> CO lO o O'! ' « (N J:-dO CO S ofe o o I iO lO LO vO CO CD ' 'd 'O 'd (D 0) 0) WWW 1 1 i f 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 t I 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 t 1 1 1 > 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 f-t 1 OJ i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 G 1 1 G 1 1 1 1 t 1 t 1 1 t 1 05 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 till till lilt 1 t 1 1 1 ^ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1^3 h 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1,111111 1 I 1 1 1 I t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III III 1 1 1 1=1 1 1 1 P 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 i o 1 1 ti) ' 1 ' 3 ca >1 g a H-> y M ._ dd H CO 03 1 'O TD 1 73 1 ^^ IS ' ^ ^ ‘si 1 >» 1 1 G t 1 1 05 ' 53 g 1 ' y c 3 0 1 1 pi 1 1 pi 1 ^ ' ! G G o o ! 3 3 1 53 1 o 1 a 1 G G ] O O 1 s a ! 5 G 1 O 1 s |6 1 iw 5 .-t^ \S 1 oj rA I <15 ' ^ bjO^ fcuo 1 a \ ^ ^ 1 G ^ 1 G ly ° H 1 Odd sS i 0 d y 0 ^ 0 y i 2 §l Paol Weis Atlai Ram Valp 1 dd dd 1 y y !SS idd 1 y 1(5 1 o o iss 1 ^ iS io >K Sout Geor Star Chili Geor 1 M o 'ft 1 0 oft ‘ 0 a 2 ft > 03 d ^ oaPq Prfl a 0.30 ” fi-a > 33 JO; S d c ^ y « y y — 03 d 03 0. d S 6 ^ y d M d y . ;h y o 03 ^0^3p:i0;dh:i ♦ ♦ 5*5 ^5*5 -a Ch * * 03 ft » a o ^ C ^ en ^ H a a a o o o a a y a a y hh s-i y 33 73 y y y m CO y ca ca dd ' cj y Cl Qj I r! j WWW -C ^ ^ V o o u u :3 o o CM Hi Ph Report of Inspection of Fertilizers Collected in 1916 (continued) 54 .2 £ •:}uao jad •:^ua^ jad ‘aiqniosui G3o Hh G 'luao aad ‘pa^aaAaa puB aiqniog OtNOCOCCCOOiOCit^OC^I-COOCOl-^OiO'^ CNCOi>*4:^oo^ooooo5a500i-Hoo O t-h lO 1 to to I d d d d d d ^ o I oa Ci 00 00 I d d d d d I CO CO I CO lO lO I d d d d I CO CO 1-1 Oi lO I CO lO CO I d d d d d d ' 00 CO 00 CO o I to d d d d d 00 00 Oi o J>^ d d d i-H d 1 © © d d I cq q 1 d d d d M rH ^ g I d d d d •;U 0 D J 0 Cl *0\UV3d0 oiqnios 03 -t lO 1 -^ I (N (N CO CO i d d d d 1 o d d d d d I oq rH CO ! d d d d d I O CO wo ^ I CO I (N (M I iO lO I LO 1 -d d I d d id I CO cq c I d d d d d d 183838 I d d d d d 88 188 ! d d 1 d d |S 83 S I d d d d I t> 4 ^ G 3 1 -^ 1 ^ C > u, O s is G 1 3 o N » ; © (N © CO Ol 03 t _ n ( 1 ifs in to © ^ o kPM G 3 -C G S 1 ' ti. G O PQ^ccCCq 3 ^ > I-, c« n o S Ot 3 G S oa 33 ’■^G G 5 ffi w ©© Ir-H^ I©© 1(M ICO IO(MCO^ -ti© lOOiG i? 2 G M O o;a 3 g 3 a G 2 § G PMOP^oq 1 © CO CO <© M © < © © © © © O I ccoooo©©©©S©o5(m©io©© _ ■^-tl-t'©0©(MC oliiccOGsWS^O U q « m .’;:^.a' •- g OiTjHOoOO'^OOOiQCO W CO CO 00 00 C^liOOa5lQCOOlQlQt o’ O o CO O c> rH d o t O O O 1 (M* rH ( o oo o o ^ CO .niQLO'^’^COOOrHT^HioCO dddddddr-Iddd O LQ >0 CO CO (N C d d S8 O o I o o d d j d d ' ' 'a 'c ' ' ' c3ac!.iC3MCci!.HGa J3P;3c3.:!o3=3Sc333 OOOPOPOO^JOO o 00 o lo o ■ o o r- o o o ( i-l ^ 1|00 ) eo .J 1-0 00 LO lO lO P o K< p ^ 09 p ^ 03 a ;h ^ >.P O QJ O) 'P OM!>H !.2i P I > O 1-0 rg 1 P >L 'OO i-H o a I P) eo S 03 5 ! S CN m 10 «D «D 1 10 CO I— I I— I tG Ift 10 03 01 < CO <0 I-I t-H CO 00 < IM l>l>QOC!OOcOOoOi-i^^,.HrH sr^i^t^t^i^jt^iMccicNCMCcicoeocococo ■’inmininmincocococofecococoPJCD JP CD t S SoS=?.s^" !>.=ci -.5.9 9 J- - =«-^ =2- O) <^WOdc^O(^Oajc^Hi-o ft ft P ” Ol 9 W >3 r5 IH PhlmQ tn P * Sq >> IH o O +j p {mo's .9^W " “'S ^ ra[i< .i«! * > P P!P3 CC Q, P M 9 ° ^ HSo^c® M |o9x!^ a Qr.OSr o PO p^ 9W .0.22 G P ^ p 9 ^ p-!? pQ 2 9*9 pf^ w 9 w ■ ^ S o ^ ^ P .2 9 c»S .2 2 S s S p ^ og OJ ^ ■a^ 9:^ w Ph . cuBh > o O P Q 5 P PpL, o 502 ^ P g"^^CC _ pqgp'^pSpg'dojg^pq Pp.2rQPGCc! .G!2.2 o* o O pc' i9 o 5 fe'” S' p-G pW“! IS M 2^§ P o ^ l^'l ij c c p "g "g 9 9 9 GOO tn U CM » ;3 . ^ ,0 '*7* ^ 5 (Kj ^ (d cd : g; 8 XI g: c ) o O G o , u 1 1 1 1 1 X o p N P P P t, ' T-I X X P c eo _tQ Cn " bflp 'Gg*^5-.s .S9> g, i>>o®p:= 1 M I I M I I #eiw^ioot-ooo> Report of Inspection of Fertilizers Collected in 1916 (continued) 56 iJ £ •quao jad o9, o_. •quao jad •aiqniosui g-G P3 0 •quao jad PP 3 ‘paqjaAaj puB aiqniog •^uao jad ut aiqnios ‘0^3: 'luao jad •;uao aad •aApo-B puB aiqn -los aa^BAi IB^oj, •;uao jad ‘oiubS -JO aiqniosui jajBAV. aA^OBUI jad ‘oiubS -JO aiqni'osui jajBAi aAt;oY ‘luao jad ‘ocubSjo aiqnios ja:jBA\. •:fuaD jed ‘s:h^bs TJiuomiUT? puB sa:)Bj:j -Tu ui a^qn^os Ja;B \\ aa: uonosdsui IBTDtpO 2 3 5 " o a> s* ftC V ( M 0) ooiooooooo dcoi>j>cooooi-Hodc>codd o o CO r-( no -iH* d d d d i-* d 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 lOOOCOCOOLOCO l.-li-(T-IOi-lrH(M(M 1.0 1.1 2.0 2.2 1.0 1.1 1.3 1 1 1 1 0 f-i 1 1 i-t CO I 1 i > G000Cit^':oi:-00r--^^n0OC0C0 ddddrHrHoddddi-ndd oo-^fDooioco'^coioi'-'^ir- Or-ti-Hi-ICOCOCOrHi-fi-ICOCO 0.43 0.65 0.34 CO CO 0.46 0.25 0.23 0.54 00 d 0 Ci d 1.40 1.65 1.50 o2 I— 1 rH 8 0.37 0.26 0.36 00 CO 0 CO d odd 60 d 0 10 d 0 TtH d 0.55 0.90 no f-* ^ no d d 0 0.19 0.16 0.19 Ci 01 d d 0.11 0.06 0.29 CO d CO ^o d d 82 t-h d 0.81 0.70 r- CO t-H 0.24 0.49 0.11 CO Ci 0 00 d o.os 0.01 0.07 00 d 00 CO d CO d d d -H 10 CO CO d d 8 d Q 0 000 d d d 0 rH d d CD ^ CO 0 t-H 1— 1 d d d GO d 0 d CO CO d CO C5 d d 0.00 0.08 d 03J3;3:dc3r5(J3^3c3Dp!:r!c33 pooo3o::o;3ooo30 c;5P^|^^pL^C5l^^OPRO(^lfi|PHOP^ X} ','3 a> I oj a ' G ■ fl ■ ■ C ■ ■ G S'CG'sS'acs'O'acs’a'aS'o !HG!Ha;-iS^Gr];-iGd!-iG (SGc3G«3o3G3o333eSG G030D0G00G00G0 a> „ G cs'O ca'^'^'O'O'O ShG^hGGGGG C3GGGGGD3 DOGOOOOO O P^ O P^ Ph Ph Ph P^ CO oi G■-!>.> 10 C > xa w G G « a > > PiP5 Cv5 C5 > !> CO CO G G > !> pqpq 1^ 40 M iS s- bX) 3 ■ O G G W;^np:i 1 Ci « I CO CD ( I no to « CO CO fM (M 0-1 O'! 61 (>1 6l CO 6i CO 00 ' COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO^- COCOOOOCOOO^OCOCO^’ OC>iSt^^iDocnOtDiO?DcOO-tM< cDOiOiDiOno^'-i^'^'l^^^coco cocooOcO)OLCitftnonoiD»D^^4:r LOIDOCDCDOCOCOOCOCOCOO® 1 g Ci Oi Oi C5 ^ ) no ic no no iD LO OJ D< w CC G1 O >1 a ^ G arrt bfi'G ft “ S G 5^ S « O a> •>-< 'OGS GJ’O.g O G CL; Q, 5-1 ft G G QJ • fO • 2 oi U)'G) 'Gi s a oj ^ a:< M O (N o . o G3 03 -H CO G ^ . ;hPP^ fl t>» c3 I . JH'f- :cH s a G ^ a *< G o cc g; ^ ai A O O G ^ CZJ o O O' , u 'S C pq O G c3 k> ^ Q *-j U * G ^ (1) 5| . ^ <=> 2-ft o ftPP GfL| a a, != ^GG .a 02 :'G«3 Ph pi =j a t; tc ax:^ 2 > w) a gM m w o o 00 G G aw; 0 03 T3 w a w ' -lG CO rrl -- • G ” opq G-o a ^ <1^ a* p 33 Ol H p^ o o G G PPPhg; OJ ^ ■>> 2 cc M (25 G G G G G P^Ph c * o o o OQ Pi rG o o G G’ PPP^ G _G > ’> <=! 1=^ r. G G h O PPIP^ gS a CD O o O-ft c G S3 a ph T3 G I ' o in C3 ' ' C2 O “ ^ g 00 G^ Q O l^lj G ^ I g 0-30^,^ i- 02^^ G . cn 00 G o . 'G I Xh PP iD s3 O 3 I G G O >4 G G I Si-P1PhPhO«2 5192 I 6566 I Sandusky !al Fertilizer i 5195 i i ^ i Guaranteed, 57 O O O o o o 00 O O O 00 00 O Oi Oi r-I d d OO Oi CO 00 CO 00 d d T-I th d d d d d 05 00 d d d d 00 05 d d o3 03 'O d !h G c3 D 03 d 03 d G o d o d o o rt rt S S fH ;h 0O a G Sw g f- ^ ® 00 K siiiii I O CO CO 00 1 rH I-H d d O0i05OrHO-f*^C5OOlCC0(NOC0OX>Ot^Ot^ rtH* 00* d d d d d d d d (N CO ic d CO d 00 oc O CM d : O LC CO ; CO* CO d d lOOO^COOOOOOOO idr-ndddddd lio CO ^ odd d d d d d d d d d odd fl w C fl fl G fl G C3D^3C3^3C3;3^!I5C3:33PC33C3PC3:3C33 pooDo:3ooo^3ooo;30j3o:3o:3o Ofef^Oi^Of^fHF^HOP^PHpHO^OPnO^O^ O CO (M OlOCOCOt-- CO d uo lo OCOOOCiOOcoCO a; O) ^ a 2 o O I— I Ci (M (M O -TtHCOCOUOOOCOl^OO O d d d d d CO CO* C'T (M (M 05 ^ ^ C^3 (M d d d d d tH r-i 65 CO CO d d d d d d d d d d S S 8 o S d d d d d lO oo IQ 1:^ 1-1 rH i-l 03 O d d d d 03 G G ca^d os'd'Q'd'd'd shGshGGGGG c 3 dGdGdGd dodooooo 0 O Ph Ph 1=3 Ph 03 d d o 0 Ph cc 03 tn ft o c3 wo S G d .2 g G ^o>: gE| g0 2 o 03 03 Swo ) OO I O CD O ) CO I o rH CD Ig 'PO.COrH e dJ G "3 ! 33 o o £ £I <'^KO';^0 1 in lo CO «5 CD I CD a3c3l<53CDCDOO<5DSDi5Qf-F-r-r^(M(M40cO-^-t<w G D ||g=8|G — . 03 o 'd bj3 d .2^ o ! ftO g S _2 6 -'=' sS:«.sli^^^gS'""o.as jd . .Ha^ojG 20o:»w re 2§S Gd^oftw feOWMc S g * .2 W 0 2w Q 25 CB w X 2; Wg< cc^ II. iS’gi cd ■ 5 ? S? * O* 0 O G C K 03 dW 2 • G00^ C« OJ o ^ g 2-G 20^^ w G O D G xfi cd o 2Ph 0^1-. 0 c3 d a O X Q, y, I ^ O g G 2i^ 2i =3^ « 2Q al 03 0 ‘ w • b. ^ >»* ^^ * * _, cd <3 ’T' d 1h O 01 d ^ § Ci to .c; si 0 ) ft C w ^ ft<(J W'S .d , s 0 W ■ .2 d 2 2oc s g s a 0^ 0 0 0 0 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ bx) 'd cd ^ a> 0) ry <1^ 7 ^ D ft 03 ro 03 D e iX) bo D <13 D C bn W CO CO . • .2 *■' D ft 03 • D M O +J 03 D .2 O0 g £ S o C? 4-> D d d Ih d 03 D D tB to ® C tti c3 ft 2 0 " d o o 2 ^ ^ JJJJ :d D Oft £ 2 2"^ o o ft d d D D <13 M to d ft ft I I 58 .2 vS •:^uao jad ‘I'BIJOJ, ►C n 1 •^uao jad •aiqrqosui p3 •^uao aad P P ■pa:^a^AaJ puu aiqnios •^uao jad ‘aa^'BAi ut aiqnios 'qs^^Od; •;uao jact •;uao jad ‘aAtio-B pu3 aiqn -los aa:»^Ai I'Bjoj, ■juao jad ‘aiu^S -JO aiqni’osui jai^Ai. aAtj^'Bui •;uao aad ‘oiu'bS -JO aiqniosut ja^BAi aAijoy O IC O <6 04 CO Oi CO CO iO 03 cp O o 03 m OCiCDOlO'^lOI>t^O'rt<'»^OCOOCOOi 00 00CC03O30303 o!03C0C0C0OOOOOi lOrHCOOt^COOOCO iOO«-I0303t-03C0 03* O 00 05 r-I d O O00 03lCl0X^OC0O rHOMOdOi-HOi-I Q00003Tjii-t^lOl£^^03C0030)COCDr^COCOOOOI'^# drHt-IrHi-IrHdddd03rH04rMr-5rHTH^rHi-Ir-5ddd d d SB CO CO d d 05 05 'f 03 d d d d d d O d d o o 03 ^ d d C» l?5 d d 03 CQ 03 ^ d d d d •:juao dBd ‘oiu^Sao 9iqnios JBT'BM o o d d ss d d d d 88 d d d d ■;uao jad ‘squs BTUOUJUIB pUB Sa^BJ^ -Tu ut aiqu^os Ja^B.w ds d d 03 03 d d d d > o ' pp: p3 l-g 0x3 Ul-e fcX) 1 o £ ^5 p o p 18 188 I M 00 C5 O »0 I S5 1 (M lO -p > >> o 1^1 o ^ O rQ as C« C3 oo I O I ^ T— I I -f I O !p 1 o 1 lo «? p o£ .P o fcH !-( 88 €2 I Cvl 00 I t rH I 1 -n O I O 00 I m 00 ' g ’>5 >1 cn O) o PI o GOOD >145 P P lBTDt,yo CO CO 0^1 1- ( vovovovo vovovovo vovovovovoi- - ■“ - - - '* ' ) Ci 05 CD CO tr t- J - _>COCO^i4hi-It-Ii 00 IXi CO < i-l (N 4 P0 ■ a.P ^ 1* * c3 Q (H O O p . p g M >>•- 1 * P „ p s . k'O'S'g " Sglgs okPoc^ . p o o 0 9i a a a a o oO be, P >0> 9 cu" G X3 WPf «P' - I 00 Oi> O lO CO LO 1 i>* I o o iO CD I I I CO05i-(Ct^ C>OlOOOl01>Or^05r-llOLOCOCOCOlOCOCO^lOlOCOOiMOOrHir:tCOlOCO VI rH d d d d i-H o d rH d d d d d d d d d d d d rH i-I rH d rH o d d d ID 00 CO CO CO CO d d d d d d C0OO00 00 C0C50005^C0'^C0C0rH05rHOC0005OTtHC0OC0C^-rJ<-rt d d 05 05 d d dddd I! d d I < d d 05 CO ITS '!« d d I (M in I d d d lasa I d d d o o o o I CO t-H I d d ca D D O is ^ c3 ^ o3 o tH a 3 C3 :0 03 O S! O J3 ^0^0 E3 S3 P 0 3 0 M n s c3 3 3 3 0 0 0 pt|pH I'O 'O'OTS oS'O'C'O'O ca'O'O c3'^^ ca'O es'O ca'O oS'O oa'O cS'O Ki'O aaaSnGdaSaaGiHGflSoaSaScScSaSaSaiHa 333o33333e3333o333s333o33cS3c33c33c33s33o33 00030000300030030030303030303030 0'!d Ph(^O(3hP40Ph(5^C3[s^OSh 0PH0!d0pR0(=H0f^ '2 '^'2 3^3 3 S3 3 0 3 0 ^ 0 13 § T) T! 3^33 3 03 3 3 0 3 0 0 ^0 ^ Ph |g C3 « coP> 13 3 > 3 WOJ gS bfl ^0 3 o 2 ;^ 0 S 133 O o 1 > o CjO '23 13 fe I >> >1 i § iggaa I ^ « C3^ •; 2 i; 2 i- 1 <=i 1 o I 3 %>o bfl 03 ij M 1-3 S O 3 & o ^o O bfl 05 W 0 O .3 >1 CO ^ .£''3 I o o |X!X3 3 3 ■PO ^ 3 13 O ^2 M 2 1 o i -ti I fo \ 00 i in I 2 on In I 8 d CO i co mcD iin iin iin icococo iinmco imcoco Cn CO ,-1 “ ^ M 00 > i? c 2 O 0 02 W o Oi 2 oa cgta g S 45.2 a ! 3 bjo+i > O I •— . 3 p- « i 3 rl frt P 33 ; CB 3, 3 ,3002 S00CB0 o a^l g'^ a_ >*!!:*>>+ >) 3 C3 3 Q ft p . 3 a ‘S o -3 x 3 =82 222 s2 a g gS gfe > 1 ^ oM W O 33 .a 3 2 3 .3 .3jSqj^_Q3'p .2 O .£3 0 .2 5^ .2 & x: !S g t-, +3 +a ^ 3 2 “ 2 P OQ P 3 ^ ^03 o b P P » P 0 0 2 ia o3 ^ ^ P r} ft 05 m ^ -jb S3 3 a g o P g 05 3 x3 ^I'SWWAh cadi's 'H'S 3 .roisu^ 1^ W p V* C5 2 p' 0' P- 2 p ^ cc • 3 ^ 2 p 2 2 p * — Sample received in spring ® 2 — Purchased from L. B. Stowe, Vevay, Ind. 80— Refund. See page 28 »3— Purchased from P. C. Bulleit — Purchased from Perry Rule — Purchased from W. C. Anderson. Composited 2 samples — Purchased from Pox Chemical Co., Louisville, Ky. — Purchased from Fox Chemical Co., Louisville, Ky. Report of Inspection of Fertilizers Collected in 1916 (continued) 6o .2 £ •;u0O jad •juao jad a'^ ‘aiqniosui G'o •ijuao jad P-i =3 ‘pa:;jaAaa puB aiqniog nu0o J0(I ‘aa'i'BAv UT Qiqnios nu9o jad ‘IBJOJ, C C-l c4 CO o o O 00* O Oi (M CC01>OOOJOOO' ci o CO* CO CO '^* CO rH 1 'COT-HOCOOrHCOlOici0l0l0l0 1-trHOr-lt-lT-lrHl-lOrHrHOOOOOOOCOOOO «(tHC0C0C0'^l0C0l'-C01>lf:> ’> a G o o o o mm O -H (N 00 -t' IQ m o 1 I >1 M i«li 1 il?i O >5 c .t; 50 0-2 h ^ be 5 « 03 G ^ tic3 •" O o "G 0CZJCB<1 fcfl a .t; g a >00 lt~OlQ(M-3D CO 00 CO ( ISggggSSgg iOOOOOQ(^'CDc^__.__ iLOlOVDVCVOVOVOlOVDI.OVQCDcDCDCDCDCDCDCDCOCDCO § s I® © > OD * V © So. ss ft CO O .p-l q;i ^ II SM a G O O G ^ G® G ■G'0» Cl G . CU ,Cd h, G G G O) ^ O O o o CJ o G G X3-Q Sh O O N s s S-( M OOC3 ft a o Sh qO G.a _ti G ao a> C3 X 0 O X^^ o Ph o £ X3 ' ;-i -G. : a> cj . . a<^ >>< o a oPh ' ' O ^ Cr O cu .22 '"’(S iifl « Q |G m .G m rO ;; G >> o) coG ni-"a) 0 --o |5«dnl^S<^-as^Sagp|^aSa o o o o 6 ^ pR pH Ph Ph C 3 “r •s®' G 73 0 X O Ph G be _ W o ^ . O) Ph5?0 6i OCM ! 00 00 I ^ 00 I CO (M O C<1 CO f-t CO kO GO Oi CO CO CO* (N O OI>* lO CO • 00 kO lO lO lO ■ CO kO CO x>- )00coC> OCOO'^OOOOOkO’^ d q '^* kO CO 1> cp 00 O C7i ^ UO (N CO cq C3 C.^COHkOCOHCkOCO cocoddrHrHc^*— (MddoodddoddrHrHrHi-Iddddddddddd O 'Tfi rH (N d d ^5583 d d d C^ CO C 3 3 3! O o o Hpq 3 ° O ^ ^ O S 3 J? V S go ►h Ui 3 ^pqw 1 -H cl tuD i.s g-o 1 ES >>'t, 'Endfq a 3 3 D 3 "3 5 MS I'll o § ''g 3 O 3 I— I 3 3 y 3 3 g tuO >. 05 31 OS O WphOp^ a ca Ip C5 S ti oco O O I rH rH eg oq O' t- 1' eg eg eg eg > a C53 >.'0 S 3 .a"^ 3 . 00 gosS: fe CQ 3 .2 3 > « |o C3 > 'O 3 , 3 10-33 o cn CO 3 (£ “ P-I w ^ 3 3W 3, ^ o g|'| dS ■5 O g O 05 2 3 5 3 .10 g piH 3.=8 o s s o dpq.s P O ’-'rh P 3 3 6 SHO.C 3 3 O SQfq-j^W o o 00 .a-3S W3 ^ rr-3 a ,r 3 3 'g S 3 3 3 Jg-g 3 O O ga O * — Sample received in spring — Purchased from Pearl Underwood, Bargersville, Ind. — Purchased from Jarecki Chemical Co., Cincinnati, Ohio — Purchased from J. W. Stokesburry, Camby, Ind. — Purchased from A. F. Brockelmeier, Greensburg, Ind. — Purchased from Pearl Underwood — Purchased from Chas. Tenneson, Mt. Vernon, Ind. — Purchased from Chas. Winegarden, Rochester, Ind. — Purchased from W. D. Coleman Report of Inspeotion of Fertilizers Collected in 1916 (continued) 62 •:juao jad .9 5 ‘1'b;oj;, 19, ' 1 0 . ‘^uao aad '1 1 0 '^* ■aiqniosui •: 5 uaa aad ‘pa^aaAaa put? aiqntog CO O 10 to OOO(MOOC0Or-li^C0O^OC^Ol0i O r-I 05 O Oi O O (M CC500T-HQ(N •:ju8o jad ui aiqnios ‘0"a[ ’qs'B^OdE lo^cocoioiocoiotocotoio-fc^-ioiocooco^ia- OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ot-io 1-1 o d o ^ 2 'i i •:)U90 jad totocoooc^ CO (M ^ q 0000 d •juaa aad ‘otuBSao aiqnjos aa^B^^ 8 d 1 d d 0 d 82 “ 3i a lMlOlO>0-^'-t-lrtlftlAK3t^l^OOC)OOOOOOO^Ci05d5030<=!OOrHrHr;HrHrH iCsasdiOoiomioioioiifiioioioioioioifliniOiOiomtocDcooDcocoo^OD jlSlOLOlOCOCOCOOCOCOCOCOCOOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOOCOCOCDCO CO CO M s ^ O 01 ft O V Sa g 2 « OS -d* 'aS x> 03 >> M « 2 S d w X 1 ! "3 - O) 03 <4-1 CM 0=53 o p Oft tn « >1 >> .s 5 ^ c o g w n o o bf^ m m 0 :> 2 c3 5W oJ ^ o IS o 3 GOG O nj ^ ^ OujZi ^2:/} %* 5 53 W 1 cd 2^1ooWSd ■fl* -3* B* 00 0 a> o r— « ^ f ' ■■Si- - ■ oj g W S-4 (5 'd ^ 1 X ;2 W S pH ■§ 4 . 41= 0 5 'S - 2*1 O) §=3 -gS 40 . ^ p -2 >ry COr-N 5H C £ §1 o * * * fH O _ Bo ^ Ph o 4 :::g ^Gr- ^ ^ a .1 =3 ^ ^ G g jG0CC3 0 “ -rj • 0-g'-3«'-5 « B rK r<. G 1 ■= g: pH .Si 2 "o =0 ^ •go ^0 o 0 CO .9 ^ .2 ‘3 o 02 02 < > 02 I s ^ o G 9-g — 2 2 ® G .N o ^ W §d-gld S'G o t» .s ^ 2 ^ 0 12.0 63 Oin O 00 CO CO CO CO 05 CM CO 00 o I ! d d r-I rH 1 OCOl^iOOOlOOCMOC 1-H 1-5 rH i-I d r-I d (>5CrHlOliO dci^ddcoddddddd OCMCO'^oc»c^ro'^Oco^O( oocdco*o6dddo5do6oor-c O 00 O 00 O rH O rH O dcoodoocdcocodd o o o o o 1 0 0)00 rH d 1-5 tH O rH O CO <>5 O c5 d d d d d CO CO d t> 0 0 05 rH rH d d d CO CO 00 05 05 05 05 d d d d 0 05 d d 0 d S d s d 05 J IC -H 05 1 CO CO d 1 d d CO 05 d s d 0 »0 CO to io d d d ^ ^ Q5 d d d d d s. d 00 rH CM 05 05* J> 05 rH 05 05 d d d So CO S S d d d d C5 rH CO CO d d 10 d 0 CO CO d d I d d 00 d i>» d d d d 05 05 CO (M 05 CO CO m d d d d d d 8§ d d 10 05 rH 05 05 01 d d d 05 -H 05 CO 05 05 05 05 d d d d CO CO CO d d d 05 CO d d 05 1 CO 00 CO 1 rH rH d I d d 05 CO 0 Ci 05 d 0.15 0.14 0.09 2 ^ 2 3 d 0 0 0 d 0 88 0 0 rH 05 rH rH rH 05 000 safes 0000 CO rH 05 05 0 0 8 d 0 0 d s d 05 1 CO 05 rH 1 05 0 d 1 d d d 8 d P o M 1-i an n n c a 'O'O cS'O'O'O ca'CJ ca'O'O caTJ'O'O ea'C'O'O'C as aat,Piaa^^paaaa^a!^aa;-,aaa!-, ' 3So3ac33c3aa3;3ac3yc3a!3c3?;3ao3 OJ 33waa^ra^;-';-);->;jraaraa^c3a;-iaraaa;->araaais3;-i 0030003000003030030003000030030 n a 3 33333333i333c33333 0030003000030030 Su Ecj rf^ &j lij rf*, &j Gli &j Bu rh Bli &j rK Ecj a c a a a a 3 'O C8 « 'O 3 "O 3 ^ 3 'O tH3!-ia^HOt-i3tH33^3 cS3c3333o33o33333 3030303030030 3 C3 3 3 O 3 &g .a^S S ^ 5:^ a> q;> O , S-S •s^ a 'PMq Ph 1 >33 I 03! !5S 'O'O rt O o .a o o 3) bo bo <1> ZO 02 fUOO l^o 33 ■ < ^ && O 03 w 03 J- QJ fH 33 S ftg 35 o tn S.-t; c3 03 I £> >-H I ? cc 3 3 <0>CTl<'+'^b020eObbbOOO(5DOD50<3>03 03eotO T-Hr-tr— ti-HrHi-H?-HtO^^CpOCiOiOit^f^l-— IrH C:CiOiCiC50iC5000pHr-Hi— ir— icoeocoCOco^^cocof^J'^ lOiOlOlOlOlOLOCDcDCOCOCOCO^OCOCOOCDOCOCDCOCOO CO C§ d S ;p O S3 S S S 3 S 33 Pi 3. O O 3 'O 3 ‘a< o . a . 1=1 a icos -2 s«a ^ o a ^ o f-i o mm a a4 o 3 w .a .a d3 s 'a 3!00 So'gg . ^ o o oH < bo bO[2^ . CO C»3 w . i-bOOr-<5 7* Cd U.2W-SS 3 ^.1 J_I M o a O 03 S --I '3 03 . 2 o a o O CZ2.S 02 3 03 3-1 T CJ o « CQ 1§ SbO ■S-S-S ft OP o3 S 111*1 a p .2 w 3 «a|d 3 . 03 . 2 °a>§ 3 + * O a ^ >>3 a|i 'Sa^gc 03 . c3 O W " O o ^ OJ .S W 2 . o>.ao - * as (H a 3 O s'"" '^’33 d g - O 6 ' ^<1 § ® CC tH 030^ S 33 a > boM >> O PI sa 3 . CQ o « ■ a ^ PI o' 3 03 ^ O 03 3a8 iaia C3 * 53 * H-H 3 03 03 O 33 a 1 >. - I'-a 03 3 3 QJ • 3 2 33 N o 3 (3 03 33 tH cn - tn'^ ^ =3 3 s s ?a -a 3 03 3 P (O O 30 « X3 gppapjq 3* bo* a PI . 033 !»a 1^2 3 a ~ o 2 .0 3 S 'S § 03 ’I ^ ” N O ^ 03 "S 30 tH a hH^oa tH 3 a^t^a 3 03 '"•Sg 02 SuoP* »— 05 I— » 05 O O 0 > CO CsJ ^ OCOT-HOCOirHO lO05mOl0CDC0i— lJ OOOCOCO^r-li-(i • ^tOCDlO'^lOlOOrHCO ’ooooooooicvKN CO CO o o o o « O iO 10 O'^M^OOCO rHOO T-JoOi- jod ‘s:jxBs TJiuoiuuit: puB s9:jbj:) -t'u ut aiqnxos J 9 X^A\ d d 8 8 18x8 00 i o' O 8d88d8 d o o o* d d (N o X> d d d d d 88 d d 38 d d d d 3 § H G Ch 3 3 0 03 3 0 0 3 O C Xh 3 3 3 03 3 0 0 3 0 Ph 1^ O T3 ' T3 3 03 O 3 PhO 'O'O'O 3 3 3 3 3 3 000 33 33 -3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Xh33xh33!-,33 033303330033333 300300300030 ' ‘ ' 3 ' 3 ' ' 3 ' 'O'O'O c3'0 cs^OTS cs'O'O 3 3 S 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 3 3 "O 'O 3 'O ' 0 ! 3 3 Xh 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 {jg; uoixoadsui 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 ‘ 1 ® ig: is ' *r 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i t t 1 c 3 i 12 ij ' 0 J 1 1 1 1 gton till 1 1 1 1 1111 till 1 1 1 1 d; c 3 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 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 ' ‘ 2 till 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 fill lilt 1111 lilt 1 - ' 1 1 G J » c 3 1 > \ W OQ 1 \ G ^ ' cc ^ -C w 1 1 03 ‘ oQ a? n ! GCG^-^ 1 x 3 ! IG zf) isl I33 33 1 Dubois rerdin; 1 .S 1 ‘42 Th 1 C 3 •§Q Monon Wheat: Liberty Goodla Wabas Knight Wabas Salem , I 3 ! lo^ ! 1 W C» 0 -M 1 w ! ^ 1 X 5 1 03 Mitche: Orleani ! i’ifl i^w 1 CO C« 1 1 G 03 j 1 ^ G 5 1 1 G G 1 1 ^^ 1 . 1 CO CO • 1 T— I 03 1 10 5 5302 5474 5620 5957 5961 5966 ill ) 1 1 — ( • 1 6 q C 5 18 x 88 'i 1 0 CD 1 ID 188 \ > 1 t-H CD ) i CD CO 188 1 S E 1 1 CO > 1 10 »D 1 CO 10 1 to LO lO 1 C 5 1 10 1 CO rH 1 ID CD 188 1 0 05 1 1 ID ID 1 o os 3-g IT3IOTJJO s 2-3 0) ^ 3 a 5S ® a -3* § O' •§ Hi . O o cq 33 •3 S -"3 >>•3 s S C'C o Xh C5 3 - 12 o 3 -g ^ .2 ^ 'Bb • o s CC 3 -'3 "3 ■So o 3 ■d S >31 O- 3 O O y2 rsf^K 4h * ♦ bfl ■Is 3 O 3 42 33 O cs 13 33 3 P, II "^■3 o '3 ♦ * * 43 O ' 1 ' O M ft : ^ O'O' 3 ' 3 < 1 ^ o frt PMO 2 "3 3 WcB §( 3 ’ O 33 O o Xj t- ^ 3 oS =303 ' ® O 02 O ^00 S =®o§ 3 hr S hfl 3 •S a ■o 3 o £ 2 ■3 .'^W I mWd 31 o3 Q ■s-1 '3COOCOOCO«— CMCD idoOGOOenoaoJO Oi O O O O 1 -H N r-I (m’ (N i-I rH tH iH OCO(MOTtHOOt>01>'?tH OLQ Mr-ndj-idddcoi-icodco 0COCOO«— *^1000 l:^G 0 C 500 C 0 OO': 0 CClQt^O 00 '^1 Q1 0 1 d 0 d 1 O) O O CO »-H C^l rH (N CO d O rH O CC IQ (M fM O C:» <0 O OlQOCiOOOr- 00 GO rH d ^ !>>'G T3 O Oft QJ O t>> .ft buj G to O POQ IQ CO LO ^ LQ CO Ql LQ IQ CO d 03 W > ^ ^ o O QJ G Q ft "ft ^ G 00mo ! ® ® c _ > IQ -r* I IQ W < > LQ iQ CD I IQ IQ < O 'G Us .S2 o 53 O bOtS-S ftG 2 OP wW 'Ko S I lo lO O c3 O ft ft ft ^ G ^ ft's O 0x0 S:^ G d CLi W2 Q-' ts. T5 ^ ^ . ji fcH O; ^ .d 0;^ccm . . LQ 1 .. _ LQ LQ CO CO S O .41 (« 10 ira Cj I cc I T.J O CO -f I to ft CD CO I 10 CO $ G G G PPP 1 I I I i G G H G G S O O o y rd G _2 C ft ft ^ 2 22 G G a; XX Pi J I ( w W ^iGin 5 2ga 3 S 6 CO' I ^ LQ lsf5 IQ IQ CO ^ CO CO ' )COC/DOOC/ 3 C 4 <(^OOCOOC( )Cotf?:>cococococ^cocQ< = COC 0 COCOCOCOCOCOC 0 ' > Cp Ci ' . , . CO CO LQ LQ LQ LQ LQ LQ LQ IQ X- ^ 05 ( _'S 2.2 ft‘g<3ft ^ftag OftT3ft ■ ft 2 . 1G G G IPho ' GO ^ G . ■'. O o OiX !h o pq ft ^ft “„co 0 Oft gftS ^ft G g gM ^ G G Gq G 03 O SlP^GQj tHh-l ^copq 03 ^-^. > _'■ *5q d OJ ft |ft> G CO ” 2h G y Ph2 I Goq o ft ^ o . PH p. to O So ftO G . >: G G G G IS "I ip 2 I O G OJ S ^ft« :So- c 0 0 0 0 0 0 G . . . G .2 G ft * ft + * G G 0 0 P .2 iH O o.-ft 0 G '§“ 8 ^ s'? g| G.ft'52m2„ p s tiflG o g;^.^ 5'gg20fq0| - ■ 2 :.c£P 0*0 S a 0 G 2 G G ®ft se “iS G ft G ft ft C 'G G C bfi'^ 2 x' g ft £ ^ to Q, ft G?? . to -Oi-HOOCci>i>‘COOoooi>tot'-»*Oioooo > O rH ! M c4 cJ O CO 0«5 GO 001-^ 00 l> 1 ’juaD jad ‘aa:(BAV ut ; aiqnios ‘o^H 'qsB^Od; O Oi r— iH o o 0050500COOCO ,-(OOT-H»Mi-lrHr-t 1 1 1 1 1 i t 1 1 1 1 1 1 lO’^C^rHrHtOOOtOtOOC o j C.^U310-^M<010<00500003«050 OOi-IrHO dddddddaaaadddaaarHr^ddddrndddaa daaa •juao aad ‘aApoB puB aiqn -[OS aa:[BA4. [Bjoj^ lO CO rH o o QD l© rH rH d d 0.22 0.55 0.33 0.57 rH rH idd 1 d rH rH d idd lod t o o 1.23 0.51 0.62 0.51 •:[uaD aad ‘oiub 3 -JO aiqni’osui jajBAV aAIJOBUI 0.15 0.17 (N to d d d d d d IrH'^ liOlOQ'^ I-HIO lQ05 1 COCO 1 1 ^ w ^ 1 CO CO 1 dd Idd Idddd Idd Idd 1 0.20 0.37 0.59 0.48 0.49 *:[uao aad ‘ciubS -ao aiqniosui aatBAi aAi^oy 8 a d d 88 d d 0.10 0.24 0.09 0.31 »OOi llO o CJ 1 Martinsburg Pendleton Paoli Memphis Bellview Edinburg Tell City Dubois - Campbellsburg .. Helmsburg Campbellsburg _. Cnrvdnn Dubois Columbus Campbellsburg _. Corydon Memphis Sellersburg Memphis Pekin Camden Cutler Kouts 1 Number j aa uoitoadsui 5458 5612 5379 5551 5457 5726 5378 5438 6465 6498 5573 6111 188 -H OO 1 -H to to to 1 to to 6112 6487 5404 5552 5469 6365 o to 5456 6060 6064 6396 [BIOTTJO 00®00C0C0C^r-H,-lrHoC>OO©So^^O-H^^ (ric^icococococococococococooococi: LOlOLOO^^^000^ 6310 6310 6311 6311 6311 6482 6482 6482 6605 6605 6627 6627 6006 6006 6000 6006 m 2 S " O 4) £ * s ® ft ^ 0^ CM > © opn ^ Q I S o M o w a m o -a ;a -a ' ° H .02 « o Co^ < is .::l ^ 3 ia ! rt . * O * a o o « H CS - O ) OJ >1 .2 =3a; £ jsa G « a o '0 .22 G 53 .Q Sh O'^ G cl 3 G +a 53 •2"' G^a gaap^- ra* * xi* * 5 o 22 a M a t2 “ o O oj O a 02 G.aa >0^^ o' 2a 0 1^ bfl g • c 3 ^ <<" : *• o 3 l!fi G 3 ._22 a O ^ (jti a G " +j ® +i . G ^ aa‘^1 o • o o) ^ ®a GO o* a* a 1 (M OLOcocoot^C 5 '*iHoi>a> rHCOCOrHrHCOCqC^rHC^O 'OOOl-HOt^O*^OCOrH lOOGOOOOOrHCOOOO 00 C 5 O^ 00 C 01 :^l>l>*OOi-« d o r-5 o d d d o d c4 (M* OQ CO LO o o I ^ C-l (N CO I o o o d o CM LO d d ' O O I o o CO CO lO CO CO o d tn 01 (M O r-f C 0 C 0 l> 00 C 000 C 0 ^XC 5 O doOOr-iMrHi-JodrH kO CO I CO CO rH I lO OOO I rH rH rH idd (N rH o d o I ^ TjH (M ' d d d *:^u^D aad ‘oiu'bS -JO aiqniosuT je^'BM OAi:j^>y (MCO lOOCOOCiOO (MCO l 3 ^ 3 ^ 3 ^ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 0 3 0 O ^ O CD Ph cs'O'O'O cS'O'O'O co'O'O (H333^-,333(-,33 C33333333333 30003000300 C 5 ;^|^PhcDPhI*<^ 0 Ph[=h aa; uonD 9 (isui 3 ^ .3 3 03 3 ^ t^SW V bfl . swS ft ft E o wo IBIOIJJO THr0 ® ® S S S 13 ra 13 00 >eHT-Hr-i <'gpft>^CD'^pW * C3* ft fH O kJ ft!^ o ;z; O^. 13 ■si i'§ ■fD o bo O 3W ^3 M caft g bcjii ~ o 3 O a pq w ' ID g hH ID-^ Q O D 4-> 5-1 D P o tm ^ OS .N 3^ ‘2a 2mS« !«aoQE-ic» PM b3 s-i _3 9 t>i'9 §s ao;a O 2'S g-s ^ CD ® 3 3 ogi^iSgo ■ft 2 3 5 3 OjD <2 c» H W a cc c-i «l-l + ♦ Sh * * 3 3 w w 69 O 00 O lO O O 05 O O O O 05 O O O O 05 O 05 O Oi rH O pH O r-3 O 03 'O T3 ^3 03 'O fl fl fl ^ a 30 “03 ■K 3 ® O (M 00 CO a> CiP u 3 3 3 3 O >|5vt3 jiJ CO © s ^33 -C 2 o o hSO pq d-g. oa o -S d |S 3 S S S s go a O . 3 I O O C5 1> O O CO O Tt4 I I O O Oi lO CO O COIOCO'^Ot-H CO 00 (M* (N TjH lO lO CO CO* CO 1> 05 O O O 05 (N (N CO o 1 > 05 CO • GO O iC lO O t-H O O O O CO (N (M O O O 00 rH rH 1 -H (N o o o CO 05 lO P-1 (M o o o o o o o o o CO CO 05 C5 00 05 05 o o o o o o o Ol LO 00 Tii i>. CO o o o I CO CO I J>- I o o 00 lO oi r-* I— I (N o d o I Jr^ 1 d d CO oi oi t-h CO ^ d d d 05 00 o O I-* O o o o P o d d c d d G ^OPOOPOOOOO^O'POOOOO G fl G G o o ^ Ph C3 "G ^ ^ G G G G G GOO 0(^^P^ bJ] S'^ O cn S OP (X» ^ OQ Ph i>* I 03 CM I I rH ( ' 'is i 8 : 3 S s> >ri<3 ,i «1 o §2 r, >0 3) 2 3 3 o > > 3 0 0 h-lOQ C> 1 &- IS © I R) I 50 1 ^ iiT^rHi' ■ — ' pH I CO © < iO I lO © ( I ii 'O »H > a ^ 05 3 o t^s a SWm '3 S' 53 ) 50 Cpq -3 25 g 5 ^ o 3 .=« .2 a o Ph >73 . c« " 3 O o H 5303! 3 (u fH 3 X3 3 ►> — 3Ph-(5« 2 o a 3 0 3 3 fp O 33 05 • 5 o <3 3 w s 30^^ t-P . to 2 H a G3 ii Jg w 43 o o *0 o ^ Q5C»'2 3 ^•9o «n C) O53 3 o Ph jOhh h-5 O 05 CO O O 00 05 00 CO 05 d o o o o 10 LO TtH LO o o d o CO (M CO CO d o o o 0000 0000 d c3 'O TJ G G G G CS3 G G G G G O O O O O Ph Ph Ph Ph .3 05 3 O mOKQ gg; 05 <25 © 05 C5 ssisi o o 05 05 00 O C5 MM cHH ®ll ■45.'^ 2 - !5. c 25 s 2 s a gpH >.^00 25 Oo rOa^atnO Ph oMop^ c o 3 ^MO' ^ ” r O d O O [ <.\i-djjCO05rtS K gc» 005 i-sCa 3 o p 3 3 a a ^ iS„a'E5 2 ||S|s 3 O d^ . 3 .Si 3 ^ r d 05 3 5 d S c '3 a; a 3 3 !-i 05 Q § 53 a 3 !h ^ ^ CC K* Ph s _* * + 3 <5 CD ^ 50 cc • CP Q) 4 h u-ti 3^ 3 (h C ms ■Sg >m a a o o •a 5 "^5 ” g > 1 t, 3 ; a 3 ^ rd C 5 3 © y O ; !p ' O _ CQ I 3 • ! a a a 55 . 1 1' to tc pH 3 3 3 £ i 43 .3 d 5 O 3 1-5 O ft ft 5 ■• 3 3 9 a a > 41 3 3 o O O ! 72 72 !-. t. tp 3 0 • . -3 <3 <3 Sh PJ fd <3 3 3 3 O) ( 1 ) w w w 3 3 pH 2 3 3 3 •3 -3 a 3 43 43 43 3 " d 3 3 o 3 H a 4H +H (-, t- tp pS 3 3 d 3 3 Ui 72 Pi frj p^ Pm pH J J J J J J J Report of Inspection of Fertilizers Collected in 1916 (continued) 70 0 - •JU30 jod ‘lT310i | 9 . ■5U9D J9d ‘9iqniosui ga 3! 0 qu99 a9d PE d ‘P9:^J9A0J pti'B 9tqniog OCSOlOOOlO'tOlC OOOOOCOOOif-HOJ o 6 cirHOrHi-!(MCic^c^ CiCiOiOOiOia^Goooooooood co-o O l>* O rH r-I O rH ci O 0 > CO o o •;uaD jad ut aiqnios *qs'B;Oc[ OOOOOOOOt o o or— •;uao aad O O X 00 (MC 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0000 iG 0 OOl>'^O i-lr-IrHr-trHr-lrHr-IrHOOOOrHrHOO 00 0 o o *:juao jad ‘aApD'e puB aiqn -los aa^'SiW o o o o o < m 10 o C5 o o *;uaD aad ‘oiubS -JO aiqniosui aar^BM. aApoBuj 00000000 'i^uaa jad ‘oiubS -JO aiqniosui ja^BAi aAT:^ 0 Y 00000000 10 op o o •;uaD aad ‘oruBSjo aiqnios aa:^BA\. I-H C1 ^ ooo*ooooc> O O O o o •:juaD jad ryuoiumu puB sa:jBj:} -Tuut a^qn^os '^OO-^lOLO^COr-l 00000000 c 3 : 3 s 3 ^:; 2 o 3 ^ 3 p :3 : 30 ; 300 D 000 O ^ ^ ^ Ph Er 1111 .- 'aT 3 T 3 ' 3 'CT 3'0 cS'a- 3 -c « aadociaosHaact^citHH oooooooaoooaoao ca'O :jT3'C5'a ^ HaMaaa^-ia c 33 os 3 aaaa 30300030 O Em O 6 ^ E^ Eh O 32 g m 32 3P QJ ^ 3 c3 Q. H) !h C O S Pt 3 03 c 3 W j ^ ;5o l-a 73 1 o o I I 03 33 C bS O.S, o>- S -33 OWK ^ 3 .H >r§ O O O o §'t3'a ”03 03 3 3 3 0 0 OEHfil I >33 Pw^ 9 • S-* C3 fl 0 L> n O rri '^® 3 c 3 33 Hl!^og^Q 3 S^'a® .33®tHO'H .®O^Shi®^®>h EH OP mw p p o o CCOQ o f— c ^ Q o S ^2 §5 X: Eh O (M LO (M (M O CO o CO r-I O rH O (N CO 1> CO lOCOI>lOCOLOCD'^lCTtlOCOt-H'<^CO OOOOrHOrHOOOOrHOOOOOCOOOOOOOOi-HOOOOO o !>• o o ^ 00 00 05 ci CO ■ 'C00r-«005000’^C5050000' •COC^ItMrHr-IOOOiCOOOOOOOOOOod' • lOOrHinOi-lOOOrH >rH<=>O0006c5t^0506 00 00 00 lO lO O O (M (M O O O C-1 CN O O P P P POP 0^0 n-l <=>^-1 Pi fi C! P! 03 3 0 3 0 ^ 0Ih 1-1 "S J 2^ p p P o 'ooocoomor-ooso rHr-iC’^lOOOCOT*HTtilCI>CO’ OOOOOOOOOOr-I tmcot^ooooc S OJ 3 O jg3toi5g®totog^groootototoj ito^^to^oc^^f^J^feSStoto! l-ji-^tl^'^-THiOtotototototototolOl tooSSoS^S tototo^totoSS o 3 ^ 3 c3 3,03 oE- oS 3 03 ® QJ 1-3 3 O '-3 5«-i !'S§h : 333 I 6 w “o o ' 3 O w-pq Seh § o .9 Q dAn So £ O ' H “ .9s S® S 2 -3 w “ 90 !=i 30! ^ 3 O 3 <|J Sww 3 o 3 iS M ^,§8 ^ QjO a; .5?W ^ M .£» 3 m >; OB oj Eh o) 3*3 o o 3 3 f£ o Og Hi M 3 o bo tiO g SS s . 3 3 EnEq S * 3 0 8^5 s-S 1 ”^0 1 pq oW 3 . • pq .O^wS Eq S W S pq S E 3 3 * 3 * O O O 3 3 3 3 O M o +J 3 bo H, 3^ 3033 9 N . rH O) ~ So^ £0 3 3 o N 3 -3 "£ O 1^ 3 m 02 CC 3 . . 0) 3 3 3 3 3 3"“ r 3 r u . 3 3 H H P, H 3 <1^ 0 ,3 00 o u u ^ o H-l < 1-1 . < 1-1 . o 33 3 o) m to 0) ^ tn m 3 to TO o ri 3 -2 o5 H 0.032 W® poo o x: g Eh Eh 4 -) Eh 1 1 1 1 1 Report of Inspection of Fertilizers Collected in 1916 (continued) 72 .2 5 CL( ^ o Ph 53 •:juao jad •?U90 aad ‘aiqniosuj •juao jad •pa^aaAaj pu^ 9iqnios 'luao jad 'ja^'BAv ui aiqnios 'tis^iod; - •;uaa jad ‘l^iOJ, •juaa jad ‘aApon pun aiqn -los aa^nAi in;oj[, Nitrogen, N, •;uaa aad ‘aiunS -ao aiqniosui jaiBAv aAijonui •luaa jad ‘oiunS -JO aiqnfosui jajnAi. aAi;ov 'luao jad ‘otunSjo aiqnios ja^nAi •;uaa jad ‘s:qBS uiuouiuin puB sa^BJij -t’u ut aiqnios Ja:iB^\\ Sample taken at 1 Number I aa uonosdsui I'BPIWO 2^ §8 S a O CO O O t I O Ci O lit) J JrHOOOQOCiCOlOr^' t O O IC GO 01 O 00 I t-h rH (N 000(M ' ■^* 00 0-1 (M* Oi 00* 00* Oi 00 Ci O Oi O Ci o Ci Ci 00 GO 06 01 oi 01 1-^ O O CO Ci o o OOOOOOOOOOt J-H i-I r-I rH o r-I rH r-i* r-I rH r 10000 OOCiOGOOOGOai< OOi-HOOOOOi OO'MC0C0rHC0'^Ol>OJ>l CO 00 o o CO G^l rH O O O CO »-« 1 CO ^ d d o o o o o 0000000 d o* d d d 00000 o ^ ^ ^ o d d d d d Oto C sS «0 Si'S ~ 'G — ' > O tc ” C3 O M 3 § HH N cc tm M j:; g G 3^ G M O tu PS hPWP^OOSPMO 1 g ^ G. 5 rt I O ^ ^ ) g G i^w c; o o .5 ^Ph ^ c O 2 . CJ - n t2 • ^ w ^ S ^ ^hQ ^ ^“>§G -■ .G“ G.Q Qjaj'3t«q G I s 5 S '25 2'gs G+J •SoSOlJ'-'+Ji.^ .floGGaGjgt-i u 3 o v Ph M . • W O CO rH O C l Irt O r-i to 1> rH CO 50 in O O O D1 O CO i-H r-H r— I-H I— I ,-H O o rH 000 00 (N •^lOGO-^iClC^- O O d O O O O oj CO I CO CO CO d d I d d d (M <>J I r-^ rH CO d d I d d d 00 1000 CO CO I rH CO 01 O rH I O rH o 00 « o d d rH CO I 1 s ^ 03 ■3 .9 ' G ■ » Sh S G a 0X3 (O G G |-!M ? pa-SsligO ^ ^ S M • S ph^qW W0 a> Ho 6 g*^ w 73 IC O (N O clO'^rHCOO’^rHOCOlCXOOC^l-OOCOOOOCDlCOOOC5?-H(MOTli CO CO* CO i> 00 (N (N CO LO CO J> lO CO O O I d d r4 < IOOO IC o o o o O CO O (M CO 00 d CO OOO CO oq 000i05’^C0Cl>00O0i00^C0*^,-iT*l .S|S«n d d o.-ti T3S' a 05 - 03 . o a d =8 5 — . -u o 03 03 03 Sh 2 ^ S O d oj ctl Sh Oh g^‘«|52gl d 'Mir d tuo s ■Sag « omI d d d >< mi 3 :s 03 O a . o, ftS^ o .a a " 03 S ^ O w Eh =3 ‘2 ^ m'm;2i|m‘ *~3 m K^ m d o ^ ^ o 13 a a o mSM am« •^20 o-a a xh 3 a P o O ^ •S O 02=8 -a di d 5 o 33 d^ o 33 i:q (U M 2 ■S ^ 3 ipl I J r z: Cl] 5^ ^ ^ z: (P a a a a O O O O (i; o U tn ;h ^ tH *713 . 'O (P (p (P >73 c; W W W W d) w c^ cj ai c c^ ^ ^ ^ ^ tH ^ U O O O 3 O ^ Sm -M 13 :3 IS p 0) a plicih mm m I I I I M » t- 00 CS © H bfl* - , .aow ; c be 3 (p :am o , o w« - . 3 §.a g’agd^i'sm ^ >3 d 02 ^ im cc m be* be be^ be^ .2 02 W W W W 2^ m^ S bo -M a X_oj dcD .a O O hj h O 1 a a a a a >00000 o T? 'd Sh (p (p W «2 O c^ 03 n- fP id Poo S tH P ^ ^ CO (1| CU 1 1 1 -o -d ds 0) 4) to OJ 03 01 3 3 3 m m m I I I 74 o 03 •JU 90 aad •JU 80 jad ‘aiqniosui •^uao J 8 d puB aiqniog •1U90 J9d ‘ja^BAi. ut aiqnios ‘qsB^Od ':^uao jad •:^uao aad ‘aAt:jo'B puB aiqti -lOS ja^BAi. IBiOJ, •:>uaa aad ‘oiubS -ao aiqniosui aaiBAi. aAir^oBui •luao aad ‘oiubS -ao aiqniosui a^:^BAl aAijDv 'luaa aad ‘DiuBSao a'lqnios aagB M •^uao aad BiuouituB puB sa^Ba^ -lu ui aiqnxos aa;BA\ aa uopaadsui TBTOTJJO © 0 ^ ao * 0) ^ S a Si ■ 0 ” o Cl '•t 00 m lO IC CO O CO OO OrHOOOT-HOOOOOOOOOOOOO )0 OLQOOOI^-OOlOOeOOCiCOOrH^OCM 1 Cl 00 CO ci ci o o 00 00 * CO o 05 C 5 o o> 00 * ci o 00 r-- O 00 C5 CO O rH C5 O »-H* CO X ■ tH O d O O O X < r-l d (M X Cl Cl I-H ( O O O O O 00 XCOT^^m'r^':OOXOO^Ot^T^^lOTt^X 05 >0 r4rHOOOOOOOOrHr-»i-irHOOOOO ■ X X I o o I io I d X I CO d I o o X lO I CO X I o o I o o I o o I X I o o O I d I-H I o o QJ •M fl ’ fl ;h C Ch c 3 C 3 ;3 D O P O OPh o^( a> ^opoooooo:^oopoopo »f 5 > 0 Peru Jeffersonvi >>2 o« 'S tH HO LQ n~ LO {5 33 GO Ol -+1 is 33 IQ lb ID IQ IQ 3 o o 3 3 3 tD5 j ^ 35 0 1 ^ 1 0 IS isis is ii a> S O ro W CS W fn ^ 3 g g,3 ^ 5 - or o QJ O O «O !>0 ^ X ^ lO IQ lO lO 33 33 < ir - o e> ' ^ to Cl Cl ■ <0 CO gg 3 o S8§1 1 3 3 «o 3 3 .0.00 &1> ! g S S 3 S -H -r*< -tl OD CD CO OO CO 3 O « -1 tB M 03 3 !W 2 QJ u S O o • ^ o ’p ^ SS Q) O w ^ s ? w c5 03 ’c3 (p a o) -d G ft 3 fca33 js .2" SS's^ .5^ M 53 „ 02 3 '• 41 W.HW 3 ^ 3, m O i-i ^ "H • ^ ^ 0-5 OJ Q a 3 2 ^o'S s 3 s ‘ " ^<1 0 02 V V«, 3 3 o w o . " ft 3a8 o 0'S ■5 o 5 3 3 to 3 — og's^i^ .Si !h 3 QJ g00 S . ., TD .a + t bJ]+ * 2^ W H S 0 3 33 O Mx: a I Occ bn o3 W S » S O fes W ^ I 0 O FU mQ O 2 ^ ^ 2 .2 g S p.f^ 5 o 0 2 Qj 3 3 CD 3 ^ pq ftt- t- sst. O ^ OJ O^ ^6 ^ — -tH1> i-IOOOOtJhCOIOOI o o o o O lO 1> lA O o CO GO 05 1> CO 1> O J> 05 05 05 O rH rH O O 00 00 00 O Cq O CO 0 '^ 05 L 001 >r— (NOO CO CO CO CO oq (M rH IICIOCDCM 0qrHi^rHCqcqC »(>q(N(NC>4 OrHrHrHrHrHOOrHOOOOrHrHOOOrHi-HOrHrHrHfMC^Ji 1 CO IC rH J 00 CO m 1> CO 05 1 r-t CO 05 ^ 1 cq CO (N 1 cq rH O rH 0.60 0.50 0.53 0.69 2.02 2.15 1.53 05 05 05 lO lO LO o o o !>• !oJ>00C0C0 1 CO CO 1 -H O ICOO5(>iC0CO I00O5 ITJHCO tH iooooo ioo ioo (N 1 O CO IC<10rHJD^t^ rH 1 CO LO IJt>lOLOCCO iH IOO liHiHrHrHrH 1 1> ic 05 1 cq j> lo CO 1 o lo LO 1 ITS cq (N CO 1 o d o 1 d o rH d O O 1> rH 1 CO LC !>■ lO lO CO ^ 1 ^ o d d d o i d o o rH rH rH IC lO lO O O O CO tocooq-^j^ Ij>l> 1 CO CO ic 05 JD- CO O IOO IOOOOO 1 1 2.39 2.95 2.44 1.64 1.03 0.53 1.33 CO 00 00 t'' 1 o o Jr- oq (M (N CO 1 (N C 1 CO CO rH CM (M I iO LO 1 (M (M • 1 • • 1 • • O IOOOOO IOO IOO 0.66 0.33 0.40 1.03 0.93 0.72 0.62 0.67 t UO 1 <0 CO 1 CO oq CO 1 ic iH (M o t o o o 1 o o d o o o J> i> 1 00 J>* ir5 CO rH O iH » CO m m d d d d 1 o d d CO CO CO o o o o o o LO l-^COlOOfH IIOOQ 11005 CO 1 (M CO O O O 1 Oq CO j rH O O IOOOOO IOO lOO CO 1 I> CO 1 05 05 rH t- t- CO l(MO iCO'^t-COC^ O IOO IOOOOO 1 O IC O 1 O ^ CO rH 1 O rH IH 1 O rH rH rH 1 d d O 1 O O O O t- CO 00 m 1 Tj< 00 rH O O »H rH 1 rH CO tH O O O O 1 O O O lO lO lO o o o O IOOCDOOJ>» lOO 1 CO LO O IOOOOO IOO lOO^ O IOOOOO too IOO 0.10 0.00 0.08 0.00 o.os 0.08 0.08 0.13 uaaauaaaa c3PD;3c3Pj3;3;3 ;3ooo;ooooo cs'O'O'O'O ^Haaafl^^aaa 173:3^33:303333 300003000 O Ph Si O ^ ^ cs'O'OtS cS'O eg'O'O'O'3'3 oS'^'^ cS'Ol'O sjtS cS'O'O o3'0'OT)'0'0 033S3OdO033O3i3Oc33Oc33O033033O033OOOO 300030300000300300303 0 0300000 'O a g tn o 03 032 Cl I 0 O u oms 5 o fl a ^ S ^ oSMw ^ ® ( S-, &X) O 33 2 3 -u 3 ft'r; o ap CO X r-J 73 hDl-lWO '0^.5 So'O tuo -o (5 _ o CO 'u 33 ffiSS IrH icpcgooiiji ^0703 li-H ICOOOX^I"’' lA if3 Irt 1 CO I lO lO C5 ' 3 3 5 C ® SrS .U'isl CO £ o o MO^MO 'P'S m 3 t> o q O oo ^-1 X § 3^ S'£ ^§8g 1^ 1— ( (^3 lo CO I iS) ifi in CO CO 3 O §)« sS^ ^ kTO'^xi 332§“ 83 ^ ! o I 02.5? ■gs o tio s o) ^ M 3 o 3 oS I? ^ H S T m U ^ ? c3 5 I >. w .ti 3 o3>^g3-flJ il>qgEH .^* * B* •£§*'*.$? g.* * * MW pq r pq |S 'i?isgx.sll •M- "^iJ^OqSgO'O o.-ddaqip .CO .3 03 . 3 - • O do ^3 « fe rx ^ o3 M-i ~ 33 5 j Cl o oj CO W^M >.2 -■ ■ so CO S|ga.i|wga 3“ S oS 3-0^ o W MMjg tiflW MSxqShj'gSq • 03 . o a • - 1 ^ cs o 'S 1-5 1 -; o ^ '5 QJ QJ 'I' QJ ♦ 3. 3, O. CC CC M

. o -o (P to O P X 0) O E ■ -tJ (D Pi I S2S^ n !> o 3 a!t>OS ( I 1 ' ' 3 a> > S 3 S‘5 M . O w- O p: bm. :!^|t fen 0 c S P I ft'^ -q

p 2 (D TO ' a c P 355 ll?i 1 I I p rt X ” •2 ai ’S ;o tn — ' 5oo > S ^PMQpq 10 tH CO Q 10 @ S) CO ^0 OJ s ^ s 03 KSffi Irt t; e> I-H C 5 -h e> 03 ICO 10 CO T 3 t£ P 2 '-o 2 o M> b £.33 2W Km a p s « O t O ;s a a Sa ” C 8 T)* G G a a o 0 Ml (U . N p S c 0 O) 2 ^ J ® g G' O GGIP CO o s °S 5 l| o o gO =0 K. P ^ G^ G eg •2|p g <0 - ^ Oi 03 ! G ^ G O G ^ M ag 03 M 02 ^ '^03 *' -M g a . . . PggP^MMPH SoacG . . . . buGGoj rPejl: GrSP^KKP^lPH ofl'pK G^M M-"S* ■£'5 I— ’ M r-* L .2.aG' Pg0 0 V- ^ ro f o O .Si a a o ^.2 •GO geo' bjO G O I O t 3 M 0 :o G „ ' G<^ ! ’MGS I — I M O 0^ . G G G J OJ faX)G O cS . C 3 G G M^^-G^a S * * cc r o r o G o 0 Gq K! 03 fli w ni euo ^ tic a*< M G M £ .12 P .12 gS'ai? * G >■ M CD e>>g S-^ Sat*, Pi (Jj 0^ g O ,® a G G o H- M G, P^ G P=804^M ;Ga2 03 M • O) uJ j» ;z; <; x: K . G * M g G G M o 00 G 03 M H g t g ^ G G ^E-IMf^r . . 1c M * G O G 0 P 4 > ’g P ;00^Cd< •COC<1000lOCOC<10rH(MOlOOiCOOOiOOO 5O>oddl0k0lCC rH r-I rH d d rH I LO I d d o s-D O O O I o o : d o Oa5'»!hrH(MOC':«‘0 CodcOCOCOrHi-ndoodo IrHTt^lOlOt^lDOOO^rHOOt^eOtOOOiCNCOCi lr4dddddddrHdddd(drH(ddd CO lO o o d o CD lO (M o o o o o o C<1 (N CO OQ d o d d 1 ID 00 I d d O O' CD t- CO (M CO (M o o o o I CO CM I d d I CO c C •-H !_, O P ® O C “ 03 QJ W :3 PL,0 03 Mlz; I ^ o g d d g)^ 0 ‘"'ScDdlw’pJ 0^0000-g0q;^ G.bl CC0 P I; pW o 0 ^ o 53 _ p 0 ° ^ 33 3.-.( 0-5^ o Mw O-Pc P :s ■p p s p M ^ ■^■Sd^ OP .'3^0 2 20S-”SS^>'^ w 0 ^ <1 HJ g> - M 03 P - (B O CU M M W GO CO d LO d ic lo IC lO i> CO d d rH CO CO r-i 05 CO CO CO d CO CO •:^ua^ aad ‘DIU'BSaO aiqnios 'ja;^A\- Sh O Sh O d d d d CO ^ < d d 1 ■:}uaa aad BiuouiuiB puB sa:jBj:) -T*u ut ayqn^os Ja:jB^\\ d d o o o o o o 03 03 d d c3^ tH G t-. 0 C3 3 C3 ^3 33 O 13 O a a 03 73 73 73 73 53 73 a a a a ;; a c3 a a a a a 3 a o o o o a o O pq Pil 0 a _ 2^ a a a o 0pq a_ a ^ a ^ vh a M a a a a a a o a o CI^iOPh §73 -a '3X3 ^ a a a a a a a a a a o o o o OP^PhI^iPh a'O'O a a a a a a a o o OPrPh a'^'O a a a a a a o o O Ph P4 aa uonoaclsui 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 j j ! 1 1 la ' ' ' 1 "S 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 [ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 > 1 1 1 > 1 1 I ( ! 1 » > 1 > t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! ^ > ' ' ' 1 S; 1 1 1 1 C 1 1 1 '2 1 a > 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 ^ ^ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ift 1 o 1 ^ lo 1 l4 1 1 'ft' i i2i2a 1 ' 33 O O 1 _ , >03X3 I o io 1 ;-i 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 ll 1 1 ! o Paoli Rush Pitts Cory 1 ft 'O a 'O 1 s 1 c« Iffl 1 ft iw 19 1 ^ iw l'C;9 ] <1> s ^ 1 ^ o •«a2 1 05 1 1 tO CO to CO 1 O ifc- 1 2h 1 s 1 CO t- to to 1 to tO 1 in i8 3 S 1 ^ CO IM Cp 18 1 to \\^ 1 CO t to to to CO ii iS 1 ^ 1 5l 1 in 1 CO o 1 to to iii ^ ‘c8 ® CO 05 05 05 05 ^ 05 05 CO CO CO CO ^ CO CO s@ ip lO CO CO lO to U5 lO to »o lO to »o «w > o ? X X a» i> 2 a a; a X3 CC - o >1^2 ft a rt a a s (>,co o o"-! a'-' 02 O a a rt U 4-J S r. ft-i :a a . +-» I— I a-i o '<-1 a 73 -ft ^ pp O ? ft o »A ^ >10 ■ Ph a Ph o >* s® 1-2 1 -n a » a S'^ 8^ ft -SM d ^■SOftO a a W Ifl a 33 ^ S g 9 S ft -a 2 -a O £ .9<1 5^ a i ^ : o“S? 3 ca a -3^ o a a " a O •0O go g a ft ft_^ ^ a<; a> a Ph .a ■§73^ g a o* .9 0 a £ 79 3 0 0 0 aoo c3 fl 3 0 3 0 CZJ o 00 q 1 1 1 1 (III till in CM rH j> o 00 1 00 C5 Tti i> T#i in CO in 00 05 j 1 1 1 1 in 1 1 oioqcoinoooorH rH (N ni (N CO r-l CO OOOOOOrHrHOO i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 o o 1 1 1 1 t 1 rHi— li—trHOrHrHrH 1 1 O JC^ 1 i-H 00 00 1 Oi 1 00 1 CO t 00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 oq 1 CO 1 rH 1 O 1 CO 1 1 CO 1 CO » « CO 1 1>- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 rH 1 CO 1 J 1 1 1 1 1 $ 13 CO 1 irt 01 m 1 ft Oa 1— 1 ■ 1 10 1 r-I O o \ 1 oq 1 oq 1 < 1 O to 1 O 1 rH 1 O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I o 1 1 1 t 1 1 0 0 i-R 1000 1 O CO CO 1 TtH CO (N IS j ^ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 GO 1 X^ 1 05 1 O 1 J> 1 1 oq to to 1 oq i i-h i 1 1 1 1 05 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 in CO 1 in rH in 1 oq CO CO 1 in in in 1 1— • rH rH 1 1 O 1 o 1 1 to i O to to to 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 1000 1000 1 o in o 1 in ^ in i 1 1 X^ 1 CO 1 in 1 o 1 1 1 1 1 1 to 1 00 1 in 1 00 1 1 1 oq 1 rH 1 rH 1 1 CO t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 rH 1 oq 1 1 1 1 1 CD rH 1 0 05 00 1 J> CO m 1 Tfi CO CO 1 o o o 1 1 rH 1 oq 1 1 to to to to to 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 o 1 I 1 1 1 1000 1000 1 1 o c* ICO 1 in 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 "riH 1 1 in 1 r-t ; in 1 to to to t -H to 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 o 1 1 i 1 1 1 t oq 05 05 1 X- 1 r-* 0 1 0 0 rH 1 o o o 1 1 o 1 o 1 1 to to to to to 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 o 1 1 1 1 1 1000 ' 1000 1 O O (N » CO O (M 1 1 1 CO 1 in 1 rH 1 (M 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 00 1 rH 1 rH 1 rH 1 Tt< 1 1 CO 1 1 C 1 CO » 1 1 1 t 1 1 o 1 o 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 00 oq oq i ^ co o 1 0 oq rH 1000 1 o o o 1 1 O 1 O 1 1 1 o to to to to 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 o 1 1 1 1 1000 1000 1 1 1 1 "S '' 1 '■ y ' ! ! "fl I'fl 1 y 1 y ', ^ 1 ! '^ 1 ^3 i 'O g 1 ^ 1 1 ^ I 55 T3 1 3 i y I 3 1 1 ' i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 '2 1 ! '''g '' '' '' 32 1 , ' y 1 1 , S''' 3 ' ■ ' S-OToa R| 3 3 3 03 3 3 3 "Sis! o3 "O R '3 R, 3 c3 3 -<333 C '"S ' C '"S 'fl ‘S 03^ 03^ c3po3;3c3po3;octf3o3;: 13 1 3 i 3 Q ' 1 0 ! c3 D 9§ 2^'§ 3 3 3 y 1 1 1 y 1 1 1 3 ' ' ' 3 ' ' ' jrj3'03 C3333 !h333r,333 33333333 303030303030030 3 O OPq 3 0 0 30003000 (5 ^ 0 pR ph ^ o5 Oo3 -M 03 t>fi > 3 O 3 O MS >'^ 9 0^5 0CM ife! ift ® < a 0 !« c3 T3 'III ■8g>a S-3 g a®a ^ 5B Qj "S "S ■S'^'9 9 a 9 'cy'Sa ''fl.2r5.S2 3 fl 3 O fl caW OrQ O 1 o fl o of9 O O ■o 3 3 4 :> o c3 ^ o OQ O 3 3 03 ^ ra N — fl 9 flS S oS o^ 3-S<1 flS- aSsf fl -t^ fl 3 3-“ C3 O 3 3a S.9‘^ A 3 03 .9 AM §o i R( O fl=a fl • A3 ^<|.S 3 31 wa <1 O 9"^ O 3(^ 3 ^ H ’S . • CC ‘d 3 >■ „ 3 O0 !>> ' S ft ^9 3 O 02 0 Rh O) 0-- .2 3 go5 aS' 9 2S o O .9 Sh 3 ,9Sd.9S K « w w w 3! S OPr^ Os s’® a '^ '?* . .2-9 fl_g ':;t o ^ ^ ^ u ^ Q, to 3 I 9 3 S . 9 0 g ^ o -llai '3 M ° O a 02 ^ o +3 (1) ms to 3 .t! a; c3 •fl ft ft-fl y I> J7 y 9 S 9 R fl c3 3 fl CR O! M Ph 1 I M> 03 y pq"" S " y R • bcfl H 3 pR ft 9 Q) 9 O y O a . a y a y H! y w c3 C c3 R a: y 55 y R +3 R 53 0) 53 Ph MCR • I i I TOTPUSOt- © o o o c U1 "fl ^ C<1 M Ida 35 a (m y c3 s 5 S jR ” £ 9 s ^ ; M •rt y y O), Of/) ^ _ y y y a sa a rri tl m _S y a ft§2 g «M -M C ^ Mill. Report of Inspection of Fertilizers Collected in 1916 (continued) 8o •^uaD jaci .a 1 ? ! o9i ' C 0 •juaD jad 1 a^ §2 ‘aiqniosui c'G ' Ps oj quao jad •pajjaAaj X^u-B aiqniog o ir> ic (N ^ 'M (M to 00 to (M CO lo o - OOOOOOOOrHi ' lO CO CO CO ' I O 00 00 C 5 I r-i O O O CO CO I-H rH d O Ot^OOOtOOi-HiOCOOOCOOOCOOOCOCOCOrHOCOMH'^i^r-tOtOCOOli-'OeOOOOO'^CO oocioot^cooociCiOoocot^cococococoj^i^oooooooooooo>oGoococoo 6 •:juoD jad ui aiqnios ‘qs^^Od: 0 O CO O O Ci O 1 01 Ol Ol O O T-H 1 ■;u9o jad cooococoooo 04 >i>co« i-HC< 101 r 4 rHrHOOodi OlrHO^lCOOOrHCiOO I T-I r-H r-^ d 1-4 d r-< •^uao aad ‘aApo-B puB aiqn -IDS aa^BAi ib;oj. CO CO CO to to dodo ooooooooooo to Ol Ci to ^ CO o o o o 'luaD aad ‘oiubS -JO aiqnfosui ja:jBAi OAt^OBUI to CO to o d d d COOOOOr^T-iOOCO^O tO'^Tji^lOlO^COCOCOl^- odoodoododd *;uaD aad ‘oiubS -JO aiqTifosuT ja^BAi aAi^oy rJH CO O O d O Tti-tiCO'^CO'^'^'^'*^^tO'^ oddodoodddd ^ CO CO CO o d o d •:juao aad ‘oeubSjo aiqn[Os ja^B^i 1-H Ol • <>1 CO too o o I o d I d d o o o o ooooooooooo o o o o d o d d •:juao aad ‘squs BtUOUlUIUpUB -Tuut aiqu^os Ja:jT 3 A\ t*- to I 00 O I to 00 rH T-i I O O I O O o d I o o j o d Oq GO CO CO 1 -H o O O o o o d OOOOOOOOOOO c 3 ^: 2 c 3 : 3 ::c 3 o;o 5 c 3 : 3 p: 3 ; 3 c 3 : 3 o;o^^j 3 : 3 ^ 3 : 3 c 3 ^ 3 : 3 Dp::^::;^ 3 ^::^c 3 : 3 o 5 ;o;j :3oo::oo:3ooo!oooopoooooooo:3ooooooooooo^oooo t 1 1 qj I G c 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 i 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 ( 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 III 1 1 1 I 1 ' 1 1 !=l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 i 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 I 1 1 t 1 t 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 lo2 1 1 1 i 1 1 0 1 ! i 1=1 1 1 0 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 ■!-:> i" ® ' i ^ i '^ ' i 'Q tD la, .3 1 bfi S 0 1 o2 I 1 i.2 '1 I o3 ' tUO 1 II & III 1 .^2 ^ CO 1 C3 S tJ3a! ' iH 0 'p 1 cS 'C •- > a » 1 ^ -G ^ Pekin Morris -_ Cicero __ Valparais Denham Colfax __ Worthing Franklin 1 tc a: ® 1 1-2 9 ' >-'2 a ' i=! “ ^ S 2 S) ® -c _§ 1 S c'S'S'S o ^ o 1 ,s-,cSaQ3aiO®--®4:;(-( 1 'on 'PQfi iOmKQQi-IWSSccPs ' i 6 ! <; acE uoI:^^^cIsuI :g& I'^cooOi i^ScOl^OO’^S'— I ifHco ® S 5 (S isi I -rfH r- ® 00 C 5 ^ 1 $ Ift I « in ininS>co iiniftioiniTiO'mco imm ® s s ^iS ' bfl IT3PIJJO iniaoooooooooooej Ln£OCC>'®tOCO®O^C>®<®?b®COCOcp 50 « 5 c£>® 5 C>OcO'®^OtO a >'3 a i 2 * 06 !» it it a c. Ol c3 73 M (a ft c ^ a . o o 00 CO cy C -•5 3 ^ frt Qj QJ O' aj W o . -c .2 a o 5 •r'l.SS <1^5 o 53 ^ 'S sf^ i5 3 (is -2 3 Jh fl rj O) Cl'”' o - ”m . .SM-pW ui c» t 4 i cq-^IQO

D cc > 2 *'-' ,Q| 1 fn ’°a ; ^'iZ nteed 8i CO (M C bJD W M ^ - ^ w P s : . rt O fe ^ H M ® W tiB S £ S S 5 S o o o o o ^ ^ (D «M o c 0 ^ M-t ' 0 Ui (X) (V w w 0 cd d pd rd Jv 0 0 d ^ ^ 1 I I « ft.S - S § ' £ "S „ . WP^OH m S £ o o Si ti ^ P,l 3 PJ o PT o o Lh £ i, G rt G P CM OJ Ph CM MM Report of Inspection of Fertilizers Collected in 1916 (continued) 82 ^ o P4 *^U9a aad jad ‘aiqniosui •1U9D aad pa's aiqniog ! 'juao J9d ‘J9J^AY UT 1 9iqnios *o^H ‘qs-BjOd: 1 •1U90 a9d •1U90 a9d •9Aijo'B pu'e 9iqn -los a9;'BAi. injoj^ Z 3 <0 •:tu90 a9d ‘oiubS -JO oiqni’osui J9:^nA\. 9AnDnui 0 u \ z •:tu90 a9d ‘otuvS -JO 9iqnfosut J9;BAJ. 9AIJ0V ll •;u9D J9d ‘oiunSjo 9iqnios J9i-eM 1 •:)U9D J9d ‘s:)tcs BiuoujuiB put? S9:fBj:j -III ut oiqn^os J9:>ByVV i i i aa uoI:^^^dsuI a a «M W o « I® ft M aa OC 005 (MCOI>OOrHO>OrHCOt^^OOOO(MirilOOCOOOCOOiO 40 LOLO'^OOt^OOOOOOOOC^COOOOOOO> 00505 Ci 05 a 5 C^l»— )CiC 50 iOOOCO O 05 Oi CO O • i-H O O r-I rH COCOCO'^COOlOlO’^OlOXOOOO^iOOLOlCliOOOCOOOOOOOOOOO'^lO'^lO OOOOOt- 100 loo 05 CO I 10 o CO O I r-1 rH 00 100 I «M C0000 O 1 — I O O O O O O O C5 r-t t-H r-« O O 00000 10 ^ to 0000 O o 05 C 5 cq CO CO (M O <0 O O ^ 10 oi o 0000 O 05 01 O (N T-H (M 0000 00 1000 to I r-i o O 00 I O O O O rH J CO CO 10 00 I o o o i'OTS'O'a i-o-a ca'O'O ca'a'a'^'O oa'^'O S'O'C'a MaaaflMaasHaflMaatHaaoaatHaaaci^Haci^Haafl c 33 aaao 33 ao 3 a 3 c 3 aac 3 aDDa 3 MaaaaoaDacaa 3 a 30000300300300300000300003003000 bX)_ '2 .395 ft o as 'PMQ i - o c . g 1^3 O i O I 3 +J I 5 IW.9 I I O I o; .r 'Eh^ @ si I o 5 § I ^ I US CO I fe ^ 1 fe o ' O ts- '!> !5fl-e.2 s >> 3 b ^ I’ 3 o 3 .3 tn CO ti'a 53 o S ^ .b CO CQ> O O Orj O 3 3+2 £S t>. 3 ft O) CO o W«Kc» S 8 §S IS! >, '6 p^o fe >, ft ’ft CO IIS ui § CO ^^c 3 3 g9 6? ^ g.2 « Tl^ 5 .S oa^m 3 d _ . fcfi ” <0 I'O " tuO - a 0.3^. i ■■ ip>i-q ca ■ d” 5 bcj Ph ^Joa^Wo^^ g H 3 . .0 xa+j. 2 P^pqOPH+H PM oax)* * "S s« >“.3 05 ^ «2 05 ft O 9^ ot! P5a2 ft “PM^ 3 2+2^P Sc^og o "i! caa M 5j cr oft++; 3 PHg 3 ^. 9 o ' as. apt|'Oo'-ia3^2cj,$033 W < S 8 ^ ^ c »^' oSa 3 '^'- sc » a 2 | n* 3*** 3 ** 33 o Eh + CO 02 o 3 3 CO 3 3 O >1 rH O^ 3 qi-aPPcO 3 CO 04 i . V 2 Pq 02 sM 4480 I 5722 I Vincennes 83 00 00 CK to i-H rH (N O eo eo eo CO '(3 'a ^3 a a (3 fl 3! 3 S3 o o o o O C (M ?0 O CO iri d d d CO TjJ d J> CO O 1 > T d d rH rH ( OlO'«^t^oooooooooiaicoe>ii>io IrHrHodorHrHrHrHrHrHddddddrHr-^rHrH CO CO (M O O d O O O O O CO C (N (N CO CO (M CO rH o I CO LO CO CM rH o d I o o d d o - CO iO O LO I C w 6 o 4) O. tH « g O) ►-I O:po8 o5? 8J0 g QJ P “8'g P •Sg'S ,;*! -33 - go p S ^ P N •mS Qi ^ S p O J3 O & § ® s 43^ o O %< ^ ga g p o "S 'S & o a® . ■ ^ ~ - o3 p 2 CJ P pi 03 S'o . .p£ .3;^ -02 0 (h rrH tijn 1=^ P ^ ^ a t-s w ^ 5 td * * * +i csCQ 03 o o p ^ ' b O g- P tn b 03 oglu S3 o) c/j a .05 •.a ^pi-ic»,W<5 ® p §g?s §“|S o t-i O +51 ' P^ 4) a 03 05 Q, a o„ o og?i+ 1 r +j'a 5 |6«2-S-g o‘5 05 O O ^ Sh '' X !% 03.9 3 p i^oo5«W a^ w doi-iP' a* * 03 S 2 p^'aao^opjoz 4, g'® S |jc.a^ o«.- ® g ..go .!5-ei^ o3 b 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ 1 1 > 1 1 1 1 1111 1111 1 1 1 1 1 ‘ 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mi!! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 till! M i M 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 t j i I j4 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 till till 1 I 1 1 till till 1 1 j i 1 1 4 P Ill 1 1 1 1 rrj 1 1 o I ' ! ' > 1 1 m 1 "P _ P m 1 rt 1 1 1 1 1 It 1 1 1 1 i ;> 1 1 1 1 1 1 C ® bd 0-2 OJ OJ O ffS C3 CS ^ I > i ! I > 1 P l'^ ii ! o 1 1 a 1 cz >» lb a 1 4 +5 la^ 4 0 I’p 1 >> < o Salem __.. Seymour Wheatfleli Grabill _ '.S3 m 1 ft P 3 S 1 2 tH o ® 1 p g •” t: , p P..O 4 1 p p^a 1 P f-i 1 O O 1 T3 a I o 1 3'S’^:'3 g|?s p ft p > 1 ® W k! 5 S3 1 4 ft3 m P IH , Sh P 43 in 4 1° 1 1 ■' 1 i§.»p.S2a i 1 ^ 2 O 2.S2 1 o *2 fl 'S ^ 1 ^ p P Ph |gg£ l'S5 ^ ■SsS: OOfalfa •W 'Q •CC ifalfaW lOQ 'Ofa^OOCCtCOO (p'dTi'd'd o^"d t^(D(Dc^aJda5c^a5 "3,53 43 ^3 P3 ft.p P3 d'yooop'oo ppppp^pp 03fafafa|li03fafa MINIM *OrHC»«^iaO Report of Inspection of Fertilizers Collected In 1916 (continued) •:iu90 jad ‘aart'BAi ui 9iqnios ‘o^X ’qsB^Od: •JU90 jad ‘moj, O ‘ 2 ^ ■&“• Ss 3; 0 P C 3 •4uao jad ‘I'e^oj, 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 t i 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 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 II II II II II II II II II II •^uao jad ‘aiqniosui a GO Oi 0 10 rH C 5 0 0 rH ,-1 (M rH 0 CO GO 0 I-H I-H CM 01 CO rH (M 0 (M i-H 0 (M rH C^l (M fM i-H 01 (M (M 1.6 1.3 1.0 0.5 •4uao aad ‘pajjaAaj pu-B aiqnios OtMOr-lCOOCOCOOlOCOCsJOCOt— OCOr'OOr^J-OOOOGOOOCiOOOCiGO oi>. 00 00 a 303 eOC 00300 CS 340 -^C 0 » 3-^«^00 00f~C000COC»C»00 00OO00 06 000 do 03 O O 000^-rtH(MOOr- ■(MCl'»- '«* *;u0D aad ‘oiu^S -JO oiqniosui je^BiVi eA^o'Bui (M 01 (N CO O O O O O O GO CO GO o a> (M Csj OJ CO r-i o o d o o CO LO d o o o •:;uao aad ‘oiuisS -ao aiqniosui jai'BAv aAi^DV 'luao jad ‘OfUBSao aiqnios ja^BAi lO o LO lO 1 “( (N r-t t-H rH o o o o o C^l (M d d i-H rH CO O O d lO 00 CO 00 Ol (M CO O (M rH o d o d o o o o o o o o o d o o o o d o o OG G G GGCG ^X2 oj'O'd'CC'O'C c3'0't3'0t3T3 cS'O'O oS'^ cS'O'O'O t;atHflciflc!ciatHGaaaGtHGGa!-.aatHcia!HflMaaa c3D=3:3ppp3;iSo3^33:3j3:3c3:3S3o333o33:3o3;zio3J3:3:3 ^30S000000300000P000;300P00P0P3000 a 03 3 D D O O s&g? S g 03 X'P fl |||3g S cB®^^o0 'OD u ;3 So|ag ra V oj ni; • -^ ^ ^ C) 3 ' 1 1 3 1 1 424 C 3 p: 0 P>> +j +3 1 ! 1 b'3 i lQd| Ph Ch Us 30 1 ^.Q 1 O) Q, I 0 1 33 03 03 “ 1 +J +3> 3 n ^ p 03 wS 'Bq 1 3 s 1 >= ' 0 'O 1,02 02 pi 1^^ 0 isa ^ c t-i c 03 3 3 O OP4 aa; uopaadsui lBiDt,5J0 *w V S " 2 OD «J Sa SI 1^ is 1 s s s s < 8 I8§ 1 § § 1 S ' 1 S CO 1 S I SS3 !8i ) CO IC CO ITS CO CO GO I i-I rH O O O O .OOlOrH«^J>(M 005 T-i(MO(M I rH O O Ol C^’ O r-I r-I O rH rH t-H rH co^r—OHj^'^r-ioof t>eocooo 0090 *^< ■ O O C Ci Hjl o6 CO 00 O O Ci o (M rH < 00 CO CO J> C 5 05 Oi ( a 5 ocoi>c3 oi ) O C 05 d d d O (M O rH O d d d OCOCvIlOI>OOqCOOO*^CO (Or-Idooodo CO GO 00 (>q CO 05 00 CO lO C0C0rHC ! i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 j ;| i 1 » 1 1 ! 1 0 ; 1 1 a 1 1 1 ) i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 > 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 P 1 1 ' a i 1 3 1 ' 0.2 1 ^ QJ 0 Sx) =2 s i>. 1 1 1 0 ) t>i c 3 1 >» ' 1 tH t>. 1 I 1 ' >» 1 t>. ^ 1 1 0 0 1 0 ^ i-e c 2 C 5 iS^S '. E> 1 a O 1 lO < Ifeg! ift CO CC> 1 LQ lO < 2S ^ o 3 O §-3 3 QJ O 3 S I- li| |g 1 riH m 1 <» CO 1 LO 1 (5 0 • QD rH P ! X> 1 01 1 f- - 1 CO 1 0 D Ife 1 ^ 1 ^ 1 1 e> ! C>1 1 05 1 LO 1 CO 1 rH 1 LO 1 ^ ijag ScO iS^ 1 LO 10 S 1 ^ 1 c 1 lO 1 cj 0 1 (N CO 5 1 CO CO IS ISS is IS 1 s 1 3 IS IS IS 1 LO CO 1 LO CO lf3 IC lO 30 ® so (50 igggiiiiiii |0( 2-|( Q g_ ^4U> 1 a* > a =1 N TD ^ a C3 < 1 ? |lo PH Sj !h bfl r-S .aw 2 ^ CQ tH ^ (Ti TS xi^ 03 ^ o 33 ! ; .'2 '0 ' 5* ^ 0 5-a 0 d- 30 J Pi 05 ! S § ' rW .3 a|« ||s Eh (15 ►-5 so 05 Ph 33 ^ 3 3 ft i» O a* d 33 0 0^'^ 2 !=* pj S-l 3 W •flW gcd’a ^ O . .00 3^[^o a^H5 a a < < o 13 10 3 w I 3 I - ft^ 1^^-S a Soo ® 0.2 2 os § a 0 gpq s ^ gjSSl o t o cc • in 00 J> I ^ in ic ' m d o c C I < 1 ^ ^ 1 , ^ ^-5 ^ d ^3 a a a a a a a 0000000 tn t. t. -3 3 -3 3 3 aw 0 rH rH .5 «2 Ch S) M2W 2.2 ^rO330^ ft^ ft*^ - 3 0.9 O s o 0 0> 0 0 o a 33 N 3 3 .03 0 0 QH0a3M O 05 45 < a 05 ^=3 33 ^ O W o .a X 3 bu bi) K?0S£2 w ;-. d 3 2^2 • J .9 fc ppb 0 W Ph w 1 a a a a a a ^000000 4J (H (t_l d-l PH <1-1 PH o (D po! 3 3 3 3 ' 05 05 05 05 4) 05 to to M !0 to to 45 3 3 3 cb 3 3 3 3 3 3 : 3 . 0 0 0 C 5 y 0 05 9 t. t. t. t. tn Sh 3 3 3 3 3 3 W Ph Oi CP 01 Ph CV I 1 M I I i j . 86 o2 43 o ^ c3 •:jU9D a9(I •1U9D J9(I ‘9iqniosui •^U99 J9d •p9:;a9A9a pu-B 9iqnios qu90 J9(I ‘J91'BA4. UT 9iqnios ’qsiB^Od; •}U9D J9(I •;U90 J9(l ‘9AnOB pu^ 9iqn -los a9;T3AV •JU90 a9d ‘oiu^S -ao 9iqniosui a9^'BAV 9AnOBUI •1U90 a9d ‘oiu'b 3 -JO 9iqniosui J9:t'BA\. 9AI^0V •1U90 J9d ‘otu^Sjo 9iqnios j9a^ A\ •^U99 J9d ‘s:^x^s BIUOUIlUB pUB S9:)BJ:J -i"u ui oiqrqos a9:jBA\ aa uoT:;o9dsui 1BTDT,P0 ^ a> S a OOO-^OICOCSOl COC<5ine*5100oirH (M (M C>l (N O 01 r-l 01>CO O O (N (M O • (M (N CO 00 r O o 00 O O OI (M (N rH Cq 1 i:^j>cot^oot^ooir:i>< OOOOOOlOt^Or-Ii O O 00 O O , CO CO CO 1> J < O CN O rH i CO Ifi 00 GO CO I CO 00 CO CO < iCOCOOlOrJ>m Sm 5 gg QJ m« 6W <1^ . >.c» rr-l .S a m o t-, rJ^O ca ca PhOJ m x} m ^ ^ O OS • o 'SS 6 jgO| C3 i* ° o aj fafl O wgm >1 - ® 0-® 43 m” >. >1 ® T3 ® ■ gs.s 6 I ^ b£ • >2 a o oO ^ Sh 4^ .1 -2 Sl^ °-n Sa.a^ 8 / o o c^r-cq^’^T-Mcqcooo5P500oooor^oooocdr' o I CO cCOCOCOlOlOJC^CO ^XC- Ci (N IX IIOOtJHO I CO O O 0*^10-^ 1 lO ICIO LC lO ^ Gi IX 1 lO CO LO CO i^i>J>Xi>- booo lOOOOOOO lo lOOOO 1 Cli o o o o o XOXr-HGi l 000X0 li-ii-ii-^OT-^COi>-Gii-H 1 X CO X IC 'Tti LO X CO 1 X TJH LO X ooooo ioooooo i'qOiOCO lrHlOClOi-ll>x .'XXir^XXCdO iiH iGiX'^CO iXCOCOiOGS Nr-li-HO ii-HrHOr-trirHLO IrH lOOOX li-Hi-HrHr-iO OOOO lOOOOOOO iO lOOOO iOOOOO CO X o O CO X X ^ . rH rJ4 c OOOOO 1 o ci O O O O ?H(NCOJ> l-^lOXiMOCOO irH lC. 1 X O CO O 1-1 O XX^MCNfM lXXX(MXO OOOOO IOOOOOO a> 4^ d '5 IS tic's P tc I q o q M I a O o I q IS issfefeiss IP i fl ' & fl a fl o o O O S a a s:i) q q q a WWMM q a « ^ s « 2 cW-2^ o O MpqCgO ) t- w 5 2 CC 03 S o ^ a ^'' 2 ;:r ew H ;h • iO: oW K> o; - O; -Isis t>- - o® • * * * ph a ^ o o o C^ 02 “02 O kT* 'IS'^S q Cm W '^ a? §2" ■ a p gw G.S .-a HS q . q o 03 q 03 ® q X! l?|S(So 5 OSS'S .g. »g»^oio Q ® ft bo 02 § ot^ ^”1 iso q ^ I _ ® o o o .S Q O oMW « ,• a • j ^ W So q rrt . ^SwW^ g o o 5 | 'r o) K. |SS^ Q w • 03 M 03 t* •« ^ u aagg O O o o qj fq 1 03 ® to to iSSiSS Jill r-l fl m T(< to tt> to ® c o m q a 03 q. 03 g C^ c^q Cd ^ ® ® 03 02 * ) bo bD bo . q q q 02 H p, ft ft ® ® ffi a ® ® ® o 02 72 02 ^ . . . t3 tq tq tq 03 03 ® ® to C C c g S- tH W C q C 03 1 +J +j +J Sh 03 ® ® q Pi Ph MM t- 00 c> o s a , • 2 § 2^1 o ft 03 +3 S to q ® Jp Q, a s M ft to 0) O w q . W c ^2” c ® O bo cU q o ft tJ <12 03 <12 bo ^ q q ft ft 03 ® 0) ® 02 02 ft ^ ■M ® 2 't! ^ 3 ft CO a ! CL ' d tD -t_> Q, CO 0) ^ * O TO • ft. . Ml I o o T\ Report of Inspection of Fertilizers Collected in 1916 (continued) 88 89 lOOO^lCOO OOOOi-^ OrHrHCOCO 00 1> (M C<1 >JiOl>-(NlrtmiOC000’^in>00O500»OCO^lOC54^00C0C0lO'^ lT-»CO 00* CO* CO CO rH I ■OOOO^rHOOl lOiCiCOTt^COCOOOOO* O O C) CooT OOr-lOr-lrH03 03COOOOOOT 05 05 d d CO 00 d d CO Tji lO o o d 03 03 d d 03 T-H rH I 00 CO d o d I o o iO 05 03 t-i d d iO O 03 I LO rH CO » IC CO o o o I o d CO lO d o O CO I CO 00 O O O I .-I rH odd I d o 1h o o d d d I i:^ 00 I o o ?t< LC O Z> 03 odd 1 03 ^3 O a p ^ a ^ ^ ci p p P p P O O P o O Ph CD o d ti a 03 d d d d d o o d o i_i 'd'd'd''d'd 03^'d 03^3 S'd 03^3 cs'dJ'd'd ■ - ^ - c3d!-i^ i-i ' ' "d ' d ' ' Mdddsnddd^ddf-td^ndd ^ — tnCJdi-idfHdt-idds-idMdddsHddd^Hddf-td^Hdd csddo3dcs3o3ddo3do3dddo3dddddde3dcddd doodododoododooodooodoododoo a> d d d 03 d o d o P^OPtH Ferdinand Mimcie Portland Rushville Rushville Milroy __. Portland Jasper __. Carlisle _. Burney _. Jasper __. Star City Jasper ... Huntingtc Glenwood Huntingtc Mooresvill Deputy _. Glenwood Wheatflelc Greensbur: Scottsbur, Scottsbur, Liberty _. Greensbur, Kouts |l 1 I -9 1 1 -H 1 I 0 i 1 '^! is i|i 1 CO 1 lb 10 5673 IS gg Ig ® 8 6640 1 rH CO 1 ill <^ 1 K rH S iili <0 cp $5 to 10 10 '^00 <05 1 1:^ 10 ^ 1 CO CO 1 1 eg CD C5 1 Q5 , CO ICO » & ^ CO i ^ 10 cO 1 CO 1 lO lO »0 1 CO 1 <13 ggggg ggggg IOIOLOLOLQCOCO^COCOCOCOCOCOCO^CO^COCOOCOCOOCOCOCOCOCDCD< s 93 a o a CP d 13 d O <33 d d a <13 3^ 2 ° i 3 d -.-a ! S' >>d d lli|5 S-^ >>S 0 .2 s 3 .2 Jh Ph <^h rr^ ^ 1-#^ 3 la n a CO O 3-(tH d^'SS^i 93 c3 - ■ - O g§ a - a 42 O d do® 93 f-i > ” +p» g G a? ^ M d P 9 OJ >1 <« o > o 2 a d ^Oaa ^^.sl PM M S H o I ^ ll CP CP M M * * d > 2® f-i d 9 .2 ^ !a d S ~ M O > aa d aa •;= d ^ '-9> O 4d ^ ^ ^ o g 2 93 ^ cj ,P C3 > > G S > ^ a US ft 0? 3 cc ft, oi “ >0^0 rg ^ rQ ^ ^ JCP;l^ <33 M > a s d a 93 :a« be ! Q ^2 .CD P5 0. ^ bfl^ ^4.^ tjjjQ 3 ^•5^s^a§d|«2 -< . oocomooO’^oirto-«io6oc^Ic^^ 05 00 OO000O(M0(NO0 rHr-li-lr-lr-trHrHCOOOr-trH IOGO'^^OOOOI> tC^rH(M^OrHrHrH •}uao jad 1 1 0 : 3 » CO 1 r-- CO 00 1 10 l+ti CO CO 10 1 1 05 1 00 in 1 CO 1 0 ‘aAna^ puB ajqn 1 (M 05 1 10 (M (M 1 1 1 0 I — 1 ' '®. 1 0 -los aaiBAY IB^OJ, 1000 1 1 rH 0 1 d 1 1 1 rH rH I"^ d 1 0 d 1 rH ■)uao jad ‘oiubS 1 0 CO (M I 0 )0 1 CO lO 1 j 1 CM 10 1 1 1 10 CO i CO CO 1 CO 1 0 -JO aiqniosut 1 ^ CM (M 1 . . . 1 fM CM CO 1 CM CM 1 1 ja^BAV aAi^oBui 1000 1 1 0 0 t 0 0 0 0 1 1 d 1 d d i 0 0 1 d 0 id 1 0 ■;uao jad ‘oiubS 1 C 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 d 0 1 1 1 0 1 d d d 1 d d 1 rH 1 d •;uaa jad 1 i (M C> rH I 0 CO 1 CO 0 S 1 1 05 1 CO CO 1 1 -. i 1 m 1 10 CO 1 05 • ^ ‘oiubSjo 1000 1 O.rH 1 O^’^ OOOr-ir-irH(NrHf-I aa; uouaadsui I'BIOIJJO S ^ S " o I® ft M Sa r-i ^ a c w R os'tJ'O'a o3’5'2 OS'S OS'S c 3’5 ca'2 e3ddde3dd03dc3dc33033033 30003003030303030 es'O'g cs'O oS'O'O cs-O ^^aanatHOdMd ca 33 ra 3 d 3 O 033 3003030030 0Ph^0^0Ph^0^ 3 3 3 3 03'Oc 3^^3^3U ^3(H33tH3!-i3 c 3333333«3 303003030 0 fsH 0 Ph 0 ^ 0 Ph I I ! I I 3 83 c»o 1 fcjo ' !=* s .'■^ 9 I 3 '0cD«?'C> mil M M ift d 30 3 ftrf S 3 O 3 *^.9 9 ^ ^ OJ 3 ' O ^ 3 rv 3 ^•3 0 0 S ^ U ^ S « 3 9 02 0 3 O OQ ^ 3-3 0 OJ M ^-1 2 3 3 3 3 Ph ^ ^ ^ N ^ 3 Q _ .2§=2 ft-g^i oi tc ^ S , a o a^S S b£ 3 ^hQj ^ 3 cpq I ^0 3 ^ 30 i3i' r1r-Hqj3^ 33 ft o 33 3 3*^ 3 3 73 9 2a _'a'a O e b aS n 4) M ^ o w § > M U "S ^ ■? a^-S " ^ o j o a; I— I 1-^ H S S O C CD O O U ^ r-, U U «M cent. o fx> Insoluble phosphoric ^ p acid, PoOs, per cent. “ c ictur- lan 3 .H 0 1 « to 13 •5 ftpH Eh rt American Agricultural Chemical Company, The, M. E. Wheeler & Co., Branch, Rutland, Vt. Wheeler’s Corn Fertilizer 1916 _ 6541 1.6 1.0 10.0 1.0 Wheeler’s Potato Manure 1916 6542 2.0 1.0 8.0 1.0 A. A. C. Co. Ammoniated Fertilizer A 6616 0.8 10.0 1.0 A. A. C. Co. Ammoniated Fertilizer AA 6617 1.6 10.0 1.0 A. A. C. Co. Ammoniated Fertilizer AAA 6619 2.4 10.0 1.0 — American Agricultural Chemical Company, The, Western Union Chemical Co., Branch, Cleveland, Ohio. 1916 — Herrick’s Fertilizer with Potash 6652 1.6 1.0 10.0 0.5 1916— Corn & Wheat Grower 6653 0.8 1.0 8.0 0.5 W. U. Complete Fertilizer 6654 1.6 1.0 8.0 0.5 Ammoniated Phosphate 6655 1.6 12.0 0.5 One and Ten Phosphate 6656 0.8 10.0 0.5 16% Acid Phosphate _ _ _ 6657 16.0 0.5 Tiger Bone Meal ___ 6658 2.4 solo W. U. Ohio Special 6917 "iro i2lo 'ols — Armour Fertilizer Works, The, Chicago, 111. Star Phosphate — 2908 14.0 2.0 Grain Grower 2910 1~6 2.0 8.0 2.0 Wheat Corn and Oat Special 2938 0.8 1.0 7.0 2.0 Armour’s Steamed Bone __ __ ___ 3331 1.6 20 IO Cereal Phn.sphate 3860 10.0 2.0 Nitrate of Soda 3478 is" 6 Armours Standard 3610 0.8 ’§^0 'slo ’ 2 I 0 Dried Blood — _ __ 3791 13.2 “U. S. Phosphate” 4057 i2lo Armour’s Bone Meal 4860 1.6 27.0 16% Acid Phosphate i 5295 iolo ' 0 I 5 Armour’s 1^9—1 Fertilizer 0035 '5^8 'i’o 9.0 0.5 Armour’s 1^12—1 Fertilizer _ 6037 0.8 1.0 12.0 0.5 Armour’s 1—14—2 Fertilizer 6038 0.8 2.0 14.0 0.5 Armour’s 12—2 Fertilizer _ _ 6040 2.0 12.0 0.5 Armour’s 18% Phosphate 6041 18.0 0.5 Armour’s Special Grain Grower 6477 i.6 i.o 8.0 0.5 Armour’s 1—10—1 Fertilizer 6478 0.8 1.0 10.0 0.5 Armour's Special Wheat, Corn & Oats 6479 0.8 1.0 8.0 0.5 Armour’s Ammoniated Phosphate No. 3 6480 2.4 10.0 0.5 Armour’s Ammoniated Phosphate No. 2 6481 1.6 10.0 0.5 Armour’s High Grade Ammoniated Phosphate __ 6592 1.6 12.0 0.5 Armour’s 3 — 8—1 Fertilizer 6593 2.4 1.0 8.0 0.5 Armour’s Potash & Phosphate Special 6712 1.0 10.0 0.5 Special Ammoniated Phosphate No. 1 67^32 0.8 12.0 0.5 Armour’s 1—14 — 1 Fertilizer 6760 0.8 i.o 14.0 0.5 Armour’s 1—14 Fertilizer 6831 0.8 14.0 0.5 Armour’s 2—10—1 Fertilizer 6882 1.6 i.o 10.0 0.5 Armour’s 1— 8^— 5 Fertilizer 6912 0.8 5.0 8.0 0.5 Armour’s 1—8—6 Fertilizer 6921 0.8 6.0 8.0 0.5 — - Ballard Packing Company, Marion, Ind. Ballard’s Animal Tankage Fertilizer 5600 5.0 — - — — - 14.0 Barwell, J. W., Waukegan, 111. Barwells Plant Grower and Land Renovator 5000 5.0 6.0 5.2 5.0 — - Bausback & Sons, Robert, Shelbyville, Ind. t Soft Bone 3007 3.5 14.0 Buhner Fertilizer Company, Seymour, Ind. Raw Ground Bone 4171 3.2 20.0 RopV Phn.ssphatp 5565 28.0 Half Bone & Phosphate 5734 'i'e II” iolo “elo Grain Booster 5747 0.8 10.0 1.0 Acid Phosphate 0075 — 14.0 — 97 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufactur- ers to contain not less than LABEL. Official number Nitrogen, N, per cent. Potash, K2O, soluble in water, per cent. Soluble and reverted phosphoric acid, P2O5, per cent. Insoluble phosphoric acid, PaOs. per cent. Total phosphoric acid, PaOg, per cent. Buhner Fertilizer Company, Seymour, Ind. W. T. Crop Grower 6525 2.0 0.2 8.0 2.0 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 6606 16.0 6742 2.4 24.0' Central Phosphate Company, Mt. Pleasant, Tenn. 5040 28.0 Tennessee Phosphate 5251 — 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 1.0 1.0 Magic 3^22 Steamed Bone Meal 6587 2.4 22.0 Magic 4—6—1 6588 3.2 To 6.0 Magic 4 — .3—1 .. ^60 3.2 1.0 3.0 Magic Manure Ash Potash 6706 4.0 — 2.0 Chicago Raw Products Company, Chicago, 111. Consumers Special 14% Acid Phosphate 5012 14.0 1.0 Consumers Special Raw Bone Meal _ 5018 3.7 20.0 Consumers Special 3—22 Bone Meal 5070 2.4 22.8 Consumers Special 1^20 Pure Bone Meal 5072 0.8 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 isio "sio Consumers Brand 16% Acid Phosphate ___ 6380 16.0 1.0 Consumers Brand 16% Acid Phosphate 6300 15.0 1.0 Consumers Brand Ammoniated Phosphate 6303 i.6 10.0 1.0 Consumers Hummer Grain Grower 6827 0.8 ~0?5 10.0 1.0 Consumers Ammoniated Bone Phosphate 6828 0.6 15.0 1.0 — Cincinnati Phosphate Company, The, Cincinnati, Ohio. Capitol City Wheat Grower 2886 14.0 1.0 Patrons High Grade Phosphate 3626 16.0 1.0 “Bonus” A Phosphate with Humus 3903 ' o'i 12.0 1.0 “A” Grain and Grass Grower 4301 0.8 2.0 8.0 1.0 A. Conservation Brand 6829 0.8 1.0 12.0 1.0 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 6203 1.2 i.o 9.0 1.0 “A.” Tobacco Potato & Beet Grower 6204 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 O-Bone & Phosphate Mixture Wheat Special 6755 1.6 'sio To Capitol Crop Booster 6758 0.4 i.o 10.0 1.0 Cleveland Provision Company, The, Cleveland, Ohio. Premium Bone Meal 6898 0.6 25.0 Clendenin Fertilizer Company, Richmond, Ind. Acid Phosphate Special ^ 4839 14.0 Wheat Grower 6117 o "8 1.0 10.0 Corn Grower 6607 1.6 10.0 Tankage and Phosphate __ _ 6608 0.8 11.0 Acid Phosphate 6609 16.0 Phosphate and Bone . 6610 ' i’s 12.0 ’7T0 — Darling & Company, Chicago, 111. Darling’s Ground Raw Bone 2843 3.3 21.0 Darling’s Nitrate of Soda ... 4184 14.8 — 98 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917 (continued) LABEL. Official number Guara ers 1 c ^ 2 « 0 ) ^ a o 5. Potash, KoO, soluble o re in water, per cent. g S, Soluble and reverted g-' ■S ft , w 0 « X ^ P< 5 01 0 0 T? to Total phosphoric 3 ^ 1 acid, PgOe, per cent. j Darling & Company, Chicago, 111. 5120 1.8 28.0 Darling’s Pulverized Sheep Manure 6153 2.0 'i’s 1.5 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 Darline^’.'? Blnnd & Bono _ _ . . 6620 4.9 12.0 Darling’s General Crop 6778 1.6 i 2 'o ’ 2'0 Darling’s T.ittlfi Ciant Brand 6812 0.8 10.0 2.0 Darling’s One-Eight-Two Brand 6813 0.8 'f.O 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 'l 6 io’o Quick Acting Corn Grower 3402 0.8 'r.5 ~9’0 TB D. & K Nitrate of Soda 4979 14.0 D and K 14% Acid Phosphate 5483 ii'o D & K Garden Special 5757 ’i "6 'i’o 10.0 D «& K Early Maturity ' 5759 1.6 2.0 8.0 Ammoniated Mixture 5769 1.6 12.0 Dissolved Bone Phosphate with Potash 6062 0.8 'i'i 7.0 To D & K Special Wheat & Clover 6200 0.8 1.0 9.0 .Available Plant Food 6226 1.2 10.0 16% High Grade Phosphate 6259 16.0 D & K Com King 6260 'oTs 'o's 12.0 D & K Special Spring Fertilizer 6261 0.4 0.5 13.0 T) /ir. K 14— 8 — 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 — .... Dryfus Packing & Provision Company, LaFayette, Ind. Dryfus Star Fertilizer 5460 5.0 .... .... .... 10.0 Eckart Packing Company, Fred, Fort Wayne, Ind. Eckart’s Fertilizer 4572 3.6 .... .... 12.8 Empire Carbon Works, Subsidiary of The American Agricultural Chemical Co., Cincinnati, Ohio. Empire 14% Arid Phnsphnte 6814 14.0 Empire 16% Acid Phosphate 6815 16.0 TI Empire 1 — 10 Ammoniated Acid Phosphate 6816 'ol 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 To 12.0 Empire Full Harvest .. 6820 0.8 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 Empire Ground Bone 6826 1.6 .... — .... 27.0 Empire Guano Company, New Albany Sales Department, New Albany, Ind. Empire High Grade Acid Phosphate 3307 14.0 2.0 Empire Climax Acid Phosphate 3514 _ 16.0 1.0 Empire Pure Raw Bone 4593 3.5 21.5 Raw Rock Phosphate 5125 30.0 Nitrate of Soda 5127 15.0 _ Good Enough No. 1 _ 5774 0.8 1.0 12.0 1.0 Red Banner Special No. 1 5787 0.8 2.0 10.0 1.0 Indiana Special No. 2 620^ 0.3 1.0 15.0 1.0 — 99 Brands Certified by Mahufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufactur- ers to contain not less than LABEL. Official number Nitrogen, N, per cent. Potash, K 2 O, soluble in water, per cent. Soluble and reverted phosphoric acid, PoOs* cent. Insoluble phosphoric acid, P 2 O 6 , per cent. Total phosphoric acid, P 2 O 5 , per cent. Empire Guano Company, New Albany Sales Department, New Albany, Ind. Empire Pure Steamed Bone 6231 0.8 29.0 6318 0.4 0.5 8.0 1.0 Half & Half No. 1 _ 6319 1.6 1.0 6.0 6.0 6320 0.8 12.0 1.0 6321 1.6 12.0 1.0 Ked Banner Special No. 2 6322 0.8 'i'o 9.0 1.0 Ammoniated Potash & Phosphate No. 1 0323 0.4 1.0 10.0 1.0 Truck Grower No. 1 6483 0.6 2.5 7.0 1.0 Blood Bone & Phosphate No. 1 6703 1.6 1.0 8.0 1.0 Half-Seven-Three 6722 0.4 3.0 7.0 Empire Half-Ten-Five 6910 0.4 5.0 10.0 1.0 Empire Five-Five 6911 5.0 5.0 1.0 — Evansville Packing Company, Evansville, Ind. Potato & Tobacco Grower 4222 1.6 5.0 8.0 1.0 4886 1.0 2,0 8.0 1.0 Pure Eaw Bone Meal 4891 3.'7 23io Corn & Wheat Special 5859 0.8 “§'0 iiio "iio High Grade Soluble Phosphate 5360 16.0 2.0 Bone Phosphate & Potash 6057 "o’s “i^o 7.0 2.0 Three B. 6058 1.6 2.0 8.0 ■ 2.0 Phosphate & Potash 6059 2.0 10.0 12.0 “Farmers Pride” 6247 'o’s 1.0 12.0 2.0 Pfivised Half and Half _ . 6545 , 2.5 1.0 10.0 2.0 Wonder Growth 6516 1.6 10.0 2.0 “T.padpr” . .. 6734 2.4 'i’o 9.0 2.0 Ewing, Geo. M., Greensburg, Ind. Ewing’s Phosphate & Potash 3324 2.0 10.0 Ewing’s Best Phosphate & Potash 3325 2.0 12.0 ■Rwin^^’s Acid Phnsphata 3326 10.0 Ewing’s Complete Fertilizer 3619 1 00 1 d 'i'o 7.0 Ewing’s 14% Acid Phosphate 3733 14.0 Ewing’s Grain King _ 4706 i.6 2.0 8.0 0.5 — Farmers Fertilizer Company, The, Columbus, Ohio. Farmers Acid Phosphate 5030 14.0 1.0 Nitrate of Soda ___ 5043 15.5 Farmers “16” 5192 16.0 i.o Farmers Favorite Fertilizer (1— l(L-2) 6149 'o's ' 2.0 10.0 Corn & Wheat Special (1—9—1) 6151 0.8 1.0 9.0 Farmers Favorite 0647 1.6 10.0 General Crop 6648 0.8 'i?o 7.0 Farmers Wheat, Corn & Oats Special 6049 1.6 1.0 8.0 Farmers Wheat Grow.w 6650 0.8 11.0 Humus Chief . . _ . . __ 6671 0.4 12.5 Farmers Fertilizer Company, The, Indianapolis, Ind. Farmers Wheat & Oats Special 3199 14.0 Our Universal Phosphate 3555 ' 0~8 'i'o 7.0 "lo Corn & Wheat Grower 3556 0.8 2.0 8.0 1.0 Our German Phosphate _ 3557 0.8 3.0 8.0 1.0 Pure Bono . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . 3806 1.6 ^ 2.0 Farmers Favorite 4814 1.6 ~ 2.0 'sio Our Half & Half 4817 1.2 8.0 iiio Grain Manure 5808 0.8 iio 9.0 Concentrated Manure 5853 2.0 1.5 'l5 16% Acid Phosphate 6188 ieio Superphosphated Manure _ __ _ 6237 ’lo 10.0 'iio Plant Fond 6272 0.8 1.0 12.0 Black Soil Formula 6273 0.4 3.0 5.0 Soil Food _ _ _ 6274 0.8 0.5 8.0 Tankage & Bone Phosphate 6275 2.0 8.0 Corn & Wheat Grower without Potash 1 6276 0.8 — 8.0 — — lOO Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale In 1917 (continued) LABEL Official number j Guara: ers t C A 2 « II nteed 1 0 cent; 0 ) s . -§ fl O O W O C a3 ^ & (S.S Soluble and reverted phosphoric acid, ^ g; P 2 O 5 , per cent. 0 ^ manufa less tl ^ • Xi ^ » 5 t-, 01 O 3 Potash, KoO, soluble o o in water, per cent. § 2, Soluble and reverted g-v- phosphoric acid, ^ g: PoOs, per cent. oS tnanufa less th u , sS p." .d » P" iS 0) 0 O m — • C o M rf ctur- an c pS 1- w 5 pi rt Louisville Fertilizer Company, Louisville, Ky, Special Slaughter House Bone Phosphate 6404 1.6 1.0 8.0 0.5 Eagle Grain Grower Special 6406 0.4 1.0 8.0 0.5 Eagle Guano Special ___ __ 6674 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 ■Rear Fine Raw Rone Meal 6868 '2A 24.0 Bear Standard Raw Bone _ _ 6869 3.7 22.0 Bear Special Corn & "Wheat Grower 6870 0.8 To 'iio ‘ols 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 6878 0.4 1.0 11.0 0.5 Bear Indiana Potash Mixture 6874 1.0 10.0 0.5 Bear Special Slaughter House Bone Phosphate 6876 ’i.6 1.0 8.0 0.5 Bear Amraoniated Phosphate 6876 1.6 10.0 0.5 Bear Ammoniated Potash Mixture 6877 0.2 2.0 12.0 0.5 Bear High Grade Dissolved Phosphate 6878 14.0 0.5 Jones Ammoniated Potash Mixture 6879 0.2 2.0 12.0 0.5 Jones Special Grain Grower _ 6880 0.4 3.0 8.0 0.5 Jones Grain Grower Speeial 6881 0.4 1.0 8.0 0.5 Jones Sixteen Per Cent 6882 16.0 0.5 IT Jones High Grade Dissolved Phosphate 6883 14.0 0.5 Jones Twelve One Fertilizer 6884 To 12.0 0.5 Jones Ammoniated Phosphate 6885 i.6 10.0 0.5 Jones One Ten One Fertilizer 6886 0.8 1.0 10.0 0.5 Jones Special Slaughter House Bone Phosphate 6887 1.6 1.0 8.0 0.5 Jones Special Corn & Wheat Grower 6888 0.8 1.0 7.0 0.5 Jones Bone Phosphate & Potash 6889 0.4 1.0 11.0 0.5 Jones Standard Raw Bone _ 6890 3.7 22.0 Jones Fine Raw Bone Meal 6891 2.4 — — - — 24.0 McCartney Bros., Greenville, Ohio. “C” Perfection Crop Maker and Potash 6925 1.0 11.0 1.0 “0” Prize-Taker, Tobacco & Potato Special 6926 'iio 1.0 8.0 1.0 Major Bros. Packing Company, The, Mishawaka, Ind. Major’s Fertilizer 4217 3.5 16.0 Morris & Company, Chicago, 111. Rig One — ‘Pure Ground Raw Rone 4091 3.0 24.0 Big Two— Pure Bone Meal 4092 2.0 IT 28.0 Big Eight— Ammoniated Acid Phosphate and Potash 4098 0.8 To "lo i.o Rig Five . ... . . _ _ 4352 2.5 1.0 6.0 4.0 Big Ten Prepared Manure with Phosphate and Potash 5146 1.6 2.0 8.0 2.0 Speeinl Rig Six 6530 0.4 1.0 16.0 Special Big Seven 6531 0.8 IT 22.0 Speeial Big Nine __ 6532 0.4' 'iio ii.o 2.0 Special Big Eleven — 6534 0.8 10.0 1.0 Special Big Twelve 6536 1.6 12.0 2.0 Special Big Three 6721 0.4 3.0 11.0 2.0 — Mt. Pleasant Fertilizer Company, Inc., Mt. Pleasant, Tenn. Mt. Pleasant Untreated Phosphate 4198 28.0 Mt. Plea«!ant High Grade Arid Phosphate 4206 14.0 2.0 Nitrate of Soda 4248 isTo Nitrate Agencies Company, Western Branch, Columbus, Ohio. Acid Phosphate 5575 14.0 1.0 Acid Phosphate 16% 5576 16.0 1.0 Nitrate of Soda 5578 15.0 Tankage . 5582 5.7 6.2 Fine Ground Bone 5583 0.8 29.0 Genuine Peruvian Guano 6137 10.6 ~2'o io.o 2.0 107 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufactur- •ers to contain not less than LABEL. ^4 B 3 C ri 'y iS o ..s 2 S ft 3 , . •sS W y y • 2 y -S 42s 0) ^ p, 3 ^ 3 o 0 o O . Is y 0 o tS in c .hS so '1 ftg^ ^ d Oy Packer Pertilizer Company, The, Indianapolis, Ind. 3253 14.0 3658 "o's To 7.0 'i?o 3669 0.8 2.0 8.0 1.0 3560 0.8 3.0 8.0 1.0 3809 1.6 22'() Hf(lf Half -- -- 4797 1.2 "s'o ILO Packers Crop Grower Grain Manure 1 Coneentrated Manure 16% Acid Phosphate Superphosphated Manure Black Soil Formula Plant Food i 4799 5805 5855 6187 6239 6282 6283 6284 1.6 0.8 2.0 'i"o 0.4 0.8 0.8 ’2'o 1.0 1.5 ~3~0 1.0 , 0.5 8.0 9.0 ie’o 10.0 5.0 12.0 8.0 To Ts 6285 2.0 8.0 6286 0.8 8.0 Packers Fertilizer Company, The, Cincinnati, Ohio. 3902 0.4 12.0 1.0 4296 0.8 I'o 8.0 1.0 4586 14.0 1.0 5847 0.8 LO 9.0 1.0 A Quality Brand 5848 0.8 1.0 12.0 1.0 Big Bonanza - - - 6304 1.6 12.0 1.0 Pack^^r’s Putat<~>, Tnhappn /ir, Trunk Manure 6305 1.6 ”i~o 8.0 1.0 Pack^^r’s Sweepstakes .. 6306 1.2 1.0 9.0 1.0 Reyi^e^I Hlank Snil Spenia.l 6677 0.4 2.0 6.0 1.0 Revis^’d TnrUana Blank Soil Special _ . . . . . 6678 0.4 3.0 6.0 1.0 Favorite Grain Grower Acid Phosphate 16% __ A. Bone Meal Pure Bone with Phosphate ’ 6621 6708 1 6752 6753 0.8 'i'e 1.6 10.0 16.0 ~8lo 1.0 1.0 "s'o 27" 0 Packer’s O. F. Fertilizer . .. . 6761 0.4 'i"o 10.0 1.0 Pearl Packing House, The, Madison, Ind. Yunker's Pearl Brand 5492 5.0 8.0 Pero & Stoecker, Louisville, Ky. Pure Animal Matter Corn and Wheat Grower 3623 3.5 10.0 “A” Pure Bone Meal . . 4999 3.0 20.0 Pulverized Manure Company, The, Chicago, 111. Wizard Brand Pure Ground Bone 4610 2.0 20.0 Wizard Brand Pure Manure 4666 1.7 "iTo 1.0 Wizard Brand Pulverized Sheep Manure 4974 2.5 1.5 1.5 Quebbeman & Son, Louis, Corydon, Ind. Corydon Tankage & Phosphate _ . . 5743 1.7 6.2 9.0 Rasin-Monumental Company, Subsidiary of the Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co., Cincinnati Division, Cincinnati, Ohio. Rasin’s Special Wheat Fertilizer 6717 1.6 3.0 8.0 1.5 Rasin’s General Favorite 6718 1.6 2.0 8.0 1.5 Rasin’s Fenhumus Fertilizer 6720 0.4 12.0 1.5 Rasin’s Acid Phosphate 6834 14.0 1.5 Rasin’s 16% Acid Phosphate _ . _ 6835 16.0 1.5 Rasin’s 20% Acid Phosphate 6836 20.0 1.5 1.5 Rasin’s Roval Grain Grower 6837 I'o 12.0 Rasin’s Grain Fertilizer 6838 0.8 13.0 1.5 Rasin’s Special Plant Food 6839 1.6 11.0 1.5 Rasin’s Western Guano 6840 0.4 "i'o 13.0 1.5 Rasin’s Farmers’ Success _ _ ___ 6841 0.8 1.0 8.0 1.5 Rasin’s Reliable Wheat and Corn Fertilizer _ _ _ . 6842 0.8 2.0 8.0 1.5 Rasin’s Bie Giant Phosphate 6843 0.8 3.0 8.0 1.5 Rasin’s Phosphate and Bone Meal 6844 0.8 10.0 12.0 11.0 Rasin’s Bone Meal Phosphate and Potash Mixture 6845 0.8 To 9.0 1 "71 io8 Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale In 1917 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufactur- ers to contain not less than LABEL, Official number Nitrogen, N, per cent. ^ Potash, KoO, soluble in water, per cent. Soluble and reverted phosphoric acid, PoOs, per cent. 0 . 1 s a" o 2 .c a P. £ 760 1.6 ~iTo 10.0 Ammoniatcd Mixtnra 5768 1.6 12.0 Availablft Plant Food 6227 1.2 10.0 Hiah Grade Phosphate 6262 16.0 Corn King 6263 0.8 0.5 12.0 Special Spring Fertilizer : 6264 0.4 0.5 13.0 14% Acid Phosphate 6865 14.0 Special Wheat Fertilizer 6691 "o^s o's 12.0 Special Fall Fertilizer 6692 0.4 0.5 18.0 Wing Seed Company, The, Mechanicsburg, Ohio. Thomas Phosphate Powder IRasic Slag Phosphatel 5608 17.0 Woodward & Dickerson, Philadelphia, Pa. Acid Phosphate 6131 14.0 Nitrate of Soda 6132 ii’s Worm & Company, Indianapolis, Ind. Enreka Garden Fertilizer .. .... 6731 6.0 0.3 8.0 Wuichet Fertilizer Company, The, Dayton, Ohio. 16% Acid Phosphate 0243 16.0 1.0 “E” Spot Cash Fertilizer .... 6568 1.6 1.0 8.0 1.0 “E” Raw Bone & Phosphate . 6559 1.6 0.5 8.0 6.0 “E” Ammonia Special 6500 1.6 10.0 1.0 “E” Ruby . 6561 1.0 'o's 9.0 1.0 II3 INDEX Page Action of plant foods 13 Attention purchasers of fertilizer 33 Comments of mf’rs and agents 28 Comparative results by m’fr’s chemists— 31 Refunds 28 Shipments returned 29 Shipments withdrawn from sale 28 Shipments sold under names indicating animal by-products 30 Special remarks 32 Explanation of tables 32 Explanation of terms— General 8 Chemical 10 Guarantees 12 Equivalent values 4 Fertilizer map. Towns added in 1916 14 Handling and storing fertilizer 5 Indiana Fertilizer Law 3 Administration 6 Cases reported 8 Summarized for agents and dealers 3 Summarized for consumers 5 Summarized for manufacturers 3 State Chemist’s label 6 Special subject. Nu-Life fertilizer 13 Inspection- Classification brands deficient in value... 24 Pago Classification deficient brands 24 Discussion of results, 1916 25 Method of obtaining inspections 7 Report of 1916 19 Summary of results, spring and fall 20 Summary of results by classes 23 Summary of results, 17 years, 1900-1916 21 Summary spring and fall samples, 1916 21 Materials for home mixing 19 Prices 26 Purchasing fertilizers 18 Sales 16 Standing of manufacturers 19 Tables— I Summary inspection samples by classes 23 II Summary of manufacturers by analysis, spring, 1916 34 III Summary of manufacturers by analysis, fall, 1916 36 IV Summary of manufacturers by analysis, 1916 38 V Summary of samples by counties, 1916 40 VI Details of inspection results 42 VII Rock phosphate, fineness 92 VIII Materials for home mixing 93 IX Manufacturers and brands bn sale 1917 94 TABLE CONTENTS MANUFACTURER Inspe Sum- maries ction Details Fine- ness Mate- rials for home mixing Brands certified on sale Alphano Humus Co. 34-38 42 94 American Agricultural Chemical Co., The, New York _ 34-38 42 94 American Agricultural Chemical Co., The, Rnwker Fertilizer Works 34-38 43 93 94 American Agricultural Chemical Co., The, Detroit Sales Dep’t 34-38 43 93 94 Ameriean Agricultural Chemical Co., The, Great Eastern Branch ... ... 34-38 46 95 American Agricultural Chemical Co., The, Michigan Carbon Works 34-38 46 95 American Agricultural Chemical Co., The, Western Union Chemical Co. Branch 38 47 96 American Agricultural Chemical Co., The, M. E. Wheeler & Co., Branch 34-38 47 95 Armour Fertilizer Works . _ 34-38 48 93 96 Ballard Packing Co. . . 34-38 50 93 96 Rarwell, J- W. 96 Bausback & Sons, Robert . _ 34-38 50 96 Buhner Fertilizer Co. 34-38 50 93 96 Central Phosphate Co. 34-38 51 92 93 97 Chicago Feed Fertilizer Co. 34-38 51 93 97 Chicago Raw Prodnets Uo 34-38 51 97 Cincinnati Phosphate Co. 34-38 52 97 Clendenin Fertilizer Co. . _ 34-38 53 97 Cleveland Provision Co. 97 Darling Company 34-38 53 93 97 D. X. Fertilizer Co. 34-38 54 93 98 Dryfus Packing & Provision Co. 34-38 55 93 98 Eckart Packing Co. _ 34-38 55 93 98 Empire Carbon Works 98 P.mpire Gnano Co 34-38 55 93 98 Evansville Packing Co. 34-38 56 99 Ewing, Ceo M. 99 Farmers Fertilizer Co , Colnmhns, Ohio 34-38 56 93 99 Farmers Fertilizer Co , Indianapolis, Tnd. 34-38 57 93 99 Farmers Cronnd Roek Phosphate Co 34-38 57 92 Federal Chemical Co. 34-38 57 92 93 101 NDEX (continued) MANUFACTURER Inspe Sum- maries ction Details Fine- ness Mate- rials for home mixing | Brands certified on sale Fertilizer Co. Paris, III. 101 Fe.s.wenrien, F. 1.. 38 60 93 101 Fluhrer Tobacco & Snuff Co. __ 34-38 60 93 101 Fox Chemical Co. _ 34-38 60 101 Gleaner Clearing House Association 101 Globe Fertilizer Co. 34-38 61 93 101 Goldreich Fertilizer Co. 38 62 93 102 Goodrich, W. J. 102 Groves Fertilizer Works (The Joslin-Schmidt Co.) 34-38 62 102 Hess & Bro., S. M. 34-39 63 102 Hirsh, Stein & Co. 34-39 64 93 102 Hopkins Fertilizer Co. 65 93 103 Hubbell Fertilizer C/O., T.. W 39 66 Hurst & Co. 103 Independent Packers Fertilizing Co. 35-39 67 Independent Packers Fertilizer Co. 35-39 67 ■ 103 Indianapolis Rendering Co. _ _ 35-39 67 93 103 International Agric. Corporation, Lockland, Ohio 35-39 68 International Agric. Corporation, Buffalo, N. Y.__ 35-39 68 International Agric. Corporation, Cincinnati, 0.__ 35-39 69 1 104 Jarecki Chemical Co. __ 35-39 69 j 104 Johnson & Co., D. D. _ __ __ 35-39 70 Jones Fertilizer Co. 35-39 71 Jones Phosphate Co., Robin 35-39 71 92 93 ‘ 104 Kaufman Fertilizer Co. 35-39 72 105 Kentucky Fertilizer Co., Branch Federal Chemical Co. 35-39 72 105 Kirke Chemical Co. 39 73 ; 105 Louisville Fertilizer Co. - - 35-39 73 93 35-39 74 j 105 Major Bros. Packing Co. _ 35-39 74 93 1 106 McCartnev Brn.c;. 106 Mineral Fertilizer Co., The 35-39 74 Morris & Company _ __ _ _ 35-39 75 106 Mt. Pleasant Fertilizer Co. _ 35-39 76 92 93 106 McCullough Seed Co. __ _ 35-39 76 1 Niederhaus, Fred 39 76 Nitrate Agencies Co., Western Branch 35-39 76 93 j 106 Packer Fertilizer Co., Indianapolis — 35-39 76 93 ! 107 Packers Pertilizer Cn., riincinnati 35-39 77 107 Pan American Fertilizer Co. 35-39 78 Pearl Packing Hnnse, '^Phe 3.5-39 78 93 107 Pero & Stoecker 35-39 78 93 107 Prairie State Phosphate Co. _ _ _ _ 35-39 78 92 Pulverized Manure Co. 35-39 79 93 107 Quebbeman & Son, Louis _ _ __ 39 79 1 107 Rasin-Monumental Co. 35-39 79 107 Rauh & Sons Fertilizer Co., E. 35-39 79 93 ' 108 Read Phosphate Co. __ 35-39 81 93 108 Royster t^iiann t'lompany^ F. S. 108 Kuhm, Jr., John 35-39 82 92 93 108 Schmadel Packing & Ice Co. _ _ __ 39 83 Slover Fertilizer Co. , 109 Smith, Jr., Wm. 35-39 83 Smith Agricultural Chemical Cn. 35-39 83 93 109 Southern Fertilizer rio. 35-39 84 109 Stabler Fertilizer Rendering Co. 35-39 85 109 Stephenson ArmstronrJ 109 Sterling Fertilizer Co. __ 35-39 85 109 Stolle & Sons, Anton _ 35-39 85 93 110 Swift Companv 35-39 86 93 110 'Pennessee (Chemical P.o. 39 88 110 n’ennessee. Poal Po. 93 no ’■Poledo Seed Oil Po. 93 no d’liscarora Fertilizer Po 35-39 89 111 Virginia-Parolina Chemical Co. 35-39 89 111 Wachtel Rendering Co. __ _ 93 111 Weidman, Augustus 35-39 90 111 Western Fertilizer We'rks 35-39 90 112 Wing Seed Co 39 91 93 112 Woodward Dickerson 93 112 Worm & Company 39 91 112 Wuichet Fertilizer Co., The 35-39 91 112 _ . .. PURDUE UNIVERSITY I ■ ' ^/s usmifr Agricultural Experiment StaticAi’^'^ Bulletin No. 200, ^Vol. XX JuLY^ 1917 STRAWBERRY VARIETIES AND CULTURAL HINTS PnDlislied Dy tie Station: LAFAYETTE, INDIANA U. S. A. I BOARD OF CONTROL Joseph D. Oliver, President South Bend. St. Joseph County Fay S. Chandler Indianapolis, Marion County Charles Downing Greenfield Hancock County John A. Hillenbrand Batesville, Ripley County Cyrus M. Hobbs Bridgeport, Marion County Warren T. McCray Kentland. Newton County James W. Noel Indianapolis, Marion County George W. Purcell Vincennes. Knox County Andrew E. Reynolds Crawfordsville. Montgomery County WiNTHROP E. Stone, A. M., Ph. D President of the University STATION STAFF HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS Arthur GosSj M. S., A. C : Director George I. Christie, B. S. A Sup’t Agricultural Extension Robert A. Craig, D. V. M Chief Veterinarian Otto F. Hunziker, M. S Chief in Dairy Husbandry Herbert S. Jackson, A. B Chief in Botany William J. Jones, Jr., M. S., A. C.^ State Chemist John H. Skinner, B. S Chief in Animal Husbandry James Troop, M. S Chief in Entomology Alfred T. Wiancko, B. S. A Chief in Soils and Crops Charles G. Woodbury, M. S Chief in Horticulture ASSOCIATES AND ASSISTANTS John M. Aldrich, Ph. D.^ Entomological Assistant Evelyn Allison, B. S... Assistant in Botany Sherman L. Anderson, B. S Assistant in Creamery Inspection Paul R. Bausman, B. S.^.. Inspector State Chemist Department James C. Beavers, B. Agr Associate in Soils and Crops Extension Reuben O. Bitler, B. S.'^ Deputy State Chemist Charles S. Brewster, M. S Assistant in Poultry Husbandry Turner H. Broughton, B. S Assistant in Creamery Inspection Harry D. Burnside. B. S. A.^ Inspector State Chemist Department Ralph E. Caldwell, B. S Associate in Milk Production Glenn G. Carter, B. SJ .'.Inspector State Chemist Department David B. Clark, D. M. C Assistant Veterinarian Carl H. Clink, B. S Assistant in Serum Production Thomas A. Coleman Ass’t State Leader Field Studies and Demonstrations Samuel D. Conner, M. S Associate Chemist in Soils and Crops Clinton O. Cromer, B. S Associate in Crops Carleton Cutler, B. S.^ First Deputy State Chemist and Microscopist (Feeds) John J. Davis, B. S.^ Entomological Assistant in Charge Ralph B. Deemer, B. S.^ Deputy State Chemist Leo P. Doyle, B. S Assistant in Animal Pathology William F. Epple, Ph. G Assistant in Dairy Chemistry Martin L. Fisher, M. S Assistant Chief in Soils and Crops Omar W. Ford, A. B.‘* Deputy State Chemist George M. Frier, B. S. A ....Associate in Charge of Short Courses and Exhibits Leslie R. George, B. S Assistant in Animal Pathology Mabel L Harlan Assistant in Agricultural Extension Cora A. Jacobs, A. M.^ Seed Analyst Sadocie C. Jones, M. S Assistant in Soils Lawrence C. Kigin, D. V. M Assistant Veterinarian Franklin G. King, B. S Associate in Animal Husbandry Walter H. Larrimer. B. S.^ Scientific Assistant Herbert E. McCartney, B. S. A Assistant in Animal Husbandry Extension Edwin B. Mains, Ph. D Assistant in Botany Preston W. Mason, B. S Assistant in Entomology Shirley L. Mason, A. B.« Scientific Assistant Horace C. Mills, B. S Associate in Dairy Manufactures Herman J. Nimitz, B. S.'‘ Deputy State Chemist Harry A. Noyes, M. S.. .Research Assistant in Horticultural Chemistry and Bacteriology Joseph Oskamp, B. S Research Assistant in Pomology George A. Osner, Ph. D Associate in Botany Harry C. Paine, D. V. M Associate Veterinarian Allen G. Philips, B. S. A Associate in Poultry Husbandry Edward G. Proulx, M. S.'* First Deputy State Chemist (Fertilizers) Harry J. Reed Associate in Horticulture Charles C. Rees, M. A Assistant in Botany Dean A. Ricker, B. S.^ Scientific Assistant Otis S. Roberts, B. S.* Chief Inspector State Chemist Department J. Howard Roop, B. S.^ Deputy State Chemist Harry R. Rosen, M. S Assistant in Rust Work George Spitzer, Ph. G.. B. S... Associate in Dairy Chemistry Chester G. Starr, B. S. A Assistant in Swine Production and Management Herbert B. Switzer, B. S. A Assistant in Dairy Bacteriology Samuel F. Thornton, B. S* Deputy State Chemist Chester F. Turner, B. S.^ Scientific Assistant Gilbert P. Walker, B. S Assistant in Soils and Crops Fred L. Walkey, D. V. M Assistant Veterinarian Rex a. Whiting, D. V. M Associate in Animal Pathology Nellie Tracy Secretary to the Director and Librarian Mary K. B loom Bookkeeper 1 In charge of Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control 2 Detailed by U. S. Department of Agriculture — Seed Testing 3 Detailed by U. S. Department of Agriculture — Cereal and Forage Crop In- sect Investigations ^ Connected with Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control ADVISORY COMMITTEE (UNDER LEGISLATIVE ACT OF 1909) J P. Prigg, Daleville State Live Stock Association U R Fishel, Hope State Poultry Fanciers’ Association H H. SwAiM, South Bend State Horticultural Society D. B. Johnson, Mooresville State Dairy Association D F Maish Frankfort State Corn Growers’ Association STRAWBERRY VARIETIES AND CULTURAL HINTS Prepared under the direction of C. G. Woodbury By Joseph Oskamp Strawberries constitute an important fruit crop in Indiana. There are sections in this state which ship upwards of fifty carloads during a single season. Indiana has immense natural advantages in its geographical location and nearness to markets, but the industry has received very little intelligent stimulus. The crop has been given insufficient attention and as a result, the State has an average produc- tion of some 1500 quarts per acre. Unless prices are unusually high, such a yield would scarcely meet the expenses of growing and mar- keting. There is not the slightest doubt that the growers of Indiana could double their output of strawberries by judicious attention to varieties and culture. Fig. 1. Strawberry plants should be set so the crowns are just above ground. The plant in the middle is set properly, that on the rig:ht too deep, on the left not deep enougrh A poor stand of plants is often the result of late planting. Or- der the plants and have them on hand early in the spring so that they may be set out at the earliest opportunity. Have the bed well prepared as for a garden crop. Mark the rows off three and one- half or four feet apart and set the plants every one and one-half or two feet in the row. Place the plants so that the crowns are just above the ground, as shown in Fig. i, and firm the earth well about the roots. Before planting, if the roots are too long, they should be short- ened in as it is no advantage to have them longer than four or five inches. It is a well known fact that plants absorb water by means of their roots and give water up to the air through their leaves. In a newly set plant which has not yet become established in the soil, the absorption of water is very slow, but the loss of water through 4 the leaves continues. In a dry season, therefore, we should reduce this loss to a minimum by removing all leaves which have opened, when we transplant; ordinarily two leaves are left. Do not ex- pose the plants unnecessarily to the drying efifects of the wind and sun, but keep them shaded and moist while planting. Fig. 2. Plants should be pruned before setting. The plant on the right is as dug; the one on the left is pruned The future productiveness of the plants will depend to no small extent upon the thoroughness of cultivation during the first sum- mer. Stir the soil frequently with a small cultivator to keep it loose and friable. Several hand hoeings will, be necessary to maintain the soil in the row in good condition and free from weeds. A mulch of clean straw two or three inches deep should be spread over the patch after the ground becomes frozen in the fall. With the opening of spring the mulch is raised from over the plants but is left on the bed between plants and between rows to conserve the moisture and keep the fruit clean. An important factor in the first season’s management is the pinching off of the blossoms as they appear on the young plants. It has been found experimentally that the stand of plants may be in- creased four or five fold by this operation alone, which with some varieties is quite an item. 5 Manures and fertilizers should be more generally used by straw- berry growers. Barnyard manure is one of the best fertilizers, where it can be obtained, as it not only enriches the soil but improves its mechanical condition. At least ten tons should be applied per acre and turned under in preparing the bed. The great drawback to manure is the many weed and grass seeds which it often contains, making the berry field very foul. This can be obviated by applying the manure to the preceding crop. In addition to the manure, it is well to apply 400 pounds or so of acid phosphate, which can either be worked in with the manure or applied afterwards, broadcast or with a fertilizer drill. Where manure is not available, 100 pounds of nitrate of soda should be mixed with the phosphate. Commercial fertilizers should not be applied in the hole when setting the plants or allowed to come in contact with the plants, but should be broad- casted and harrowed into the soil before the plants are set, or applied later as a top dressing. Fertilizer is also profitably used in renewing an old patch after the picking season is over. ' Much good can be accomplished in the judicious rejuvenation of an old bed. Instead of allowing the patch to grow up in weeds after the picking season, rake off the mulch and begin cultivation. Plow out a portion of the old rows where it seems desirable and harrow the bed both ways. This is an entirely safe practice in a season of normal rainfall and with a variety producing an abundance of runners, but with a shy plant maker such as Chesapeake, or in a dry season, but few plants should be plowed out. The soil should be worked during the remainder of the summer as for a young bed. Strawberries do not ordinarily require spraying but in case of attack by leaf eating insects, spray with arsenate of lead, two pounds of paste or one pound of powder to 50 gallons of water. Leaf spot or rust may be controlled most effectively by spraying with Bor- deaux mixture, although commercial lime-sulfur may be used, one gallon to 25 gallons of water, if of ordinary strength. HARVESTING AND MARKETING The berries should be picked carefully without bruising. The pickers are generally provided with a six-basket tray and they pick directly into the quart boxes. Fruit for shipping will have to be picked every day, as it will remain in the right condition only a short time. For local market or short distance haul, it can be picked ripe, but not soft. For a long haul, the fruit should be slightly green, about one-eighth, but of full size. The fruit should not re- main in the field exposed to the sun after picking, but should be taken at once to the packing shed. After a rain, it is best to wait for the water to dry off before attempting to pick. Berries wet with rain or dew go down quickly and do not ship well. If very much rain falls, the fruit will become watery and soft while yet green, and must be harvested in poor condition. 6 Grade the berries and have them uniform. Different varieties packed together in the same carrier will lessen the attractiveness. Berries of light red color, which might look very well by themselves would show up poorly beside darker ones. The same thing is true of size. Medium small berries which could command a fair price, would if packed with larger fruit, look very inferior and spoil the sale of both. Grading may be done in a rough way by the pickers as they pick. All malformed, bruised or over-ripe fruit should be discarded. The contents of each box, however, should be examined at the packing shed before crating. This can be expeditiously done by emptying the berries out on a large, tin scoop where they are all in full view and can be quickly culled and returned to their box. Fill the boxes full; in fact round them up a little. They will keep tight and ride better in this way. The marketing end of the strawberry business is the one too often neglected. With the small grower who supplies a local trade this is not such a problem. However, with the large grower who lives in a community where strawberries are an important crop and who ships his fruit, it becomes a vital matter. It is folly to expect to receive profitable returns on consignments of fruit shipped pro- miscuously to various markets. All possible points should be in- vestigated before shipment so that the fruit may be put on a market which is firm, instead of one already well supplied or perhaps even glutted. To do this economically the growers should organize, form an association, and employ a manager to personally supervise the marketing branch of the business. HILL SYSTEM VS. MATTED ROW Although one hears of the hill system in print, it is seldom used even in the home garden and apparently this is as it should be, if our own experience with a two years’ comparative test of the hill system and matted row system gives an indication of relative merit. During two seasons all the varieties fruited were grown both in the hill system and matted row which gave an opportunity of observ- ing the behavior of each under both systems. The results of the first season showed that of the 43 varieties under observation, those in the hill system produced an average of 70 per cent, less fruit than those in the matted row. Further, there was not a single variety that did not yield notably less berries in the hill system than in the matted row. There appeared to be no special fitness of some varieties for the hill system, in that they were more productive under that system. In general, those varieties that gave high yields in the row also gave high yields in the hill. Of course, some varieties make fewer run- ners and it is therefore less trouble to keep the runners cut off such varieties when planted to the hill system than more prolific runner makers. 7 As far as could be observed, the berries from the matted row were equal in earliness, size, color and quality to those from the hills. The second year’s results verified those of the first year. The hill system, as an average of all varieties, produced 58 per cent, less Fig. 3. The matted row system of training is to be generally recommended Fig. 4. The hill system gave greatly reduced yields with no compensating advantages fruit than the matted row. The yields of the individual varieties composing the hill system were uniformly low ; not a single instance in which a variety under this system gave a yield even nearly equal 8 to that of the matted row. Not only did the hill system give reduced yields, but there were no compensating advantages either in larger size, enhanced color or improved quality of fruit. VARIETIES The selection of proper varieties is a very important consider- ation to the strawberry grower. Many hundreds of varieties have been grown and fruited in the United States with varying degrees of success and the number is being constantly increased. The unde- sirable varieties are, of course, gradually weeded out and the special requirements of others ascertained, but at a considerable expense to production in the meantime. Of the multitude of new sorts intro- duced each year but few ever become of even passing importance. If it were possible to eliminate these undesirables and misfits before they took their toll from production, by an impartial trial, a great step would be made in variety testing. A strawberry, how- ever, is most susceptible to its environment. The characteristics of a variety are not stable but vary widely with even minor changes in locality. Therefore, variety tests can in no sense be final except as applying to entirely similar conditions. This should be fully real- ized in studying the variety notes that are to follow. While the value of variety tests is limited, they serve in many cases to bring out the most striking characteristics of a variety and furnish a basis of selection for further trials by the growers. Fig. 5. The smaller blossom, A, is pistillate or imperfect. Varieties bearing such flowers must be set with those bearing perfect or staminate flowers, as shown at B Thirty-two comparatively new varieties are here described in some detail. To make the publication of greater practical value to all, brief mention of such other varieties as are popular in Indiana and which have been previously described ^ is included. One hundred plants of a variety have served as a basis of com- parison in each case. The yields appear as per cents, lOO being taken as the average yield of all varieties. The sex is denoted by the letters S and P, the former standing for stamen-bearing or self-fertile flowers and the latter for pistillate or imperfect blossoms. In planting pistillate sorts, a staminate 1 Bulletin No. 164, Purdue University Agricultural Experiment Station 9 variety should be set every four rows to insure proper pollination. The person or firm supplying the original plants is indicated in the description. Varieties which have proved popular in Indiana and those rec- ommended for trial are starred. Anna, P. — Berry regular, roundish, conical, medium size, fairly uni- form, dark red; flesh dark red, acid to subacid, not high in flavor, mod- erately Arm, medium grain, quality fair; core dark red, spongy; calyx medium size, adherent; seeds medium size, decidedly depressed. Plants show little leaf spot. Yield index 162. Mid-season. This variety is ex- celled by others. (W. W. Thomas, Anna, 111.) Baldwin’s Pride, S. — Berry somewhat irregular, conical, medium size, not uniform, dark red; flesh light red, subacid, medium Arm, flne grained, quality fair to almost good; core light red, solid; calyx large, easily de- tached; seeds numerous, large, protrusive. Plants medium in vigor with medium size, dark green leaves, medium amount of leaf spot, a medium runner maker. Yield index 51. Mid-season. A low yielding variety, pro- ducing too many nubbins. (O. D. Baldwin, Bridgman, Mich.) Baltimore, S. — Berry wedge shape, often coxcomb, quite irregular; medium to large, not uniform, medium red; flesh medium in color and texture, subacid, sprightly, pleasant, quality good; core red, partly hollow; calyx large, generally adherent; seeds medium size, depressed. Plant medium in vigor, foliage light green, Ibaf spot considerable; runners many. Yield index 106. Medium late. Runs most too variable in shape and size for a commercial berry. (E. W. Townsend, Salisbury, Md.) Barrymore, S. — ^Berry regular, conical, medium large, dark red; flesh light red, subacid, medium in grain and firmness, quality fair; core pink, solid; calyx medium size, adherent; seeds medium size, depressed to pro- trusive. Plant rather weak with small, medium dark green leaves show- ing medium amount of leaf spot, runners medium to few in number. Yield index 55. Mid-season. Low in yield and not recommended. (W. F. Allen, Salisbury, Md.) Bauer, P. — Berry regular, conical, medium to small in size, dark red; flesh dark red, decidedly acid. Arm, flne grain, quality fair to poor; core white, solid; calyx small, adherent; seeds medium size, depressed to pro- trusive. Plant moderately vigorous with small, medium dark green leaves showing very little leaf spot, runners medium to few in number. Yield index 59. Mid-season. P^-uit inferior. (J. C. Bauer, Judsonia, Ark.) Big Early, P. — Berry roundish, conical, sometimes double, regular, medium to large, fairly uniform, medium red; flesh medium to light red, rather soft, subacid to near- ly sweet, quality fair, core light red, spongy; calyx medium size, adherent; seeds medium size, depressed to variable. Plant very vigorous, tall, large, dark green leaves, medium to no spot, runners numerous. Yield index 139. Early. Although excelled by some, it is worthy of trial for home use and near markets where firmness and color are not the main considerations. (A chance seedling discovered in 1910 by E. Overman, Fairmount, Ind. Not yet introduced.) Chesapeake, ^ S. — Previously described and recommended in Bulletin No. 164. Good Fi*. 6. Chesapeake-a very quality and very showy. The large, bright showy berry Colored berry makes a striking contrast with lO the dark green leafy calyx and prominent deep yellow seeds. Medium late. Has given good yields under favorable conditions. Class A, S. — Berry regular, conical, medium size, uniform, dark red, some hard green tips; flesh dark red, subacid, rather coarse texture and medium firmness, quality fair, seedy; core dark red, solid; calyx medium size, easily detached; seeds numerous, large, protrusive, yellow. Plant vigorous with large, dark green leaves showing only a trace of leaf spot, runners abundant. Yield index 74. Medium early. Attractive but lacking in quality and yield. (C. Nation, Gilead, Ind.) Class B, P. — Berry irregular, conical, wedge to coxcomb, large, fairly uniform, medium red; flesh pink, subacid, insipid, coarse grained, medium Arm, quality fair; core pink, solid; calyx medium in size and adherence; seeds large, variable. Plant medium to vigorous with large, dark green foliage showing medium leaf spot, runner production medium. Yield index 90. Medi- um late. Not recommended. (C. Nation, Gilead, Ind.) Columbia, * P. — Previously described and recommended in Bulletin No. 164. Large, Arm, good quality, productive. May be planted on sandy lands where Gandy is not suited. Late. Early Jersey Giant*, S. — Berry ob- long, conical to wedge, large, fairly uniform, dull red; flesh medium red, medium grain. Arm, subacid, mild, quality rather good; core red, spongy; calyx large, dark green, slightly raised; seeds variable. Plant very vigorous, tall, large, dark green foliage, very little leaf spot, runners many. Yield index 139. Early. The most promising early variety yet fruit- ed. It has good size, color and quality for an early berry and is Arm and very productive. (J. T. Lovett, Little Silver, N. J.) Early Market, S. — Berry regular, conical, medium to small, not uni- form, dark red; flesh dark red, subacid to acid, texture coarse, moderately Arm, quality fair; core dark red, solid; calyx medium to large, easily de- tached; seeds uneven. Plant weak grower having small, dark green leaves showing little leaf spot, runners few. Yield index 43. Early. Not desirable. (W. F. Allen, Salisbury, Md.) Early Ozark, * S. — ^Berry regular, roundish conical, medium size, some- times small, fairly uniform, dark red; flesh dark red, subacid, medium grain. Arm, quality very good; core dark red, solid; calyx small, adherent; seeds medium size, protrusive. Plant fairly vigorous with medium size, dark green leaves showing little leaf spot; number production medium. Yield index 50. Early. A variety of fine quality, but lacking in size and yield under our conditions. Is worthy of trial in other locations. A good canning type. (Flandsburg & Potter, Leslie, Mich.) Evening Star, S. — Berry generally roundish conical to wedge, somewhat irregular, medium size, fairly uniform, medium red; flesh pink, watery, sweetish, flne grain, rather soft, quality fair; core pink, solid; calyx medium small; seeds medium size, protrusive. Plant vigorous with large, dark green foliage and very little leaf spot, runners medium in number. Yield index 47. Late. Not recommended. (J. A. Bauer, Jud- sonia, Mich.) Fuller, S. — Berry fairly regular, generally conical, necked, medium to large, moderately uniform, dark red; flesh medium red, subacid, medium grain, firm, quality fair to good; core red, solid; calyx medium large. Fig:. 7. Early Jersey Giant — a most promising early variety easily detached; seeds medium size, depressed to protrusive. Plant rather poor, small, dark green foliage, medium leaf spot and few runners. Yield index 62. Mid-season. Other varieties excel it. (W. W. Thomas, Anna, 111.) Gandy, * S. — Previously described and recommended in Bulletin No. 164. The most popular late variety in Indiana, especially on clay or soil retentive of moisture. An ex- cellent shipper. Grand Marie, * S. — Previously described and recommended in Bulletin No. 164. A handsome berry peculiarly adapted to a select trade for eating out of hand. Mid-season. Haverland, * P. — Previously described and recommended in Bulletin No. 164. One of the . standard mid-season berries for Indiana. Es- ^^ar‘iate*^vJriety^i™indiana^' pecially Suitable for local market or home use. Helen Davis, S. — ^Berry regular, conical, sometimes coxcomb, medium large, light red; flesh pink, subacid to sweet, rather insipid, flne grain, soft, quality fair; core pink, solid; calyx medium size, adherent; seeds medium size, depressed to protrusive. Plant above medium in vigor, leaves medium size and color, leaf spot medium, runner production medium. Yield index 155. Mid- season. Fruit light in color, soft and poor flavor. (G. W. Davis, Brazil, Ind.) Hub, S. — Berry conical to double, medium large, dark red; flesh dark red, medium texture, subacid, quality fair; core red, spongy; calyx medium size, adherent; seeds variable. Plant rather weak, dwarAsh; little leaf spot, few run- ners. Yield index 123. Mid-season. A fancy looking berry but not otherwise superior. (M. Crawford Co., Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.) Indiana, S. — ^Berry wedge shape, irregular, many nubbins, large, dark red; flesh dark red, medium texture, subacid, quality fair to good; core solid, dark red; calyx medium large, some- times adherent; seeds raised. Plant weak, small leaves, medium spot, few runners. Yield index 44. Mid-season. Unproductive. (H. J. Schild, Ionia, market Mich.) Joe Johnson, S. — Berry regular, round, conical to coxcomb, large, dark red; flesh medium to Arm, medium red; subacid, quality fair to good; core red, spongy; calyx medium size, generally adherent; seeds variable. Plant moderately vigorous, medium foliage, very little leaf spot, runners medium in number. Yield index 111. Medium late. (E. W. Townsend, Salisbury, Md.) Knaub No. 1, P. — Berry regular, conical to wedge, medium to gener- ally small, uniform, light red; flesh light red, subacid, not attractive, coarse grain, medium Arm, fair quality; core pink, solid; calyx medium size, adherent; seeds medium size, protrusive. Plant very vigorous, foli- age medium in size, color and amount of leaf spot, runners abundant. Yield index 186. Medium early. A heavy yielder, but small and unattrac- tive. (B. Knaub, North Vernon, Ind.) Knaub No. 6, P. — Berry regular, conical, small, light red; flesh light pink, acid, soft, poor quality; core pink, solid; seeds small, depressed. Plant medium in vigor, light green leaves with medium infection of leat 12 spot, runners few. Yield index 140. Mid-season. Inferior. (B. Knaub, North Vernon, Ind.) Late Jersey Giant, S. — Berry roundish, bluntly conical to oblate, sometimes truncate, large, dark red; flesh light red, medium coarse, tend- ing to soft, subacid, quality good; core partly hollow; calyx large, gen- erally adherent; seeds medium size, variable in depression. Plant vigor- ous, large, dark green leavesi, medium leaf spot, medium number runners. Yield index 89. Late. May have a place as a late variety. (J. T. Lovett, Little Silver, N. J.) Lea, S. — Berry regular, conical, medium size, dark red; flesh medium red, subacid, medium grain. Arm, quality fair; core hollow; calyx medium size, adherent; seeds rather large, protrusive. Plant vigorous with leaves medium in size and color, very little leaf spot, runners abundant. Yield index 97. Medium early. Not attractive. (W. F. Allen, Salisbury, Md.) Manhattan, S.- — Berry conical, often double and irregular, large medi- um red; flesh light red, rather coarse, medium firm, subacid, quality fair; core light red, hard; calyx medium size, adherent; seeds protrusive. Plant small, weak, few runners, medium leaf spot. Yield index 100. Medium late. Poor plant, and berries do not hold up their size through the season. (W. P. Allen, Salisbury, Md.) Missionary, S. — Berry conical to angular, often double, medium size, dark red; flesh firm, dark red, acid, quality fair; core red, partly hollow; calyx medium size, adherent; seeds medium size, raised. Plant tall, vig- orous, medium foliage, very little leaf spot, many runners. Yield index 84. Medium early. Fruit runs small after first picking and is almost too sour. (W. F. Allen, Salisbury, Md.) Ohio Boy, S. — Berry regular, conical to wedge, large, medium red; flesh light red, subacid, juicy, medium grain, firm, quality good; core pink, solid; calyx large, easily detached; seeds numerous, protrusive. Plants rather below medium in vigor, leaves medium in size, color and amount of leaf spot, runners few. Yield index 103. Medium late. Surpassed by other sorts. (A. A. Eppert, Amelia, Ohio.) Orem, * S. — Previously described and rec- ommended in Bulletin No. 164. A large, firm berry of good quality that will outyield Gandy on sandy soils or under adverse moisture condi- tions. Late. Pearl, S. — Berry conical to wedge, some- times coxcomb, rough, large size, dark, glossy red; flesh red throughout, fine grain, moderately firm, acid, sprightly, quality good; core red, spongy; calyx large, adherent; seeds variable. Plant vigorous, large, dark green foliage, little leaf spot, runners medium to few. Yield index 80. Medium late. A fancy berry but does not yield up to the average. (M. Crawford Co., Cuya- hoga Falls, Ohio.) Posey, S. — ^Berry regular, long wedge shape, large, fairly uniform, dark red; flesh medium red, subacid, mild, medium grain, firm, fair quality, somewhat seedy; core red, spongy; calyx very large, dark green, easily detached; seeds many, protrusive. Plant vigorous with large, dark green foliage showing medium amount of leaf spot, runners numerous. Yield index 132. Mid-season. A productive and attractive berry but not high in quality. (O. C. Herron, Brazil, Ind.) Fis:. 10. Orem — worthy of trial as a late sort where (iandy does not succeed 13 riff. 11. Rewastico — a new variety worthy of trial Rewastico, * S. — Berry bluntly conical to wedge, large, dark red; flesh dark red, medium texture, sharply subacid, quality good; core red, partly hollow; calyx medium size, adherent; seeds medium size, depressed. Plant vigorous, medium foliage and leaf spot, runners medium in number. Yield index 154. Medium late. A large, well colored and productive berry worthy of trial. (W. F. Allen, Salisbury, Md.) Sample, * P. — Previously described and recommended in Bulletin No. 164. Berry large, glossy red. Arm, good, very productive. A good, dependable variety. Medium late. Senator Dunlap, * S. — Previously described and recommended in Bulletin No. 164. One of the most deiservedly popular and welll known varieties in the United States. A good cropper and suitable for canning. Mid-season. Sons Prolific, S. — ^Berry conical to wedge, large, light red; flesh light red, subacid, not high flavor, coarse grain. Arm, quality fair; core pink, solid; calyx large, adherent; seeds rather large, protru- sive. Plant vigorous, dark green foliage, little leaf spot, runner production medium. Yield index 93. Mid-season. Excelled by others. (D. McNallie, Sar- coxie. Mo.) St. Louis, * S. — Berry regular, long conical, large, uniform,, light red; flesh subacid, lacking in flavor, pink, medium in firmness, quality good for an early berry; core pink, solid; calyx large, easily detached; seeds medium size, depressed to pro- trusive. Plant vigorous with foliage medium in size home use or camiing; and color. Showing very little leaf spot, runners abundant. Yield index 130. Early. Although this berry is lacking in color, firmness and flavor, yet as an early variety it is superior to many, being productive, large in size and very early. (J. A. Bauer, Judsonia, Ark.) Twilley, S. — Berry bluntly conical to wedge, medium large, medium red; flesh medium, subacid, rather dry, medium firm, quality fair to poor; core pink, solid; calyx large, easily detached; seeds many. Plant below medium in vigor with medium size, light green foliage and considerable leaf spot, runners medium in number. Yield index 76. Mid- season. Inferior. (W. P. Allen, Salisbury, Md.) Warfield, * P. — Previously described and rec- ommended in Bulletin No. 164. It is a high class berry in every respect. Extremely productive, a good shipper and exceptionally fine for canning. Ripens nearer mid-season here although listed as early by some. Warren, S. — Berry conical, sometimes cox- comb, large, dark red; flesh dark red, medium texture, subacid, lacks character; core red, spongy; calyx medium size, adherent; seeds raised, prominent. Plant, moderately vigorous, dark green foliage, medium leaf spot, runners rather few. Yield index 77. Mid-season. An attractive berry, but otherwise undesirable. (W. F. Allen, Salisbury, Md.) Fig:. 12. Senator Dunlap -desirable for market, Fiff. 13. Warfield — ex- ceptionally fine for can- ning: William Belt, * S. — Previously described and recommended in Bulle- tin No. 164, Has a fine fiavor and popular for local, home use and can- ning. Has been quite productive under favorable moisture, conditions. Mid-season. Winner, S. — Berry somewhat irregular, conical to wedge, large not uniform, medium red, glossy; flesh medium red, subacid, mild, firm, coarse grained, fair quality; core light red, solid; calyx large, adherent; seeds large, variable in depression. Plant vigorous with large leaves and very little leaf spot, runners numerous. Yield index 119. Mid-season. Surpassed by others. (W. F. Allen, Salisbury, Md.) FALL BEARING VARIETIES Various inquiries have been received during the last few years in regard to fall or everbearing strawberries. An investigation of these varieties and their economic possibilities is in progress and cer- tain comments on their behavior have been considered advisable at this time. Apparently the so-called fall or everbearing varieties are yet far from having the peculiarity of abnormal fruiting season estab- lished as a definite character. When they bear the normal spring crop as they abundantly will, if permitted to do so, the amount of fruit produced in commercial quantities later in the season becomes negligible. It has therefore been found necessary to remove the spring bloom until July to the end -that a fall crop may be harvested. Even with this precaution to ^insure an autumn crop, the yield has been less than half that of tlie average variety fruiting in the spring. Although the yield is small, the price of the fall fruit is generally quite satisfactory, being very often more than twice that obtained for the spring crop, thus offsetting in a way, the reduced production. Fall strawberries may be highly profitable under special conditions, but as an ordinary commercial venture they should be gradually ap- proached and the above suggestions borne in mind. Following are descriptions of the fall bearing varieties which have fruited on the Station grounds : Americus, S. — Berry variable, round to conical or wedge, medium size, light red; flesh pink, fine grain, medium firm, mild, almost sweet, pleasant, quality good; core spongy, pink; calyx medium size, often raised; seeds small, depressed. Plant only fair in vigor, quite small, medium green leaves, showing little leaf spot, medium number of runners. Lack- ing in color and yield. Dewdrop, S. — Berry sometimes conical, but generally very rough, irregular and malformed with seedy, green tips, size variable, color dark red; flesh almost white, medium texture, subacid, not high, quality fair; core partly hollow; calyx rather large, very adherent; seeds medium sized, raised. Plant not robust, runners few, leaf spot little. Berries too rough and malformed to be of value. Pan American, S. — Berry oblate, medium, not uniform, light red; flesh very light, fine grained, rather soft, mildly subacid, quality fair; core partly hollow, light red; calyx medium to small, adherent; seeds medium 15 sized, raised. Not a robust plant, runners very few, very little leaf spot. Unproductive and not otherwise desirable. Productive, P. — Berry conical, medium size, light red; flesh light red, medium texture, subacid, insipid, quality fair to poor; core pink, spongy; calyx small, adherent; seeds very prominent. Plant vigorous, dark green, medium sized leaves, leaf spot bad, runners medium. Moderately pro- ductive but not attractive in color or quality. Progressive, S. — ^Berry conlical, medium size, medium red; flesh dark red throughout, medium texture, mildly subacid, quality fair to good; core red, solid; calyx medium size, variable; seeds medium size, raised. Plant vigorous, small, medi- um green leaves, little leaf spot, runners abundant, inclined to become small in size, but worthy of trial. Superb, S. — Berry roundish conical, medium large, dark, glossy red; flesh dark red throughout, fine grained, rather firm, mildly subacid, quality good; core dark red, spongy; calyx medium size, adherent; seeds medium size, protrusive. Plant vigorous, medium in foliage, leaf spot and runners. Large sized, well colored, good quality, productive. A superior fall variety. INSECT ENEMIES White: Grubs. — These are the larvae of the June bug or May beetle, which lays its eggs in grass lands in June. The larvae feed upon the roots of a great variety of crops. Control ; Do not follow sod with strawberries. In case of bad infestation, fall plow the land and turn in hogs or chickens. Buck- wheat and clover are about the only crops whose roots they will not bother. Strawbe:rry Leap Robbers. — The eggs are deposited by a moth in the early spring and the young, greenish larvae feed upon the leaves a few days before drawing them together. Control : Spraying will be more effective if given early before the larvae roll up the leaves. Two or three sprayings at intervals of a week, using two pounds of arsenate of lead paste or one pound of powder to 50 gallons of water will usually prevent the appear- ance of a second brood. Inasmuch as the spray applications for the leaf roller generally come after the berries are formed, it might be said that authorities disagree as to the danger of rendering the berries poisonous for human consumption if sprayed after the fruit is set, with an arsenical.^ Mowing the vines and burning the patch over as soon as the crop is harvested will aid in eradicating the pest. Strawberry Rootworms. — The larvae of a leaf beetle, re- sembling small white grubs, but being much thicker and not having the large abdomen of that larva. They feed upon the roots and ^ss 1 In the home garden, fresh, powdered, white hellebore may take the place of the arsenate, using one ounce to three gallons of water or, used dry, one part of hellebore to three parts of air-slaked lime. Hellebore is not poisonous, but is much more expensive than arsenate of lead Fig. 14. Superb — one of the best fall bearing sorts i6 the pupa stage in earthen cells emerging as adult beetles in July; at this time they feed upon the leaves. There are more than one species. Control: When the beetles are on the foliage in late sunnier, spray with arsenate of lead, Strawberry Crown Borers. — The legless larvae of a snout beetle. The beetle lays its eggs in June and the larvae eat out the interior of the crowns. Control : The beetles do not fly and hence, migrate very slowly. A rotation of the bed will hold them in check. Burning over the patch is also helpful. They are beyond the reach of poisons. Strawberry SawElies. — These are the larvae of a fly which deposits its eggs under the epidermis of the leaves. The eggs hatch about the time the plants are in bloom and the slugs skeletonize the foliage. Control : Spraying with arsenate of lead as the slugs appear is very effective. Strawberry Weevies. — The adult female beetles deposit their eggs in the maturing staminate strawberry buds, cutting the stalks, so the buds fall to the ground. The larvae feed upon the pollen, pupate, and emerge as adults in about a month. Control : Burning the field will help to destroy the hibernating beetles. Spray thoroughly with arsenate of lead as the first blos- soms appear. Plant largely to pistillate varieties. DISEASES Strawberry Leae Spot. — This is the most common disease of the strawberry. It appears at blooming time and becomes worse as the season advances. The spots are small, usually round and purple in color. Later they become grayish* and often drop out, leaving holes in the leaves. Many leaves are thus sacrificed and the vigor of the plants greatly reduced. Control : Spray with Bordeaux mixture (4-6-50 and add two pounds of lead arsenate paste or one pound of powder, for leaf eat- ing insects) when the foliage first comes out, and later just before blooming. If the patch is to be fruited again, after mowing down and destroying the old growth, give two more applications of Bordeaux at intervals of two weeks. Plant varieties which are resistant to leaf spot. Powdery mildew and leaf blight also affect the strawberry oc- casionally. Control measures are the same as for leaf spot. I USlYcn .. ‘i UijSi ^ 0.7 h^Z'ih PURDUE UNIVERSITY 4 !918 Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 201, Vol. XX August^ 1917 VARIETIES OF BLACKBERRIES AND RASP- BERRIES WITH NOTES ON THEIR CARE Published by the Station: LAFAYETTE, INDIANA U. S. A. BOARD OF CONTROL Joseph D. Oliver, President Pay S. Chandler / Charles Downing John A. Hillenbrand Cyrus M. Hobbs Warren T. McCray James W. Noel George W. Purcell Andrew E. Reynolds WiNTHROP E. Stone, A. M., Ph. D, South Bend, St. Joseph County Indianapolis, Marion County Greenfield, Hancock County Batesville, Ripley County Bridgeport, Marion County Kentland, Newton County Indianapolis, Marion County Vincennes, Knox County •Crawfordsville, Montgomery County President of the University STATION STAFF HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS Arthur Goss^ M. S., A. C George I. Christie, B. S. A Robert A. Craig, D. V, M Otto F. Hunziker, M. S Herbert S. Jackson, A. B William J. Jones, Jr., M. S., A. C.^ John H. Skinner, B. S James Troop, M. S Alfred T. Wiancko, B. S. A Charles G. Woodbury, M. S Director Sup’t Agricultural Extension Chief Veterinarian ...-Chief in Dairy Husbandry Chief in Botany State Chemist ..Chief in Animal Husbandry Chief in Entomology Chief in Soils and Crops Chief in Horticulture ASSOCIATES AND ASSISTANTS JOHN M. Aldrich, Ph. D,^ Entomological Assistant Evelyn Allison, B. S Assistant in Botany Sherman L. Anderson, B. S Assistant in Creamery Inspection Paul R. Bausman, B. S.^ inspector State Chemist department James C. Beavers, B. Agr Associate in Soils and Crops Extension Reuben O. Bitler, B. S.* Deputy State Chemist Charles S. Brewster, M. S Assistant in Poultry Husbandry Turner H. Broughton, B. S .Assistant in Creamery Inspection Harry D. Burnside, B. S. A.-* Inspector State Chemist Department Ralph E. Caldwell, B. S Associate in Milk Production Glenn G, Carter, B. S.* Inspector State Chemist Department David B. Clark', D. M. C Assistant Veterinarian Carl H. Clink, B. S Assistant in Serum Production Thomas A. Coleman Ass't State Leader Field Studies and Demonstrations Samuel D. Conner, M. S Associate Chemist in Soils and Crops Clinton O. Cromer, B. S Associate in Crops CARLETON Cutler, B. S.^ P"irst Deputy State Chemist and Microscopist (Feeds) John J. Davis, B. S.^ Entomological Assistant in Charge Ralph B. Deemer, B. S.* Deputy State Chemist Leo P. Doyle, B. S Assistant in Animal Pathology William F. Epple, Ph. G Assistant in Dairy Chemistry Martin L. Fisher, M. S Assistant Chief in Soils and Crops Omar W. Ford, A. B.^ Deputy State Chemist George M. Frier, B. S. A Associate in Charge of Short Courses and Exhibits Leslie R. George, B. S Assistant in Animal Pathology Mabel L. Harlan Assistant in Agricultural Extension Cora A. Jacobs, A. M.^ Seed Analyst Sadocie C. Jones, M. S Assistant in Soils LAWRENCE C. Kigin, D. V. M Assistant Veterinarian Franklin G. King, B. S Associate in Animal Husbandry Walter H. Larrimer, B. S.^ : Scientific Assistant Herbert E. McCartney, B. S. A Assistant in Animal Husbandry Extension Edwin B. Mains, Ph. D Assistant in Botany Preston W. Mason, B. S Assistant in Entomology Shirley L. Mason, A. B.s Scientific Assistant Horace C. Mills, B. S Associate in Dairy Manufactures Herman J. Nimitz, B. S.^ Deputy State Chemist Harry A. Noyes, M. S.. .Research Assistant in Horticultural Chemistry and Bacteriology JOSEPH OSKAMP, B. S Research Assistant in Pomology George A. Osner, Ph. D Associate in Botany Harry C. Paine, D. V. M Associate Veterinarian Allen G. Phillips, B. S. A Associate in Poultry Husbandry Edward G. Proulx, M. S.^ First Deputy State Chemist (Fertilizers) Harry J. Reed Associate in Horticulture Charles C. Rees, M. A Assistant in Botany Dean A. Ricker, B. S.^ Scientific Assistant Otis S. Roberts, B. S.^ Chief Inspector State Chemist Department J. Howard Roop, B. S.* Deputy State Chemist Harry R. Rosen, M. S Assistant in Rust Work George Spitzer, Ph. G.. B. S Associate in Dairy Chemistry Chester G. Starr. B. S. A Assistant in Swine Production and Management Herbert B. Switzer. B. S. A Assistant in Dairy Bacteriology Samuel F. Thornton, B. S.^ Deputy State Chemist Chester F. Turner, B. S.^ Scientific Assistant Gilbert P. Walker. B. S Assistant in Soils and Crops Fred L. Walkey, D. V. M Assistant Veterinarian Rex a. Whiting, D. V. M Associate in Animal Pathology Nellie Tracy Secretary to the Director and Librarian Mary K. B loom Bookkeeper 1 In charge of Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control 2 Detailed by U. S. Department of Agriculture — Seed Testing 3 Detailed by U. S. Department of AgHculture — Cereal and Forage Crop In- sect Inyestigations ■* Connected with Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control ADVISORY COMMITTEE (UNDER LEGISLATIVE ACT OF 1909) J. P. Prigg, Daleyille State Liye Stock Association U. R. Fishel, Hope State Poultry Fanciers’ Association H. H. SwAiM, South Bend... State Horticultural Society n. B. Johnson, Mooresyille State Dairy Association D. F. Maish, Frankfort State Corn Growers’ Association VARIETIES OF BLACKBERRIES AND RASP- BERRIES WITH NOTES ON THEIR CARE Prepared under the direction of C. G. Woodbury By Jose:ph Oskamp Many growers of blackberries and raspberries have become dis- couraged in the last few years because these crops no longer do well and have “run out,” as the expression goes, in their localities. This has indeed happened, but it is not to be blamed to the “running out”' of the variety but to other perfectly definite, although not always obvious causes. The prevalence of diseases on these fruits has greatly increased, due to the dissemination of infected nursery stock and to general neglect of the plantations, and is responsible in a large measure for reduced yields. Lack of good tillage, poor cultural methods, failure to use manure or other fertilizers, have all had their direct efifect on reducing yields as well as their indirect efifect in en- couraging development of diseases. The most careful attention should be given to the purchase of nursery stock. Buying from only the most reliable plant men who have a reputation to sustain is a safeguard. Young plants should not be taken from an old plantation unless one is satisfied that the stock is not diseased. Spraying will help to keep the plants healthy hut is a preventive measure rather than a specific remedy. Cutting- out all the old canes as soon as the crop is harvested and burning them, is a simple but important control measure. It also seems advisable to rotate the patch more frequently than has heretofore been practiced. Aim to give the plants excellent care so that they may attain maximum production early, and discard them before they lose vitality and become diseased ; start the new patch always on a fresh piece of land. SOIL The brambles are moisture and humus loving plants. They naturally thrive in moist locations where leaf mold is abundant, as in old fence corners and clearings in the woods. They may be grown, however, on almost any well drained soil, but the fruit does not attain its maximum size and perfection except on a deep, rich loam. A clay subsoil is an advantage on account of its moisture holding capacity. As a general rule, the heavier types of soil are better adapted to blackberries and the lighter loams to raspberries. The soil can be greatly improved by liberal applications of barn- yard manure, which is preferable to using Commercial fertilizers exclusively. In blackberry and raspberry culture, moisture is more often the limiting factor than plant food ; hence it becomes highly 4 important to improve the moisture condition of the soil. This is exactly what manure does and commercial fertilizers do not do. Manure adds humus, which greatly increases the water holding capacity of the soil. Manure may be turned under when preparing the soil for planting or it may be applied in the fall as a winter mulch. It can be used freely; there is little danger of manuring these fruits too heavily. PLANTING Plow the land deeply and work the soil down to a finely pulver- ized condition before planting. Plants should be set three or four feet apart in rows seven to eight feet apart. Planting may be done in any convenient manner, but in field culture the plants are gen- erally set in furrows, which makes the work much more rapid. The important thing is to set the crowns slightly below the surface of the ground and firm the earth about the plant roots, leaving the plants set tight in the soil. Spring planting generally is to be preferred, but if fall planting is done the plants should be mulched with straw or other material. CULTIVATION Lack of cultivation is a common cause of the failure of berries in Indiana. Dry weather about the time of ripening, especially of Fig. 1. Frequent cultivation is the keynote in securing large, perfect berries throughout the season blackberries, is not unusual in this state. Without proper cultivation the berries soon go to “nubbins” and become dry and tasteless. 5 Earliness of cultivation is important. If plowing is delayed until late, many of the new feeding roots which have already de- veloped, will be cut off. This is a distinct loss to the plants at this time. Plow and prepare the land as early in the spring as it is fit to work ; then keep a dust mulch on the surface of the ground by frequent cultivation. A small, berry cultivator is suitable for this purpose. Deep tillage is not desired; it should be just deep enough to break the surface crust. Remember that frequent cultivation will help to secure large, perfect berries throughout the season. A cover crop of some sort should be sown in late summer. Probably millet for this purpose is as good as anything. It fur- nishes one of the best covers of the non-hardy crops and leaves the soil in particularly fine condition for spring work. Rye is an excel- lent winter surviving crop but more difficulty is experienced in turn- ing it under and getting the ground in shape afterwards. Fig:. 2 . The tools necessary for effective cultivation in the herry field. Note especially the home-made, one-horse drag for crushing clods Where straw can be procured cheaply, mulching may take the place of cultivation. A deep mulch will conserve the soil moisture quite as effectively as cultivation and very satisfactory crops will result. The soil should never lie bare over winter, but either a mulch or cover crop may furnish protection. TRAINING The training of the canes is a matter that should suit the con- venience of the individual grower. There are two considerations, however, which should not be lost sight of. The plantation should be confined either to hills or narrow rows. All suckers or new plants which arise outside of these confines should be destroyed by hoe or 6 cultivator, for without such attention the patch will become a verit- able thicket. When the fruit has been harvested, the old canes should be cut out at once and burned. This not only gives the younger canes a better opportunity to develop but greatly reduces the chance of infecting the new growth with any diseases the old canes may harbor. Fijj. 3. Berry bush after old canes have been removed and new canes have sent out lateral branches as a result of summer pinching back When the plants are grown without artificial support it is ad- vantageous to pinch off the tips of the young shoots in the summer when they have reached a height of two feet. This retards the im- mediate elongation of the cane and causes lateral shoots to push out, making the bush lower and more nearly self supporting when laden with fruit. If the shoots are not pinched when young, it had better not be done at all. Late cutting often results in weak, spindling laterals. 7 Providing some means of support for the canes, probably pays in the long run in convenience in cul- tivation and picking and in less loss of fruit. The canes may be tied to a single wire, running the length of the row and about three and one-half or four feet high ; or two wires ; one at three feet and one at five feet, make a satisfactory trellis. PROPAGATION The red raspberry and the blackberry may be propagated from suckers, as the one-year-old root sprouts can be readily transplanted. These fruits may also be propagated by root cuttings made in the Fig. 4. Berry bush in the winter showing stocky lateral canes as the result of summer pinching back Fig. 5. Same bush as in Fig. 4, hut in the spring after properly pruning the lateral growth. If such a practice as shown in these two figures is followed, a stocky, self-supporting hush as ap- pears on the cover page will result fall and stored in sand in the cellar or buried outside in a well drained spot. Roots about the size of a lead pencil are dug and cut in three or four inch lengths ; in the spring these are planted in nursery rows. The black raspberry is propagated from stolons or rooted cane tips. In late summer the long canes trailing upon the ground take root and form new plants. In the spring these can be severed from the parent plant and trans- planted to new locations. ENEMIES It is seldom that rasp- berries or blackberries are bothered by leaf-eating in- sects. In case they appear. 8 however, they may be poisoned by spraying the bushes with arsenate of lead, using two pounds of paste or one pound of powder to each 50 gallons of water. Borers. — There are two borers which infest raspberries and blackberries. The crown borer is generally found working in the roots or canes near the ground, while the cane borer works in the young canes early in the summer. The moth laying the eggs girdles the cane near the top, causing it to wilt and drop off above the girdle. Remedies : The only remedy for the crown borer is to examine each plant and destroy the borers. The cane borer makes itself known by the girdled tops. Cut off the canes well below the girdle and burn them. AnthracnosK. — This is one of the most widespread and serious troubles of raspberries and blackberries in Indiana. The disease is most noticeable on the canes, where it causes purplish spots which change to grayish white and become slightly sunken. When the dis- ease is severe these spots become so numerous as to cover large por- tions of the older canes, causing the bark to scale off and the wood to crack. Fig. 6. A typical case of canes infect- ed with anthracnose. In controlling this disease it is very helpful to cut out and burn the old canes as soon as the fruit is harvested; then spray with Bordeaux 9 Remedy : The simplest and one of the most important control measures is to cut out all old canes, as soon as the crop is harvested, and all young canes which are diseased, and burn them. Spraying, as follows, will serve to hold the disease in check : i. Before the leaf buds open, with copper sulphate solution, one pound copper sulphate to 25 gallons of water. 2. When the leaves are out, with Bordeaux ' mixture.^ 3. After the fruit is harvested and the old canes removed, use Bordeaux again. Cane: Bught. — This is a fungous disease that attacks the rasp- berries, infecting the bark and wood at some local point on the cane, causing the part above to die. Thus, an entire cane or a portion of it may succumb. The disease manifests itself about the time the fruit ripens and is characterized by the drying up of the leaves and berries. Remedy : The best that can be done is preventive treatment as suggested in the case of anthracnose. Orange: Rust. — This serious disease of blackberries and black raspberries is easily recognized by orange-red pimples appearing on the under sides of the leaves. These burst and discharge spores which enter other plants through the foliage, thus spreading the dis- ease. The mycelium or root-like parts of the fungus finds its way into the pith of the cane and even extends below the ground, be- coming a perpetual source of infection to all future growth of the plant. Remedy : Since it is impossible to save an infected plant, it should be dug up and burned at once so as to eliminate the spread of the rust'to healthy plants. Bordeaux mixture applied to the foli- age will tend to prevent the entrance of the spores. CHOOSING VARIETIES For commercial success much depends upon the variety or varieties chosen. Almost any of the named varieties or even the wild sorts would furnish sufficient berries for home use but even for that purpose, one likes to procure a productive kind of good quality. It should always be understood that some varieties only show their best behavior under especially favorable surroundings. Thus, it frequently happens that certain localities become well known for the production of a variety which elsewhere does but indifferently. The notes on the following listed varieties are the results of a five years’ test at this station. Each variety has been represented by twenty-five plants from which yield records have been kept and other notes recorded. These have been greatly abbreviated for pur- 1 For the method of preparing Bordeaux mixture, send for Purdue Extension Leaflet No. 39 10 poses of this publication. The notes to follow have been fortified further by observations in the field and by the experience of prac- tical g^rowers. For those who must depend upon the recommendations of others for their selection of varieties, those sorts that have been found gen- erally satisfactory over the State are to be advised. Such varieties have been starred in the lists that follow. Blackberries Agawam.* — Fruit roundish to oblong conical, medium large, individual drupes large; flavor subacid but sweet when dead ripe, quality good. Bush medium to low, spreading, vigorous, very hardy and productive. Can be recommended as an early variety. Ancient Briton.* — Fruit oblong, large, individual drupes large, flavor sweet, melting, good. Bush tall, generally upright, vigorous, very hardy and productive. Late. Blowers. — Fruit roundish, medium size, individual drupes medium, flavor acid to sweet, not high, quality fair. Bush tall, generally upright, vigorous, moderately hardy. Not productive. Mid-season. Early Harvest. — A popular berry in some sections, but kills to the ground practically every winter at the Station. Early King. — Another tender variety. Eldorado.* — Fruit roundish to long conical, large, individual drupes quite large, sweet, pleasing flavor, quality very good. Bush medium height, somewhat spreading, very vigorous, very hardy, productive. Early. An excellent variety. Giant Himalaya.- — A berry perhaps suited to the milder climate of the Pacific coast. Worthless in this state. Illinois. — Fruit roundish to conical, medium large, individual drupes large, sweet when quite ripe, quality medium to good. Bush low, spread- ing, vigorous, half hardy. Unproductive. Medium late. Kenoyer. — Winter-kills as badly as Early Harvest. Kittatinny. — Hardy, but not otherwise meritorious. LaGrange. — Rather tender, not promising. Lawton. — Fruit roundish, oval, medium size, drupes medium, flavor subacid, not high, quality fair. Bush tall, upright to somewhat spreading, vigorous, moderately hardy and productive. Mid-season. Lucretia Dewberry. — ^Fruit oblong to long conical, large, drupes large, quality fair. Bush low, spreading, vigorous, canes trailing. There is probably more than one variety being disseminated under the name of Lucretia. This one could certainly not be recommended for Indiana plant- ing upon its performance at this station. It winter-kills considerably and is a very shy bearer, producing many nubbins. Mersereau. — ^Fruit oblong, large, individual drupes large, flavor sweet and pleasing, quality good. Bush tall, upright, moderately vigorous, hardy, but not as productive as desired. Mid-season. Minnewaski. — Fruit roundish, medium large, drupes medium size, flavor rather acid but sweet when dead ripe, quality fair. Bush tall, up- right, vigorous, hardy, but lacking in yield. Mid season. Ohmer. — Fruit roundish, medium large, drupes medium size, flavor subacid to sweet, quality fair to good. Bush tall, upright, vigorous, hardy, yield low. Mid-season. Rathburn. — Mid-season. Only half hardy. II Robinson. — Fruit round, medium large, individual drupes medium size, flavor subacid, not attractive, quality only fair. Bush tall, upright, very vigorous, and productive. Mid-season. Stones Hardy.* — Fruit roundish to oblong, large, some red drupes, in- dividual drupes medium size, flavor subacid to sweet, pleasing when dead ripe, quality fair to good. Bush tall, upright, very vigorous, very hardy and a reliable cropper. Late. Snyder. — Fruit globular, medium size, individual drupes medium size, flavor subacid, fair. Bush medium tall, somewhat spreading, vigorous, fairly productive, hardy. One of the old stand-bys, but is now surpassed by other sorts. Mid-season. Taylor.* — Fruit roundish to conical, medium size, individual drupes medium, flavor sweet with true blackberry character, quality good. Bush tall, upright, 'vigorous, hardy and productive. Medium late. Ward. — Too tender for good results. Wauchusetts. — A moderately hardy variety, but surpassed by others. Western Triumph. — Fruit round, medium size, individual drupes, medium to below in size, flavor rather flat and lacking character, quality fair. Bush medium tall, slightly spreading, very vigorous. Hardy and productive. Late. Wilson. — Winter-kills very severely under our conditions. Black Raspberries Cumberland.* — Fruit roundish, conical, large, drupes rather small, compact, flesh firm, subacid, slightly sweet, very good. Plant tall, up- right, very vigorous, very prolific. The best mid-season berry for com- mercial or home use. Eureka. — ^Fruit round, medium size, drupes medium large, open, mod- erately firm, flavor slightly subacid to nearly sweet, fair. Plant medium height, vigorous, productive. Early. Gregg. — Fruit round, medium size, gray bloom, drupes medium size, rather open, flavor mild subacid, good. Plant medium to low, somewhat spreading, moderately vigorous, fairly productive. This is an old stand-by and still a leading late variety. H cosier. — Fruit round, medium size, not uniform in size, grayish bloom, drupes large, compact, medium firm, flavor slightly subacid to sweet, good. Plant medium to tall, moderately spreading, vigorous, early productive. About the same season as Plum Farmer, which it resembles. Kansas.* — Fruit round, medium large, glossy, occasional red drupes, drupes medium large, sometimes inclined to separate, flesh firm, flavor slightly subacid to sweet, good. Plant tall, moderately upright, very vig- orous, heavy bearer. An excellent early variety. Monger. — Berry round, medium size, grayish bloom, drupes medium size, rather open, flesh firm, flavor mild subacid, quality fair to good. Plant medium tall, upright, moderately vigorous, medium to late, shy bearer. New Stone Fort.* — Fruit roundish, conical, large, glossy, drupes medium small, compact, flesh firm, subacid, sweetish, quality good. Plant medium height somewhat spreading, vigorous, medium to late, moderately productive. A promising late variety. Palmer. — ^Fruit round, small, drupes medium size, compact, mod- erately firm, flavor slightly subacid, not pleasing, quality fair. Plant low, spreading, medium to weak, early, unproductive. Plum Farmer.* — Fruit round, large, grayish bloom, drupes medium size, compact, flesh firm, flavor subacid, mild, sweetish, juicy, quality very good. Plant medium to tall, upright to somewhat spreading, vigor- ous. A trifle later than Kansas. Not quite so productive as that variety but superior in quality. One of the best for either market or home use. 12 Red Raspberries Buckeye Everbearing. — ^Fruit conical, large, dark red, drupes large, open, texture soft, flavor sweetish, not good, duality fair. Bush medium height, upright to somewhat spreading, medium vigor, unproductive. Medium late. Cardinal. — Fruit round, medium size, deep purplish red, grayish bloom, drupes medium size, compact, texture medium, flavor mild subacid, flat, not juicy, quality fair. Bush medium tall, moderately spreading, vig- orous, moderately productive. Mid-season. Columbian. — Fruit roundish conical, large, purple, drupes large, open, texture medium Arm, flavor sweetish, not high, quality fair. Bush mod- erately tall, somewhat spreading, vigorous, fairly productive. Medium to late. Cuthbert.* — Fruit conical, large, dull red, drupes small, flesh moder- ately Arm, flavor sweetish, sprightly pleasant, quality very good. Bush tall, upright, very vigorous, productive. An old popular variety, but surpassed by few. Mid-season. Eaton. — Fruit round, very large, dark red, drupes very large, open, moderately Arm, flavor slightly tart, quality fair. Bush low, spreading, medium vigor, unproductive. Medium late. Early King* (King). — Fruit round, large, red, light bloom, drupes large, texture Arm, juicy, flavor sweet and quality good. Bush tall, up- right, very vigorous, productive. Early. An excellent early sort. Haymaker. — Fruit round, large, purple, drupes medium in size and compactness, moderately Arm, flavor subacid to sweetish, but not pleasing, quality fair. Bush tall, upright, vigorous, fairly productive. Late. Herbert. — ^Fruit conical, very large, dark red, drupes very large, com- pact, soft, flavor subacid to sweet, quality good. Bush medium height, up- right, medium vigor, unproductive. Late. Loudon.* — Fruit round, large, purplish red, drupes large, moderately Arm, flavor subacid to sweet, good. Bush tall, upright, vigorous, produc- tive. Medium late. A reliable cropper of good quality. Miller. — Fruit round, medium size, bright red, drupes medium Arm, flavor approaching sweet, rather flat, quality fair. Bush medium height, upright, fairly vigorous, unproductive. Mid-season. Marlboro. — Fruit roundish, medium size, drupes large. Arm, flavor sweet, quality good. Bush tall, upright, vigorous, yield below medium. Medium early. Ruby. — Fruit round, medium size, bright red, drupes medium large. Arm, flavor subacid, flat, dry, quality fair. Bush moderately tall, upright, medium in vigor, unproductive. Mid-season. St. Regis. — Fruit round, medium in size, deep red, drupes moderately Arm, flavor rather flat, dry, quality fair. Bush moderately tall, upright, vigorous, a so-called everbearing. Bears a few ripe berries about a week ahead of any other sort. The fruit is disappointing in size and quality. While this variety shows signs of everbearing, it would be necessary to have a very large planting in order to secure a marketable quantity of fruit at any but the regular season. Would not be out of place in the home garden. Thompson’s Early. — Fruit round, medium large, bright red, drupes large, medium Arm, flavor sweet, juicy, quality good. Bush moderately tall, upright, fairly vigorous, unproductive. Early. Thwack. — Fruit round, medium size, medium’ red, drupes medium large, soft, flavor sweet, agreeable, quality fair to good. Bush medium height, slightly spreading, fairly vigorous, moderatdly productive. Medium early. -m jTn ? h PURDUE universjp:y OF ILLINOIS LiSR/L. ^ Agricultural ELxperiirjj^ St^jljon Bulletin No. 202, Vol. XX August, 1917 SHEEP FEEDING VII FATTENING WESTERN LAMBS 1916-1917 Published by the Station: LAFAYETTE, INDIANA U. S. A. BOARD OF CONTROL Joseph D. Oliver, President South Bend, St. Joseph County Fay S. Chandler Indianapolis, Marion County Charles Doivning Greenfield, Hancock County John A. Hillenbrand Batesville, Ripley County Cyrus M. Hobbs Bridgeport, Marion County Warren T. McCray Kentland, Newton County James W. Noel Indianapolis, Marion County George W. Purcell Vincennes, Knox County Andrew E. Reynolds Crawfordsville, Montgomery County WiNTHROP E. Stone, A. M., Ph. D President of the University STATION STA F F HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS Arthur Goss^ M. S., A. C Director George I. Christie, B. S. A Sup’t Agricultural Extension Robert A. Craig, D. V. M Chief Veterinarian Otto F. Hunziker, M. S Chief in Dairy Husbandry Herbert S. Jackson, A. B Chief in Botany William J. Jones, Jr., M. S., A. C.i State Chemist John H. Skinner, B. S Chief in Animal Husbandry James Troop, M. S Chief in Entomology Alfred T. Wiancko, B. S. A Chief in Soils and Crops Charles G, Woodbury, M. S Chief in Horticulture ASSOCIATES AND ASSISTANTS JOHN M. Aldrich, Ph. D.^ Entomological Assistant Evelyn Allison, B. S Assistant in Botany Sherman L. Anderson, B. S Assistant in Creamery Inspection Paul R. Bausman, B. S.^ ..Inspector State Chemist Department James C. Beavers, B. Agr Associate in Soils and Crops Extension Reuben O. Bitler, B. S.'^ Deputy State Chemist Charles S. Brewster, M. S Assistant in Poultry Husbandry Turner H. Broughton, B. S Assistant in Creamery Inspection Harry D. Burnside, B. S. A.^ Inspector State Chemist Department Ralph E. Caldwell, B. S Associate in Milk Production Glenn G. Carter, B. S.^ Inspector State Chemist Department David B. Clark, D. M. C Assistant Veterinarian Carl H. Clink, B. S Assistant in Serum Production Thomas A. Coleman Ass’t State Leader Field Studies and Demonstrations Samuel D. Conner, M. S Associate Chemist in Soils and Crops Clinton O. Cromer, B. S Associate in Crops Carleton Cutler, B. S.'^ First Deputy State Chemist and Microscopist (Feeds) John J. Davis, B. S.^ Entomological Assistant in Charge Ralph B. Deemer, B. S.^ Deputy State Chemist Leo P. Doyle, B. S Assistant in Animal Pathology William F. Epple, Ph. G Assistant in Dairy Chemistry Martin L. Fisher, M. S Assistant Chief in Soils and Crops Omar W. Ford, A. B.^ Deputy State Chemist George M. Frier, B. S. A Associate in Charge of Short Courses and Exhibits Leslie R. George, B. S Assistant In Animal Pathology Mabel L. Harlan Assistant in Agricultural Extension Cora A. Jacobs, A. M.- Seed Analyst Sadocie C. Jones, M. S Assistant in Soils Lawrence C. Kigin, D. V. M Assistant Veterinarian Franklin G. King, B. S Associate in Animal Husbandry Walter H. Larrimer, B. S.^ Scientific Assistant Herbert E. McCartney, B. S. A Assistant in Animal Husbandry Extension Edwin B. Mains, Ph. D Assistant in Botany Preston W. Mason, B. S Assistant in Entomology Shirley L. Mason, A. B.3 Scientific Assistant Horace C. Mills, B. S Associate in Dairy Manufactures Herman J. Nimitz, B. S.^ Deputy State Chemist Harry A. Noyes, M. S. ..Research Assistant in Horticultural Chemistry and Bacteriology JOSEPH OSKAMP, B. S Research Assistant in Pomology George A. Osner, Ph. D Associate in Botany Harry C. Paine, D. V. M Associate Veterinarian Allen G. Philips, B. S. A Associate in Poultry Husbandry Edward G. Proulx, M. S.^ First Deputy State Chemist (Fertilizers) Harry J. Reed Associate in Horticulture Charles C. Rees, M. A Assistant in Botany Dean A. Ricker, B. S.^ ^ Scientific Assistant Otis S. Roberts, B. S.* * Chief Inspector State Chemist Department J. Howard Roop, B. S.* Deputy State Chemist Harry R. Rosen, M. S Assistant in Rust Work George Spitzer, Ph. G.. B. S Associate in Dairy Chemistry CiHESTER G. Starr, B. S. A Assistant in Swine Production and Management Herbert B. Switzer, B. S. A Assistant in Dairy Bacteriology Samuel F. Thornton, B. S.^ Deputy State Chemist Chester F. Turner, B, S.^ Scientific Assistant Gilbert P. Walker, B. S Assistant in Soils and Crops Fred L. Walkey, D. V. M Assistant Veterinarian Rex a. Whiting, D. V. M Associate in Animal Pathology Nellie Tracy Secretary to the Director and Librarian Mary K. B loom Bookkeeper 1 In charge of Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control 2 Detailed by U. S. Department of Agriculture — Seed Testing 3 Detailed by U. S. Department of Agriculture — Cereal and Forage Crop In- sect Investigations * Connected with Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control ADVISORY COMMITTEE (UNDER LEGISLATIVE ACT OF 1909) .1/ P. Prigg, Daleville State Live Stock Association U. R. Fished, Hope State Poultry Fanciers’ Association H. H. Swaim, South Bend State Horticultural Society D. B. Johnson, Mooresville State Dairy Association D. F. Maish, Frankfort State Corn Growers’ Association FATTENING WESTERN LAMBS 1916-1917 J. H. Skinnkr F. G. King SUMMARY PART I 1. Lambs receiving corn silage alone as roughage did not con- sume as large quantities of grain as those fed clover hay in addi- tion to silage as roughage. 2. Lambs fed clover hay once every five days consumed prac- tically the same amount of grain as those fed clover hay according to appetite. 3. Lambs fed silage alone as roughage gained 17.5 pounds per head at a cost of $15.43 per hundred pounds; those fed silage and clover hay once every five days gained 28.6 pounds per head at a cost of $10.97 P6i* hundred pounds; those fed silage and clover hay according to appetite gained 36.5 pounds at a cost of $9.92 per hundred pounds. 4. Lambs fed shelled corn, cottonseed meal, and corn silage were valued at $13.50 per cwt. and returned a profit of 83 cents per head ; those fed shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage and clover hay every fifth day, were valued at $13.90 per cwt., and returned a profit of $2.23 per head ; those fed shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage and clover hay according to appetite were valued at $14.25 per cwt. and returned a profit of $3.18 per head. PART II 5. Lambs fed shelled corn and clover hay ate practically the same quantity of corn but slightly more hay than lambs fed shelled corn and alfalfa hay. 6. Lambs fed shelled corn and clover hay gained 34.4 pounds per head at a cost of $9.71 per hundred pounds; those fed shelled corn and alfalfa hay gained 36.6 pounds per head at a cost of v$9.i2 per hundred pounds. 7. Lambs fed shelled corn and clover hay were valued at $13.75 cwt. and returned a profit of $2.69 per head; those fed shelled corn and alfalfa hay were valued at $14.00 per cwt., and returned a profit of $3.22 per head. PART III 8. The addition of corn silage to a ration of shelled corn and alfalfa hay did not affect the grain consumption, but 1.40 pounds of corn silage replaced .64 pound of hay in the daily ration per lamb. 4 9- Lambs fed shelled corn and alfalfa hay gained 36.6 pounds per head at a cost of $9.12 per hundred pounds as compared to 34.6 pounds gain at a cost of $9.85 per hundred pounds by lambs fed shelled corn, alfalfa hay and corn silage. 10. Lambs fed shelled corn and alfalfa hay were valued at $14.00 per cwt. and returned a profit of $3.22 per head; those fed shelled corn, alfalfa hay and corn silage were valued at $14.10 per hundred pounds and returned a profit of $2.99 per head. PART IV 11. Lambs fed ground soybeans as supplement to shelled corn, clover hay and corn silage, maintained eager appetites but failed to consume as large quantities of feed as those fed cotton- seed meal as supplement to the ration. 12. Lambs fed ground soybeans gained 35.1 pounds per head as compared to 36.5 pounds per head by those fed cottonseed meal as supplement. 13. Lambs fed ground soybeans as supplement made gains at a cost of $9.76 per hundred pounds as compared to a cost of $9.92 per hundred pounds by those fed cottonseed meal as supplement. 14. Lambs fed ground soybeans as supplement were valued at $14.15 per cwt. and returned a profit of $3.09 per head; those fed cottonseed meal as supplement were valued at $14.25 per cwt. and returned a profit of $3.18 per head. PART V 15. Shorn lambs consumed slightly larger quantities of feed than wooled lambs. 16. Shorn lambs gained 33.8 pounds per head as compared to 36.5 pounds per head by wooled lambs. 17. Shorn lambs made less economical gains than wooled lambs, the cost per hundred pounds being $10.72 and $9.92 re- spectively. 18. Twenty-five lambs sheared 57 pounds of wool. 19. Shorn lambs were valued at $11.75 cwt. and returned a profit of 96 cents per head; wooled lambs were valued at $14.25 per cwt. and returned a profit of $3.18 per head. PART VI 20. Lambs fed in a well ventilated barn ate the same quantity of grain and silage but slightly less hay than those fed in an open shed. 5 21. The gain per lamb was 33.1 pounds when the lambs were fed in a barn as compared to 33.8 pounds with lambs in an open shed. 22. Lambs fed in a barn gained 100 pounds at a cost of $10.68 ; those fed in an open shed gained 100 pounds at a cost of $10.72. 23. Lambs fed in a barn were valued at $11.25 per cwt., and returned a profit of 51 cents per head; those fed in an open shed were valued at $11.75 cwt., and returned a profit of 96 cents per head. INTRODUCTION The cost of production is usually taken as the standard meas- ure of economy of an enterprise. The selling price in relation to the cost of production is the factor really determining the profit. During times when economic conditions permit the consuming pub- lic to pay a high price for meat, high cost of production may be a benefit instead of a hindrance to live stock feeders, because many timid feeders are induced to limit their operations, thus tending to further limit supplies and thereby increasing the selling price of the stock actually fed. The trial in lamb feeding reported in this bulletin is a good example of this fact. The original cost of the lambs was the highest on record at the Station. The cost of gains was also the highest on record, yet the profit was higher than for any other drove of lambs used in experimental work at the Purdue Uni- versity Agricultural Experiment Station. OBJECT The object of this work was to obtain additional information on the comparative feeding value of the more common roughages of the farm and on the advisability of using some concentrated com- mercial feeding stuff for fattening lambs. This includes a com- parison of alfalfa hay and corn silage alone and in combination as roughage for fattening lambs ; the value of corn silage alone as roughage and in combination with dry roughage for fattening lambs; a comparison of the feeding value of clover hay and alfalfa hay for fattening lambs; the value of cottonseed meal for supple- menting rations of corn, clover hay and corn silage; the compara- tive value of cottonseed meal and ground soybeans as supplements to rations for fattening lambs; the influence of shearing on fatten- ing lambs ; and the influence of shelter on fattening lambs. PLAN The plan of the work was to secure strong, vigorous western lambs, and discard the smallest and any extremely large ones, in order to secure a flock as uniform as possible. This flock was divided into nine lots of twenty-five lambs each. All lots were as 6 nearly uniform as possible as to size, condition, quality, thrift, sex and breeding. Seven of the nine lots were placed in an open shed and fed different rations. Two lots of lambs were shorn and fed the same ration as Lot 7. One shorn lot was fed in an open shed and the other in a barn. The following rations were fed : Lot I. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage. Lot 2. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, corn silage, (lambs shorn) Lot 3. Shelled corn and clover hay. Lot 4. Shelled corn and alfalfa hay. Lot 5. Shelled corn, alfalfa hay, corn silage. Lot 6. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay. (every fifth day) Lot 7. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, corn silage. Lot 8. Shelled corn, ground soybeans, clover hay, corn silage. Lot 9. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, corn silage, (shorn and fed in barn) SHELTER, FEEDING YARDS AND WATER SUPPLY The conditions surrounding the lambs were no better than those in many feed lots of the State. Eight lots of twenty-five lambs each were fed in an open shed facing south, opening into a yard 14 feet deep. Each lot of lambs occupied a covered shed 14 by 16 feet and an open lot 14 by 14 feet. No pavement, cinders, or stone was placed in either yard or shed. The sheds were dry and no bedding other than the waste, which was small, from the feed racks was used, except when the sheds were bedded at the begin- ning of the experiment. The open yards were often muddy in wet weather but the lambs at all times had dry ground in the shed on which to lie. The lot of lambs fed in the barn was confined to a space 14 by 24 feet with a concrete floor and was not allowed out of the barn during the experiment. The barn was well ventilated and did not become unduly warm, nor did the air become heavy or stagnant at any time. The floor was kept well bedded at all times. Water was supplied to all lots from the West LaEayette Water Works in galvanized iron tubs which were regularly cleaned once daily and more often when necessary. They were refilled twice daily so that fresh water was kept before the lambs at all times. WEIGHTS Weights were taken by lots on three consecutive days at the beginning and end of the trial and every tenth day during the ])rogress of the same. The average of the three consecutive weights 7 at the beginning and end of the trial was used as the initial and final weights. Individual weights in addition to lot weights were taken on three consecutive days at the beginning and end of the trial, and every thirtieth day throughout the progress of the same. The identity of each lamb was known by a numbered tag fastened to the ear. Weights were taken in the morning after the lambs had finished eating. METHOD OF FEEDING The method of feeding was the same in all lots reported in this bulletin. The grain was fed at 6:oo A. M. and 4:40 P. M. under cover, in narrow grain troughs. When ground soybeans or cottonseed meal was fed in addition to corn, it was mixed with the corn before it was placed in the troughs. Grain was fed in such quantities as would be eaten before the lambs left the troughs. When starting on feed, about one-fourth of a pound of oats per head was fed twice daily. After the lambs had learned to eat oats, small amounts of corn were added to the rations. Within a few days the lambs were eating corn readily and the oats were gradu- ally dropped from the ration, and in Lots i, 2, 5, 7 and 9, cottonseed meal, and in Lot 8 ground soybeans were added. Within sixteen days all lots were on the experimental rations. The grain was increased until they were on full feed at the end of four weeks. After the lambs had cleaned up the grain, roughage was fed in combination racks and troughs and all roughage was fed twice daily. Hay and straw were fed in such quantities as would be cleaned up before the time for the next feed. Silage was fed in such quantities as would be consumed within an hour to an hour and a half. Feed not con- sumed was removed from the troughs and weighed and when feed was not all consumed the quantity offered at the next feed was reduced. DESCRIPTION OF LAMBS The animals used in this trial were choice lambs purchased on the Chicago market, October 18, 1916. They were bred in southern Colorado but had as much strength and bone as northern bred lambs. They were highly improved — got by mutton rams. The lambs were of excellent quality and type but not strictly uniform in size and condition. They were dipped under government super- vision and arrived in LaFayette, October 20, 1916. A severe storm had been raging while the lambs were in transit, which produced several severe cases of pneumonia, and trouble from this cause was experienced during the entire length of the trial. Two hundred fifty lambs were purchased and on October 29, the lambs were divided into experimental lots of twenty-five animals each. Twenty- five were discarded when the experimental groups were made. Considering the original cost of the lambs, freight, cost of feed before the experiment began, the actual cost of the lambs when started on trial was $10.99 cwt. 8 METHOD OF VALUING THE LAMBS The initial value of the lambs was taken as $8.85 per cwt. or actual cost. It was impossible to base the initial value on the Chi- cago market as has been done in the past, because the Chicago mar- ket was not open for feeding lambs and was, therefore, making no price quotations. Final values were placed on the fat lambs by Mr. Chas. H. Shurte of the Knollin Sheep Commission Co., Chicago ; final values of fat lambs are on the basis of Chicago prices less 75 cents per hundred pounds, to cover cost of shipping. All financial statements are based on the actual cost of the lambs and Chicago valuation for fat lambs less 75 cents per hundred pounds. QUALITY OF FEEDS The rations fed were composed of various combinations of all or part of the following feeds: shelled corn, oats, cottonseed meal, ground soybeans, clover hay, alfalfa hay and corn silage. The corn and oats were of good quality; the cottonseed meal was of choice grade guaranteed to contain 41 per cent, crude protein and 8 per cent, fat; the soybeans were good and contained 39 per cent, protein. The clover hay was of medium quality; the alfalfa hay was of first, second and third cutting and of excellent quality. The corn sil- age was made from corn produced on Purdue farm, yielding ap- proximately 30 bushels to the acre. The corn was well matured when put into the silo ; care was taken at all times that no moldy or spoiled silage was fed. PRICES OF FEEDS The prices of corn used in presenting financial results are based on the actual prices at TaFayette elevators during the time the ex- periment was in progress, which were as follows : first month 86.4 cents; second month 85 cents; third month 93.7 cents; fourth month 97 cents per bushel. Oats are valued at 50 cents per bushel ; cotton- seed meal and ground soybeans at $45.00 per ton; clover and al- falfa hay are valued at $12.00 per ton; corn silage at $6.00 per ton. All financial statements are based on the principle that the value of the manure offsets the labor of feeding and cost of bedding. 9 PART I CORN SILAGE ALONE VS. CORN SILAGE AND DRY ROUGH- AGE FOR FATTENING LAMBS Part I of this bulletin is a discussion of results in which corn silage was compared as the only roughage for fattening lambs with the same ration and different amounts of clover hay. Previous trials at this station have shown that lambs receiving corn silage as their only roughage have developed fickle appetites and have re- quired an occasional feed of hay to keep them on feed. As long as they maintained keen appetites the ration containing silage alone as roughage produced very economical results. So serious, however, has been the loss of appetite that the ration containing clover hay in addition to silage has invariably made more rapid and more eco- nomical gains than where no clover hay was fed. Because of the fact that in previous tests clover hay has tended to cause lambs to re- gain their appetites after they had gone off feed on silage alone as roughage, an attempt was made to maintain the appetites of one lot of lambs in this trial by giving them one feed of clover hay every five days in order to test the practicability of maintaining the appetites of the lambs with an occasional feed of hay and at the same time secure the economical gains due to rations containing silage alone as roughage. Three lots of lambs were fed a grain ration consisting of seven parts corn and one part cottonseed meal. Lot i received corn sil- age alone as roughage; Lot 6 received the same ration except that once every five days clover hay was fed instead of corn silage. Lot 7 received both corn silage and clover hay according to the appetites of the lambs. Owing to the fact that lambs could not be fed im- mediately on a ration of silage without hay, some clover hay was given during the first few days of the trial. After the first five days on trial. Lot i did not receive clover hay. For the first month all lots of lambs received i6 pounds of grain daily per lot; the sec- ond month they received 24 pounds per lot ; the third month they re- ceived 32 pounds of grain daily per lot, except that in Lot i, after three weeks of this ration the lambs lost their appetites and did not thereafter consume more than 24 pounds of grain daily per lot. At the beginning of the fourth month. Lots 6 and 7 were raised to 36 pounds of grain daily per lot and 10 days later to 40 pounds daily per lot. The maximum silage consumption in Lots i and 6 was 60 pounds daily and in Lot 7, 40 pounds daily. After the end of the second month, Lots i and 6 failed to consume more than 40 pounds of silage daily and Lot 7 more than 30 pounds daily. Dur- ing the third and fourth months, however, attempts were made to increase either silage or grain in Lot i but without success in any case. lO Table: L — Corn Silage vs. Corn Silage and Dry Roughage for Fat- tening Lambs, November 2, 1916 to March 2, 1917 RATION Lot 1 Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage Lot 6 Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage, (clover hay every fifth day) Lot 7 Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay Average initial weight 60.1 lbs. 59.7 lbs. 59.6 lbs. Average final weight 77.6 “ 88.3 “ 96.1 “ Gain per lamb 17.5 “ 28.6 “ 36.5 “ Average daily gain .145 “ .238 “ .304 “ Average daily feed per lamb grain .97 “ 1.13 “ 1.16 “ hay .04 “ .23 “ .99 “ silage 1.92 “ 1.79 “ 1.42 “ Feed per pound gain grain 6.65 “ 4.74 “ 3.82 “ hay .26 “ .97 “ 3.25 “ silage 13.22 “ 7.52 “ 4.69 “ Cost per 100 lbs. gain $15.43 $10.97 $ 9.92 Selling value of lambs in feed lots 13.50 13.90 14.25 Profit per lamb .83 2.23 1 3.18 It will be noted in Table I, that the addition of dry roughage to the ration made a decided increase in the feed consumption of the lambs. This occurred principally during the latter part of the feeding period when the appetites of fattening animals is of utmost importance. There was an increase of both grain and roughage and this increase was very marked when the dry matter in the ra- tion is considered. The lambs receiving silage alone as roughage made a gain of 17.5 pounds daily per head during the feeding period as compared with a gain of 28.6 pounds when clover hay was fed every five days and a gain of 36.5 pounds per head when clover hay was fed every day. This represents an average daily gain of .145, .238, .304 pound for Lots i, 6 and 7, respectively. The feed required to make a pound of gain was much higher in Lot i than in either of the other two lots. Every pound of gain in Lot i required 6.65 ])ounds of grain, .26 pound of hay, and 13.22 pounds of silage. In Lot 6, receiving a feed of clover hay, every fifth day, it required 4.94 pounds of grain, .97 pound of hay, and 7.52 pounds of silage to make one pound of gain. In Lot 7 receiving both silage and hay, it required 3.82 pounds of grain, 3.25 pounds of hay, and 4.69 II pounds of silage to make one pound of gain. At prevailing prices of feed, lOO pounds of gain in Lot i cost $15.42; in Lot 6, $10.97, and in Lot 7, $9.92. The lambs, receiving silage alone as roughage were valued at $13.50 per 100 pounds in the lots and returned a profit of 83 cents per head. The lambs receiving corn silage with a feed of hay once every five days were valued at $13.90 per 100 pounds and returned a profit of $2.23 per head. The lambs receiv- ing both clover hay and corn silage every day were valued at $14.25 per 100 pounds in the lots and returned a profit of $3.18 per head. PART II CLOVER HAY VS. ALFALFA HAY AS ROUGHAGE FOR FATTENING LAMBS Part II is a discussion of the results secured from feeding two equal lots of lambs upon the same ration with the exception that one lot received clover hay while the other received alfalfa hay. Both lots of lambs were fed the same quantity of corn and as much hay as would be consumed before the time for the next feed. The clover hay used was of medium quality. The alfalfa hay used was of excellent quality. It will be noted in Table II that there was practically no dififer- ence in the grain consumption between the two lots. The slightly higher grain consumption in Lot 4 was due to the fact that one lamb had died towards the latter part of the trial, and the remaining lambs were fed the same quantity of feed as had formerly been ofifered. Table: II. — Clover Hay vs. Alfalfa Hay for Fattening Lambs, November 2, 1916 to March 2, 1917 RATION Lot 3 Shelled corn, clover hay Lot 4 . Shelled corn, alfalfa hay Average initial weight 59.2 lbs. 58.8 lbs. Average final weight 93.6 “ 95.4 “ Gain per lamb 34.4 “ 36.6 “ Average daily gain .287 “ .305 “ Average daily feed per lamb grain 1.09 “ 1.11 “ hay 1.65 “ 1.59 “ Feed per pound gain grain 3.81 “ 3.64 “ hay 5.76 “ 5.22 “ Cost per 100 lbs. gain $ 9.71 $ 9.12 Selling value of lambs in feed lots 13.75 14.00 Profit per lamb 2.69 3.22 12 It will be noted also that there was a higher hay consumption in Lot 3 fed clover hay than in Lot 4 fed alfalfa hay. A peculiar condition has been noted in comparing alfalfa and clover hay in that in all trials the hay of the poorer quality is consumed in larger quantities than that of the higher quality, while the rate of gain has in every case been in favor of the higher quality of hay. The lambs fed corn and clover hay gained 34.4 pounds during the feeding period as compared with 36.6 pounds per lamb by those fed corn and alfalfa hay. It required 3.81 pounds of grain and 5.76 pounds of clover hay to make one pound of gain; it required 3.64 pounds of grain and 5.22 pounds of alfalfa hay to produce the same results. One hundred pounds of gain cost $9.71 when pro- duced by corn and clover hay as compared with $9.12 when corn and alfalfa hay were fed. The lambs finished on corn and clover hay were valued at $13.75 per 100 pounds and returned a profit of $2.69 per head. The lambs fed corn and alfalfa hay were valued at $14.00 per hundred pounds and returned a profit of $3.22 per head. This is the fourth trial in which clover hay and alfalfa hay have been compared. In two of the trials, clover hay produced bet- ter results, while in two other trials, alfalfa hay was the more profit- able. In every case where there was a difference in the quality of the hay, the superior quality has produced the better results. It would appear that when there is a difference in the feeding value of clover hay and alfalfa hay, it is the quality and not the variety of the hay that affects the results. 13 PART III ALFALFA HAY VS. ALFALFA HAY AND CORN SILAGE FOR FATTENING LAMBS Part III reports results of a trial in which is shown the in- fluence of the addition of corn silage to a ration of shelled corn and alfalfa hay. The lambs received the same grain ration and all the alfalfa hay they would eat twice daily, while those in Lot 5 also re- ceived corn silage according to their appetites, twice daily. Tabi,k III. — Alfalfa Hay vs. Alfalfa Hay and Corn Silage for Fat- tening Lambs, November 2, 1916 to March 2, 1917 RATION Lot 4 Shelled corn, alfalfa hay Lot 5 Shelled corn, corn silagre, alfalfa hay Average initial weight 58.8 lbs. 59.6 lbs. Average final weight 95.4 “ 04.2 “ Gain per lamb 36.6 “ 34.6 “ Average daily gain .305 “ .288 “ Average daily feed per lamb grain 1.11 “ 1.12 “ hay 1.59 “ .95 “ silage 1.40 “ Feed per pound gain grain 3.64 “ 3.90 “ hay 5.22 “ 3.31 “ silage 4.87 “ Cost per 100 lbs. gain $ 9.12 $ 9.85 Selling value of lambs in feed lots 14.00 14.10 Profit per lamb 3.22 2.99 It will be noted that there was practically the same amount of grain consumed daily per head in each lot. The lambs receiving silage ate only 60 per cent, as much hay as those fed alfalfa hay alone for roughage. The average silage consumption was 1.4 pounds daily per head, and the maximum silage consumption at any time during the test was 1.6 pounds daily per head. The lambs fed corn and alfalfa gained 36.6 pounds per head during the feeding period as compared with 34.6 pounds when corn silage was added to the ration. It required 3.64 pounds of grain and 5.22 pounds of alfalfa hay to make one pound of gain, at a cost of $9.12 per hundred pounds. When corn silage was added to the ration, it required 3.94 pounds of grain, 3.31 pounds of hay and 4.87 pounds of corn silage to make one pound of gain, at a cost of $9.85 for each 100 pounds. The lambs fed alfalfa hay alone for roughage were valued at $14.00 per hundred pounds and returned a profit of $3.22 per head. Those fed corn silage in addition to alfalfa, were valued at $14.10 per 100 pounds and returned a profit of $2.99 per head. 14 PART IV GROUND SOYBEANS VS. COTTONSEED MEAL AS SUPPLE- MENT TO RATION FOR FATTENING LAMBS Part IV shows the results of feeding two lots of lambs alike in all particulars except that one received cottonseed meal and the other ground soybeans. Both supplements were fed in the propor- tions of one pound of cottonseed meal or ground soybeans to seven pounds of corn. During a part of the period, the lot receiving cot- tonseed meal contained only 23 lambs, but these lambs ate as much feed as the 25 lambs in Lot 8; hence there was a slight difference in the daily amount of feed eaten in the two lots. However, lambs in Lot 7 had as keen appetites as those in Lot 8. Table: IV. — Ground Soybeans vs. Cottonseed Meal as Supplement to Ration for Fattening Lambs, November 2, 1916 to March 2, 1917 RATION Lot 7 ! Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay Lot 8 Shelled corn, ground soybeans, corn silage, clover hay Average initial weight 59,6 lbs. 59.8 lbs. Average final weight 96.1 “ 94.9 “ Gain per lamb 36.5 “ 35.1 “ Average daily gain .304 “ .293 “ Average daily feed per lamb grain 1.16 “ 1.09 “ hay .99 “ .96 “ silage 1.42 “ 1.36 “ Feed per pound gain grain 3.82 “ 3.74 “ hay 3.25 “ 3.28 “ silage 4.69 “ 4.63 “ Cost per 100 lbs. gain $ 9.92 $ 9.76 Selling value of lambs in feed lots 14.25 14.15 Profit per lamb 3.18 3.09 It will be noted that there was a slightly larger grain consump- tion in Lot 7 than in Lot 8 due to a smaller number of lambs being in Lot 7 for a part of the trial. The lambs receiving cottonseed meal made a gain of 36.5 pounds per head as compared to 35.1 15 pounds when ground soybeans were fed. It also required a larger quantity of feed to make a pound of gain in Lot 7 than in Lot 8. Each pound of gain in Lot 7 was produced by 3.82 pounds of grain, 3.25 pounds of hay, and 4.69 pounds of silage at a cost of $9.90 per hundred pounds. Each pound of gain in Lot 8 required 3.79 pounds of grain, 3.28 pounds of hay, and 4.63 pounds of silage, at a cost of $9.63 for each hundred pounds. The lambs in Lot 7 were valued at $14.25 per hundred pounds and returned a profit of $3.18 per head. The lambs in Lot 8 fed corn and soybeans were valued at $14.15 per hundred pounds and returned a profit of $3.09 per head. PART V INFLUENCE OF SHEARING ON FATTENING LAMBS Part V is a discussion of the influence of shearing on the rate in economy of gain. Two lots of lambs were made as nearly alike as possible and were fed the same ration. After initial weights were taken the lambs in one lot were shorn ; other than the shear- ing, the two lots of lambs were treated exactly the same. Tabi,!: V. — Influence of Shearing on Fattening Lambs, November 2, 1916 to March 2, 1917 RATION Lot 2 Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay (shorn) Lot 7 Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay Average initial weight 60.1 lbs. 59.6 lbs. Average final weight 93.9^ “ 96.1 “ Gain per lamb 33.8 “ •36.5 “ Average daily gain .281 “ .304 “ Average daily feed per lamb grain 1.09 “ 1.16 “ hay 1.16 “ .99 “ silage 1.50 “ 1.42 “ Feed per pound gain grain 3.88 “ 3.82 “ hay 4.11 “ 3.25 “ silage 5.32 “ 4.69 “ Cost per 100 lbs. gain $10.72 $ 9.92 Selling value of lambs in feed lots 11.75 14.25 Profit per lamb .96 3.18 1 Includes 2.3 pounds of wool i6 It will be noted that the shorn lambs had keener appetites than the lambs carrying their wool. This was not noticeable during the first half of the feeding period although the shorn lambs were much more active and seemed more eager for their feed, but the feed record shows that they did not consume any more feed than the lambs carrying their wool. During the last half of the feeding period the feed record shows that the shorn lambs consumed larger quantities of both hay and silage than the wooled lambs. The shorn lambs gained 33.8 pounds per lamb during the feeding period as compared with 33.5 pounds per head by the wooled lambs. It required more feed to make a pound of gain on the^ shorn lambs than on the wooled lambs, the relative cost being $10.72 per hundred pounds and $9.92 per hundred pounds respectively. The shorn lambs were valued at $11.75 hundred pounds in the lots and returned a profit including the wool of 96 cents per head. The wooled lambs were valued at $14.25 per hundred pounds and re- turned a profit of $3.18 per head. These lambs were not heavy shearers, since 25 lambs sheared only 57 pounds of wool but even had they produced twice this amount, shearing would have been decidedly unprofitable. PART VI OPEN SHED VS. BARN AS SHELTER FOR FATTENING LAMBS Part VI is a report of a trial comparing an open shed with a well ventilated barn as shelter for fattening lambs. Both lots of lambs were shorn immediately after the experiment was started and fed a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage and clover hay. Lot 2 was fed in an open shed and Lot 9 in a barn, but there was little difference in the appetites of the lambs in the two lots. The amount of corn and silage consumed was the same in both lots. The lambs fed in an open shed consumed a slightly larger amount of hay but this difference occurred during the last half of the feeding period. The lambs fed in the open shed gained 33.8 pounds per head as compared with 33.1 pounds per head by the lambs fed in the barn. There was practically no difference in the feed required to make a pound of gain. Each pound of gain made by the lambs fed in the open shed, required 3.88 pounds of grain, 4. 1 1 pounds of hay and 5.32 pounds of silage as compared with 3.97 pounds of grain, 3.79 pounds of hay and 5.43 pounds of silage for each pound of gain by the lambs fed in the barn, which was only four cents per hundred pounds difference in the cost of each one hundred pounds of gain. 17 I The lambs fed in the open shed were valued at $11.75 hundred pounds in the lots and returned a profit of 96 cents per head. The lambs fed in the barn were valued at $11.25 per hundred pounds and returned a profit of 51 cents per head. This trial is in accordance with five other trials in which it was shown that the lambs in the open shed returned larger profits than those fed in the barn. However, all previous trials have been conducted with wooled lambs. Table: VI. — Open Shed vs. Barn as Shelter for Fattening (Shorn) Tambs, November 2, 1916 to March 2, 1917 RATION Lot 2 Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage, clove, r hay (shorn and fed in open shed) Lot 9 Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay (shorn and fed in barn) Average initial weight 60.1 lbs. 59.0 lbs. Average final weight 93.9^ “ 92.1^ “ Gain per lamb 33.8 “ 33.1 “ Average daily gain .281 “ .276 “ Average daily feed per lamb grain 1.09 “ 1.09 “ hay 1.16 “ 1.05 “ silage 1.50 “ 1.50 “ Feed per pound gain grain 3.88 “ 3.97 “ hay 4.11 “ 3.79 “ silage 5.32 “ 5.43 “ Cost per 100 lbs. gain $10.72 $10.68 Selling value of I'ambs in feed lots 11.75 11.25 Profit per lamb .96 .51 1 Includes 2.3 pounds of wool Tablk VII. — Summary of Lamb Feeding Experiment, November 2, 1916, to March 2, 1917 18 O ' o o oq 1-5 00 CO C <1 tH CO CO & 0 -CO 10 oq CO o 1—1 oq LQ 10 CT5 CO CO t 2 (Oq 00 00 00 O 1— < 00 10 O CO 00 CO oi CO Tf oq CO LQ T-i 1— I (oq 00 cq CO 1—1 ■o . o . a 220: !=! — ® S o O g o CO 1 T 3 o ' C3 O 10 1-H IQ CO 00 oa 1 — 1 '-fi CM (M 00 1—1 (M iO iO t >5 CO 10 'Cft 00 CC)CO 1— I CO ^ 1— I (M ^ CO oc O »0 0 1 - 5 10 CO 00 (M 1— I OC) 60 - CO 00 1— I CM 10 iO t 2 (30 CO 00 CO 00 CO o 00 'cf (M 03 CO CO CO O CO 03 I-H 1-H 1 -H 1-5 ‘ CO * 03 a> _ R =3 £ tlX) o O § o « b cr -M 05 O o a ,S 2 c 3 rr — hflg"^ O I 10 1—5 03 1-H (M CM 1-H 00 O 1— I eo-ot< 'Tf 03 1-H CM (M CO 01 (03 ^(M CO CM <03 1-H CO 10 1-H 03 CM 1-H 1-5 1-H ■ CO ‘ ' Sg “ b C 1 ^ C S ^ > 'O ^ W S S S jh 7 ^ ^ ' o ® 0.3 O s " -S O, ; CM 03 CM 10 1 - 5 1-5 ’ CO ’ ' 2 o o.S'2 ^^0:33 — HI d m 00 o 00 CO CM XO 1-H 1-H 10 Ttl (M 1-H <03 10 CO CO 00 1-H CM »o CO ICO CO CM < 0 > CM 1-H CM CO .sj a: % O. ■a .S n « !>. S o o S cS " 10 o o <03 CO 10 1-H o CO CO CM 1-H (X) 1-H SO-'CfH CO 03 1-H (M 10 1 -H O O O CM t-H 00 Hf CO SO-'C^l CO CO 1-H CM ^ a S o >iS o ® o ^ O ^ o H cj rzi fX 4 -i ^ 05 O 02 o ot 2 CO 5 O ^ > 30 H ^ ® ^ & S O) C 3 ^ r— I C 3 1— c >-H ^ •+-* ^ fl L> C 3 C 3 ^ ”i-H Qb*QaiOo&X)aoc! 3 >fcfl* oo CM O no e- no CM o o O no o no CO rH l>; CO CM oq CM CO 1—1 o <:£5 CO no tH t>; CM ' (M no o co’ cbd Ob no Cb o l>^ oo‘ o CO CO* Ob CM* CM CM Ob o >o tH CO CO T— 1 rH oo o Ob tH CM se- GO- CM CM CM 5.43 3.79 $45.17 2.27 8.72 13.48 18.81 nooOi-OOOCM»OOOCMCOCOi — 1 ''CJH CO CM o CO CM CO CO CO CO no 00 * O CM O* Ob* O rH* 1 -H oo* CO CM* OOi-HCOX-Ot— IrHi— COi — 1 ee- 1— 1 CM CM ;CMCO * CO no CM oo CM* rlH 1— 1 1— 1 t^conocM ^nsoocMcO'^rSOb CO !>. rji 1 -H iq 1 -H i>. cq 'iq cq O no Ob TJH* Q o* no oo* CO oo cono 1 -Hi-Hco coa 1 -H COI CO CO 4.69 3.25 $48.27 2.27 9.29 12.83 17.77 OOcMObCM cx)no^(Moaooo 'rJiObt^CM nOcMi-HCOOOCDi-H o Ob CO* ^* o* -ctH* (M od CO* Ob CO Ob cono 1 -H 1 -H Hfi CO 60 - rH CM CO CO 7.52 .97 $46.85 2.27 9.05 16.13 4.16 COt^CMOO Ob o l>- (M no CO rjHobi-Hnq Ob Ob i>- cq 'q oq CM odo^CM OCO*CDCx 5 odnO{M 1 -H CO 1 -H 1 -H o CGi no se- 1 -H CM CO (M 4.87 3.31 $53.06 2.27 12.62 17.14 ObnOi-HO oo o CO CM Ob <0 oo o 1 -H iq 1 -H o cq I''; cq Ob ndob'st^ob orSHc^iodcdrct^cci oo CO rif 1 -H rH CO M t>- &0- tHCM CO CO 5.22 $52.55 2.27 28.69 1 -HCMOrH CM O HJH CM rH CM noi-HtqCM cq CD c:q CO no CM cdobrHnd oiciH^odndocd oo CO rfl rHi-HCO (MOO 60 - 1 -H CM CO CO 5.76 $51.52 2.27 29.71 O rH o O CO no no CM CO cro (Ob nqt^ooco nqtqtqcOioirHcq cd(ObCMcd ocdrHodcdt^cM* oo CO rHi-HCM ‘ i-H CO C/S- 1 -H CM CO CO 5.32 4.11 $45.17 2.27 8.72 13.48 20.83 t^cMcofto-n^nobocMcococo 'qi>.cqoqcqcqi>-ocqi>.ab(Ob o o* no no cd o* rH oo* od cb cd (Ob rH CD no 1 -H rH i-H oo (M oo- rH CM (MM 13.22 .26 $37.81 2.23 7.35 16.61 .66 COCOCOcOb O O (Ob OO CTb CO cq rq tq cq O nq cq < 0 b cq CD OO rct^ no Cbd cd CM* cd rH l>I CO* (Ob cOi-nnocM rH i-H no 'O' i rH CM CM CM i m a c3 O) O bX) xfi c3 m a S « O ;h ^ O bX) o ,— I CO cS G q; c3 G o ^ O bX3 ^ a; C3 2 ' CO — fG CO co3|g^' r-,r-H-g^ G O ^ 0,Gr oGQOoOobXloo O ^ G g_| O G ^ (D o '+^ °'3 G bJO CO o G G ICh CO bX3 * CO G-g 5S CO o G CC-rH -L^ ^ rH E S o Gh„ CO ■+J ;g o co-g^cG ^ « “ 3 o S O s Q, s ft ^ a O rH o r-* ^ i-HCOcoG,— IfG^t— 1,^ G^-J-MG^O-GG+f G^fi c« CO -Ml— I O'— G-M+a O OOOOf^oGoo^O^ tc G gj o a oj - p PG S'a a a > o .S bX) 3 ss s| (N O 'S tuO O t>j’^ S3 p, a y £ Sag' > oca bJD^ .. OT H I G G P3 as bXI O a 'O E,G rt tu oj OJO (3 cj " S “ a a ,9 a'M KS (3 cc 4J a >• > +J fH o a o oS-3 O O O 0 .2 <1G Final values of the lambs are 75 cents below Chicago valuation for fat lambs 1 Total gains in Lots 2 and 9 include 57 pounds of wool each 2 Total receipts in Lots 2 and 9 include $19.00 in each lot from wool 3 Death losses are evenly distributed between all lots 20 Actual Expenditures Original cost of 250 lambs in feed lot $1558.06 Cost of feed while on experiment 750-24 Cost of feed for cull lambs 9.50 Cost of feed after experiment closed 82.41 Total cost $2400.21 Actual Receipts Dryfus Packing Co 29.25 Dryfus Packing Co • ■ . . 358-15 Dryfus Packing Co . . . . 25 shorn lambs • • • • 275.95 L. Pfaelser . . . . 1774.48 Swift & Co — 284.15 Bogan-Jacques .... 57.40 Total receipts $2779.38 Total actual profit $ 379.17 3f),l 'lA, O PURDUE UMVERSITY I I .'ll 'VtKbl,-; Oi'lLUJtilS LIU Agricultural Experiment Station , ^ “Lu 1 4 1918 Bueeetin No. 203, Vou. XX August, 1917 TEST OF THREE PROTEIN CONCENTRATES AND TWO LEGUMINOUS ROUGHAGES IN MILK PRODUCTION Published by the Station; LAFAYETTE, INDIANA U. S. A. BOARD OF CONTROL ^ ^ ^ . Joseph D. Oliver, President South Bend. St. Joseph County tj’av a 2 -g x: -c ,2 t 2 05 — ' bo sh , O n , G ^ cj «3 ^ G G 4 ^ ^ s-sg|l 'C -4:; o -*-' 03 “ ^ bo o-> 03 'a 13 g bo o m “'O'C ^ g O 2 G "3 •» sh ^ “ ■^. « M oiol^i^a^ % O^’S “ o O ^ w ^ O) ^ ^ 2 ss t ” G o O c rr- >> I |S t-* 'o — ^ o; ^ > ' I « a o 2 h r 2 S ^ bo O 00 ^ 5 e ’ -a E ^ " 03 l§ ■« o-g 2 'o “ G 3 ^ •* ij > S'C 3) Q C 02 rrt qj n c3 I-J -.a; ^ a S o) • -'C ^ c3 S'? 5 R g “ o 0-1 G Ph s ° CH 2 bo-|.>-^^2S- 5 73 3 O ti "G eo r’ bO'o olS aii o^ “’2 pis 'g W73 0 CO O) .13 C3 73 o SS ^ ' ^ ^2 ^ o O) fl 4J, ^ E 73 £“ ^ (V a O S'- Ph bo „ O ■r 33 03 a 2 i o__ ”•5 0-3 73 w*S .2 cu ara j: »-i oj O S D cc tH Sf 2 o ^ "*2 O a; •S; 2 & — WO) 'J1 S73 S G 33 00 .a G !_ -O bo o3 Qj o) • -;a 0-2 is .Si a, gs 2 «.2 g a CO ” g bo bo CSa so ~ 03 ’-I a oE t>fl S^ 2;£.2 rj a to >, 73 03 iH 03 • O; rr-' I~, 2 ii ggs Ig"!- ^ a 'M o o 73 G fi ^ o) • ■■ (3 O) G s='g:5 ^2 G .Si 2 a S o I 2 2a/'' •4H 2 O O .. O) 55 tM 3^ s; s “ -7< ^ So fa ^52 2 T- 5 I 3 a G. 2 ’ " P 2 2 ' 111 ! S G bX) ri 1 ^ — tr- ^ C<\ ^ ^ f ^ 2 ^ 2 'C ..a 03 a a 00 p T- _ . a S'l £ g; „ a - 2 2 . tH ^ 2 : C ZJ ' ^ rr- ^ G f o a 2 ; a cn in ; C ■*£ bo I a t. G ^ cu CO ® g S s^lgS|§ .bggSgS G 2 - s 2 ^ " 2 ^2 1 ft "a 'S 'G 03 aii o_ *« 0-0 G ^ M s G a Qo* G a 03 03 QJ . s-e i=-: ^ 24 SI a G. 03 ^ a 03 73 ^OJ 03 ^4 bo ^^Ga 2 a o 03 5£ *4-^ 4-> Sh I 5 Q ^ O Iflj ^ C'l ” a> . 02 D x: , *pG ^ . I ^ !h bo o 03 >» 03 03 G< a ^ r\ ^ ag- 1^0 3 g-G o g-g ' is 2 Z tJ3 is E 2 >Oa)i2GO>iaG 2 ' 2 > ■ ^ 2 S G >. 03 •- >> I o a 03 I G ^ a G ^ is2o O 03 Ift 2'^ ■ ^tja 2 o 2 43 CO G ' cc a 4J .2 i o S” Oa 02 ^ ^ ^ C/j o a 2 pI 2 ’M G ^ g G 03 £ .Si > bo 2 S ^ OP J^ ^ CP g « a Ph 2 o ^*2 ^ CO S G s G 03 G o a.*— 44 “ 02 •« a E 4-< a--aots.a'ao3 03 a — G> g ^ g aa“a-i^SOo3 03 ® ^4 a*Moa:+3>»Go3 |“o-SgG2 a O 03 ' " 2 03 4- , G-S' g'cS ^ 03 2 O G 4 _^ o a o Gm-i c3-~ O G G P ^ El' S' 2 - 2 g ^ aS 03 O. W) O g a a 2 ^^at^ ^ . 4-' to C3 !4 o !S _ G CO 03 >-1 G a o ^ a V., !-i Si +^ .G c3 a a G G ■- 03 a S^ “ 2 2 .2 2 aoj ,2 k 'S G « he Ch ^ a o > a a ‘44 o G a G G 03 _ a o G 03 G a O ft E GGJ^., 5 s ^ " 2 O O a ^ ^ G ;s a o a .2 2a o E o G o . •w CC C^l “2 g'^ aoa rrt C3 G O) 3 ^ — <3j ^gGaa, .2 g O-g G •G > ■g O G ^ ' 02 O "S !>> to ^ a bo O 3 ^ g •'! 44 0 »0 o G Oi M 44> ^4 s m I p 2 G 2 |;; ^ c« O G 02 C ^ (M ^ ^ G 4J ^ &4I g a 03 ^ <1 02 2 o 'I a--H ^ ji ^ o ^ ^ a> ^-p* c) (M ^ a a a S ^ ^ O §^ 2 a PT'S 2 G ai2 -H Ga t; o 3';;^ ^ - S g ’-2 S7 g ^Sg >S .Sf Tj 2 > ^ bo 1 ^ 03 S a'43 S^ »?-4 ts a ,4 — ' P . *d |S G ooa o I G ^ G G O 5 < 1 ^ « ^ a o^ 3 2 G G c o o!-^ -G G ^ !4 22 „ 03 Ph bo>.;g > f-, 00 03 ^a G ob^ ^ o; a S G G •'-' g ^4 gE g a 02 aa 3 a g « * ^ 3 bO g ^ ^ o 2 ^ „ is.2 ^ a G g. o a ^ ^>>v} n Si (72 G 44 0 Ph 3 G 0 ^ 03 |•''2 2 2 2 -2 2 1 2 ^° Si G p a a I a o G' at G GJS tc fe-G M 3 S 03 a 43 |Sa 2 ;: a >> _ (4 .453 44 a a a ^ o 02 a p G.-4 -o (/) 0 a; 03 03 t® 1-4 _ is a G a'G 3 G u 03 o c a 03 73 G o > a 44 +1; o G a C3 « 02 02 ' ^ aa G G G G ^ =44 is 34 ®S 6 G .a a ^ w 03 03 02 ^ ' "SO •g* > ^ g ^ 'gPS oa 2 * 03 a G •3 G ;S G 0 44CC O 03 02 S G a G rj ^ > P4 S-! Sm-i a .4 a 03 r-H O > Pam ^ a >.^B r 0 >1 a bo O' O • O 23 ^ n C ^ sA 2 G g m . 2 G ^ .zf ^ Q.) S-* tlX) ft > G bo ■S G 3 Js p•^ ^ 4^ ^ 0 a; u-i ;r jr sh ^ p o Ph bo >1 . t* ^ 02 1 ^ ^ G Is o ^ 44- ^ G 03 3 -4 7" '-' G >> 4 ; r-l 'Sbo-S~ 2 ^ so G G 03 34 !h a GO g ^ 3 O 2 ^ o I ^ +J a 5 ^ <15 S ^ t. ^G^ggg'l ^^25.g2| ^.S “>3''S 2 & G c w S 4 ^ >02 n, (4 a G O 7 3 O G G I 4^44 1 Rye seeded at the rate of one and one-half bushels per acre “ Orchard grass seeded at the rate of one and one-half bushels or 20 pounds per acre 12 MECHANICAL ANALYSIS OF THE LAUREL SOIL The soil work started in November, 1910, when samples were taken for mechanical analysis/ What are known as soil sampling stations, were laid out at this time. There are at least six such sta- tions on each plot located as shown in Fig. 2. It is considered that these stations give approximately as accurate a representation of con- ditions throughout the respective plots, as if a larger number had been taken. The samples secured were air dried, mixed and divided into two sets. One set was sent to the Bureau of Soils, United States Department of Agriculture for mechanicar analysis, and the other was kept at the Station for chemical analysis. ilili id- Ld- 'i - : '- -di ■‘td- 3tr ■ pl tip irii L xTzi'A: ■ r. '.‘.pL i’ii i4f r tjt- iPj: tp r-:. iT'i i- mwm III: IP r- :'rt5 ## ir pp |::: li ttlT : : 7? P- :iEp4 ::p;; ::::: 5 km p fei iiiii ip F p-i Pi If ltd BU+T ‘lli Et-i Mr H Pi- p j;:):: ip ■g;|| d; id :1# ip r BpiSb J; ij 1 ty Pt: ii m Mi PP 'p4 Itt w jj-ij ' i®' in yp Pr ibii 44 MM m 't 1 ■ -i--: - - Litf . ; i — :ib rig. 3. Average mechanical analysis of Laurel soil It has been deemed best in all analyses to analyze the sample from each station individually and compute the plot averages. This practice has been followed in reporting on the mechanical analysis made by the Bureau of Soils, in Table II. It is noted that there is no marked variation between the soils of the various plots. The principal variation is in the proportion of silt and clay, more silt denoting less clay and vice versa. The Laurel soil may be said to be a clay silt containing on an average approximately 70 per cent, silt and 16 per cent, clay as shown in Fig. 3. 1 Unlike subsequent samplings, the spade method was here employed with pro- cedure as follows: at about four feet due north of tree, a hole was dug to the depth of one foot, and one side of this hole was cut off perpendicularly. The leaves, grass and other debris were scraped back from the surface of the ground and with a large knife, a slice of soil varying from one-half to one inch in thickness was cut from the perpendicular face of the soil to a depth of nine inches 13 Table: II. — Mechanical Analysis of Laurel Soil^ — 1910 Systems of management Plot Fine gravel j 2 to 1 mm. 1 per cent. Coarse sand ‘ 1 to 0.5 mm. per cent. ! Medium sand 0.5 to .25 mm. i per cent. Fine sand 0.25 to 0.1 mm. j per cent. Very fine sand i 0.1 to 0.05 mm. per cent. Silt .05 to .005 mm. per cent. Clay .005 to 0 mm. per cent. Clean culture cover A 0.2 1.2 2.6 3.6 2.8 75.9 13.6 crop B 0.3 1.7 4.6 6.8 4.3 70.0 12.3 Straw mulch grass cut, let lie C 0.3 1.4 1.8 3.2 4.5 71.0 17.7 Grass cut, let lie D 0.3 1.5 2.0 3.6 5.5 74.1 13.8 Grass cut, piled E 0.3 1.8 2.2 4.1 6.2 69.5 15.9 E 0.3 1.4 2.5 4.1 5.9 68.1 17.3 Hillside grass cut, piled H 0.4 2.3 5.7 7.3 4.0 59.6 20.4 Average 0.3 1.6 3.1 4.7 4.7 69.7 15.9 1 This table is computed from results of complete mechanical analyses of 52 samples of this soil made by the Bureau of Soils, United States Department of Agri- culture Table III. — Mechanical (Sieve) Analysis of Laurel Soil — 1913 Systems of management Plot Depth of sampling inches Size of separates over 5 mm. between 5.0 and 3.0 mm. between 3.0 and 2.0 mm. between 2.0 and 1.5 mm. between 1.5 and 1.0 mm. less than 1.0 mm. Clean culture cover A 0-9 0.9^ 0.2 0.2 0.5 2.4 995.8 crop 9-18 7.4 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 991.2 B 0-9 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.4 6.0 993.2 9-18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.7 999.3 Straw mulch grass cut, let lie C 0-9 0.5 0.2 0.7 1.2 4.6 992.8 9-18 0.2 0.5 0.7 6.2 1.4 991.0 Grass cut, let lie D 0-9 1.8 0.9 1.3 2.5 4.4 989.1 9-18 6.8 2.9 2.9 4.6 5.1 977.3 Grass cut, piled E 0-9 0.8 0.8 1.7 3.6 4.4 988.7 9-18 0.6 0.6 1.3 1.1 0.8 995.6 E 0-9 3.4 2.1 2.3 1.7 1.6 988.9 9-18 10.7 4.4 1.5 2.5 1.5 979.4 Hillside grass cut, piled H 0-9 18.5 4.3 3.4 7.2 4.8' 961.8 9-18 25.3 3.5 2.8 2.3 1.0 965.1 Average 0-9 4.7 1.2 1.4 2.4 4.0 987.2 9-18 7.3 1.7 1.3 2.5 1.6 985.5 1 Figures express parts per 1000 parts of dry soil 14 In Table III, we have what may be termed gross mechanical analyses of the soil and subsoil/ The tables show that there is very little of the soil that will not pass through a one-millimeter sieve. The subsoil is not greatly dififerent from the surface soil in its mechanical make-up ; the hillside plot has the larger amounts of coarser soil particles ; the variations in the coarser materials are largely due to the presence 'of limestone fragments that are under- going disintegration. THE WEATHER AT LAUREL The weather station at Laurel is located on the experimental- plots. The instruments in use are of the United States Weather Bureau pattern; in addition, Friez thermographs are installed on the upland and hillside plots, giving continuous air temperature records. Table IV. — Total Precipitation, Monthly and Yearly — 1912 to 1916 1912 inches 1913 inches 1914 inches 191.0 inches 191G inches Average inches Varia- tion inches January 2.51 8.65^ 2.37 4.60 6.62 4.95 6.28 February 2.64 1.91 3.50^ 1.03 1.76 2.17 2.47 March 6.05 11.53^ 3.01 1.91 2.46 4.99 9.62 April 5.79^ 5.60 3.25 2.49 2.37 3.70 3.42 May 2.20 1.96 0.70 5.17^ 2.69 2.54 4.47 June 1.71 2.67 1.47 2.31 4.54^ 2.54 3.07 July 3.75 3.09 1.58 4.3P 2.48 3.04 2.73 August 5.32 6.11 6.82^ 6.82^ 2.80 5.57 4.02 September 2.14 2.78 1.23 2.90^ 2.64 2.34 1.67 October 1.58 3.20^ 2.80 0.74 2.44 2.15 2.46 November 0.78 4.92^ 1.41 2.20 1.57 2.18 4.14 December 1.36 0.42 1.90 5.05^ 1.98 2.14 4.63 Total 35.83 52.84 30.04 39.53 35.35 38.71 22.80 Total for May, June and July __ 7.66 7.72 3.75 11.79 9.71 8.13 8.13 1 Highest precipitation for each month during the five-year period From the precipitations data in Table IV, it may be seen that the average annual rainfall at Laurel during the hve-year period has been 38.71 inches, which is a good normal rainfall. While there is no periodicity in the rainfall, yet the variation during the five-year period has been over half the average yearly rainfall during this 1 The method of taking these and all subsequent samples was with a soil auger; three borings being made to a depth of 0-9 and 9-18 inches about four feet northeast of the trees at which these samples were taken in 1910. The soil, thus obtained, was thoroughly mixed, put in jars, which were immediately sealed, and brought to the laboratory. It was air dried, care being taken to break up all lumps with the hand, when drying had proceeded to just the point where the soil crumbled easiest. The portions of the soil xohieh passed the one-millimeter sieve loere ^iscd for all determinations made on soil 15 period. The monthly variations from year to year are also large. The spring months are usually well supplied with moisture, much better than the fall months. Periods of dry weather frequently prevail in June and July, which are commonly broken by heavy precipitations in August. The detailed maximum and minimum temperatures by weeks will be found in Table V. Three years' temperature records are shown graphically in charts in connection with soil temperatures. In Table V the air temperatures of both the upland and hillside plots are given. The hillside plot is considerably lower than the upland and anyone interested in making comparisons as to the effect of elevation and exposure upon temperature will find that the lower elevation with a western exposure exhibits greater ex- tremes of temperature throughout the period that records have been taken. Occasions arise when such differences in temperature may influence fruit production. i6 Table: V. — Air Temperatures at Laurel by Weeks Month Week Minimum Upland Hillside 1913 degrees F. 1914 degrees F. 1915 degrees F. 1916 degrees F. 1913 degrees F. 1914 degrees F. 1915 degrees F. 1916 degrees F. January 1 17.0 23.0 2.0 22.0 15.0 23.0 2.0 22.5 2 12.5 10.0 13.0 12.0 10. 0 10.0 12.0 11.0 3 21.0 9.0 19.5 -3.5 20.0 8.0 18.5 -3.5 4 17.0 22.5 -17.5 0.5 16.0 22.0 -18.5 0.0 5 32.5 32.0 February 1 2.0 19.0 -13.0 2.5 -1.0 18.0 -14.5 3.0 2 -2.0 1.0 ]7.0 -9.0 -2.5 1.0 17.0 -9.0 3 -2.5 -6.0 14.0 2.0 -4.0 -8.0 13.0 2.0 4 15.0 4.0 16.5 10.5 14.0 5.0 15.0 10.5 March 1 6.0 -11.5 16.0 5.0 4.5 -15.0 14.0 5.0 2 8.0 12.5 20.0 14.5 6.0 11.0 20.0 14.0 3 13.0 7.0 18.0 8.0 9.0 5.0 17.0 7.0 4 18.5 15.5 20.0 21.0 17.0 14.5 18.5 20.0 5 24.0 26.0 16.0 22.0 25.0 14.0 April 1 30.5 26.0 16.5 29.0 29.0 25.5 15.5 27.5 2 29.0 19.0 37.0 23.0 29.0 19.0 36.0 22.0 3 31.0 33.0 29.0 31.5 30.0 33.0 27.0 31.5 4 38.0 28.0 49.0 33.5 27.0 47.0 31.0 May 1 36.0 30.0 38.0 38.0 35.0 29.0 37.0 37.0 2 30.0 44.0 31.0 37.5 28.0 44.0 31.5 37.5 3 42.0 31.5 38.0 46.0 41.0 31.0 37.0 44.5 4 40.0 41.0 32.0 30.0 38.5 40.0 31.5 30.0 5 43.0 52.0 43.0 51.0 June 1 42.5 43.0 51.0 47.0 42.0 42.0 51.5 46.0 2 38.5 42.0 40.0 45.0 38.0 41.0 41.0 45.0 3 38.0 54.0 48.0 51.0 38.0 53.0 49.0 50.5 4 59.0 44.0 43.0 45.0 58.0 41.0 43.0 45.0 5 64.0 54.0 64.0 54.5 July 1 50.5 44.0 48.5 53.0 49.0 44.0 49.0 52.0 2 53.0 55.0 46.0 51.0 53.0 54.0 46.0 51.0 3 54.5 49.0 61.5 63.5 54.0 48.0 61.5 63.0 4 50.0 60.0 49.0 56.0 48.0 60.0 47.0 54.5 5 63.0 63.0 August 1 54.0 48.0 60.0 59.0 52.5 46.5 60.0 59.0 2 49.0 51.0 53.5 45.0 48.0 50.0 53.0 45.0 3 66.0 50.0 59.0 59.5 65.5 49.0 59.0 59.5 4 49.5 55.0 47.0 47.0 49.5 54.5 46.0 47.0 5 54.0 47.5 53.0 48.0 September 1 48.0 44.5 38.0 43.0 46.5 44.5 37.0 43.5 2 58.5 41.0 61.0 49.0 57.0 40.0 59.0 48.0 3 40.0 46.0 55.0 29.0 38.5 45.0 55.0 29.0 4 38.5 35.0 35.5 30.0 38.0 34.0 35.5 29.0 5 28.5 27.0 October 1 36.5 39.0 39.0 28.0 27.5 37.0 40.0 28.5 2 32.0 36.0 23.0 33.0 31.0 35.0 22.5 32.0 3 32.5 45.0 38.0 27.0 32.0 43.0 36.5 26.0 4 22.0 39.5 34.0 23.0 20.0 40.0 34.0 23.0 5 27.5 27.0 November 1 22.0 23.5 29.0 24.0 23.0 28.0 22.5 2 15.0 26.0 25.5 26.0 25.0 3 32.0 24.0 22.5 6.5 25.0 22.0 4.5 4 7.5 20.0 16.0 7.5 19.0 *16.0 5 18.0 23.5 17.0 22.0 December 1 22.0 36.0 17.0 18.0 21.0 36.0 17.0 17.0 2 15.0 -1.0 15.0 12.0 14.0 -0.5 15.0 11.0 3 18.0 -12.5 6.0 -5.0 17.0 -13.0 5.5 -9.0 4 15.5 -7.0 14.5 -3.5 14.5 -8.0 13.5 -4.0 5 14.5 7.0 7.0 17 Tabli: V. — Air Temperatures at Laurel by Weeks— (continued) Maximum Month Week Upland Hillside 1913 1914 1915 1916 1913 1914 1915 1916 degrees degrees degrees degrees degrees degrees degrees degrees F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. January 1 48.0 35.0 42.0 62.0 48.0 35.0 41.0 62.0 2 54.0 48.0 47.0 55.0 53.0 50.0 48.0 56.0 3 56.0 51.0 54.0 68.0 56.0 52.5 54.0 68.5 4 60.0 58.0 36.5 66.5 62.0 58.5 37.0 67.5 5 68.0 68.0 February 1 57.0 68.0 49.0 41.5 58.0 69.0 47.0 42.0 2 30.0 52.5 48.0 56.0 30.0 53.0 48.0 56.0 3 57.0 38.0 63.0 55.0 58.0 39.0 64.0 55.0 4 64.0 45.0 58.0 65.0 65.0 47.0 60.0 65.0 1 46.0 45.5 60.5 57.5 44.0 46.0 61.0 58.0 2 62.0 46.5 48.0 64.5 63.0 48.0 50.0 64.5 3 76.0 67.0 55.0 66.5 76.0 68.5 56.0 68.0 4 74.0 54.0 47.0 72.5 75.0 55.0 46.0 73.5 5 65.5 68.5 51.0 66.0 70.5 52.0 April 1 74.0 64.0 56.0 68.0 75.0 63.5 59.0 69.5 2 58.0 60.5 79.0 60.0 59.0 61.0 79.0 61.0 3 76.0 82.0 74.0 77.5 78.0 83.0 75.0 80.0 4 78.0 81.0 87.0 80.0 78.0 81.5 86.0 81.0 May 1 85.0 83.5 86.0 75.0 84.0 84.5 87.0 77.0 2 85.0 78.0 78.5 84.0 84.0 77.5 80.0 83.0 3 84.0 81.5 80.5 87.0 85.0 82.0 80.5 88.5 4 80.0 86.0 80.5 71.5 80.0 87.5 82.5 72.0 5 76.5 88.5 78.5 88.0 June _ 1 88.0 93.5 81.0 79.0 88.0 95.0 85.0 79.0 2 89.0 93.0 88.0 78.0 89.0 92.5 89.0 78.0 3 92.0 97.5 83.0 82.0 92.5 97.0 84.0 83.5 4 98.0 96.5 87.0 84.5 98.0 97.0 86.0 87.5 5 95.0 98.5 96.0 100.5 July 1 98.0 89.0 87.0 90.0 98.0 90.0 88.0 90.0 2 95.5 103.0 83.5 91.5 95.0 103.0 85.0 92.0 3 91.5 96.0 91.5 93.0 92.0 95.0 92.5 94.0 4 91.5 100.0 88.0 95.0 92.5 99.0 86.0 96.0 5 98.5 99.0 August 1 101.0 94.0 92.0 94.5 102.0 94.5 92.0 94.0 2 96.0 95.0 85.5 95.0 98.0 96.0 87.0 96.0 3 92.0 90.0 82.0 94.5 92.5 91.0 85.0 95.5 4 89.5 95.5 87.0 94.5 90.0 95.5 90.0 92.0 5 84.0 80.0 86.5 82.0 September 1 93.0 87.0 81.5 86.0 93.0 88.5 83.0 88.0 2 96.0 78.5 88.0 93.0 97.0 79.0 89.5 92.5 3 87.0 91.5 89.0 86.5 87.0 92.5 90.0 90.0 4 78.0 90.5 81.0 76.5 78.0 91.5 81.0 79.5 5 81.0 82.0 October 1 80.0 79.0 79.0 87.5 81.5 79.5 81.0 88.5 2 86.0 84.0 81.0 38.0 87.0 84.5 81.0 88.5 3 76.5 68.0 77.0 72.5 77.0 69.0 78.5 74.0 4 61.5 76.0 76.5 67.0 63.0 77.0 77.0 67.0 5 72.0 73.0 November 1 65.0 72.0 76.0 74.0 73.0 76.0 74.0 2 65.0 82.0 77.0 83.5 78.0 3 74.0 67.0 71.0 60.5 68.0 71.0 61.0 4 45.0 56.5 68.0 45.5 57.0 67.0 5 62.0 68.0 62.5 68.5 December 1 59.5 62.0 39.5 58.0 61.0 64.0 41.0 58.0 2 59.5 40.0 45.0 63.0 61.0 40.0 45.0 63.0 3 54.5 36.0 52.0 42.0 55.5 36.0 52.0 42.0 4 50.0 34.0 47.0 33.0 51.0 34.0 48.0 33.0 5 40.5 54.0 54.0 8 The chief points of interest in the weather phenomena of each season were as follows : The season of 1912 was about normal from the standpoint of precipitation, both as regards total precipitation and- its distribution throughout the year. The winter temperatures were the coldest recorded during the period here reported upon. The mercury went to 25 degrees below zero Fahrenheit on the upland plots and 28 degrees below on the hillside plot in January. The season of 1913 was characterized by extremely heavy rain- fall. The winter might be termed moderate or even “open,” fol- lowed by a rather hot summer. The peculiarities of the season of 1914, were the protracted dryness and heat of the summer and the heavy snowfall and cold weather of February and December. The principal features of the weather of 1915 were the extreme coolness and wetness of the summer. This season is a great con- trast to 1914. The outstanding weather conditions of 1916 were a very cool and wet June and an unusually early freeze occuring September 18. THE RESPONSE OF THE TREES TO CULTURAL PRACTICES PiiENOLOGiCAL Behavior. — Phenological notes have been kept on all plots, by varieties, during the five-year period. The dif- ferences due to variety have been quite constant. Table VI is in- cluded to show the general yearly changes, but it is the changes, if any, induced by soil treatments in which we are primarily interested. Table VI. — Phenological Notes on Grimes Trees under Clean Cultivation Year Leaf buds open First bloom Full bloom Petals fall Terminal buds form First leaf fall Main leaf fall Last leaf fall 1912 191.3 1914 191.5 1916 Apr. 20 Apr. 22 Apr. 24 Apr. 24 Apr. 24 Apr. 28 Apr. 30 Apr. 27 Apr. 29 May 4 Apr. 29 May 5 May 9 May 9 May 3 May 8 Aug. 24 Aug. 4 Aug. 17 Sep. 15 Sep. 2 Oct. 30 Nov. 3 Nov. 16 Nov. 20 Nov. 6 Nov. 30 Dec. 4 Nov. 14 Nov. 30 Nov. 24 Dec. 6 Dec. 13 Nov. 20 Cultural practices have not had a marked efifect on phenological behavior. The only dififerences that appeared may be noted as fol- lows : in 1914, the terminal bud formation and the main leaf fall were five days earlier on the grass land. In 1916 the leaf fall on the cultivated and straw mulched plots was about a week later than on grassed plots, and the trees on the hillside plot formed their termin- als about 12 days earlier than on the cultivated plots. While there have been no startling differences in phenological behavior, yet there does occur a marked slacking up of growth on certain plots during the dry periods in summer, which a usual phenological report does not take into account. Dry weather checks the growth much more quickly on the trees on the grass plots, often 19 nearly causing them to set terminal buds. If a spell of rainy weather intervenes all plots will respond with renewed activity, with the result that the final date of terminal formation may be the same on all plots. Thus, in 1913, following a dry spell, the approximate number of growing terminals per tree on the clean culture plot was 30, on the straw mulch plot 20, on the grass mulch plot 10, and on the plot where the grass was cut and let lie, only three. Thk Effect of Variety on Growth. — The circumference or girth increment made by the trees from year to year has been used as an index of growth. Such measurements have been recorded at the end of each growing season. Although the point of measure- ment has varied slightly with the height at which the trees were headed, etc., the measurement has been taken where possible, about 18 inches from the ground and this point definitely located by a brass escutcheon pin driven into the tree. A steel tape graduated in millimeters was the rule of measure. The terminal twig growth has been measured and found to correlate satisfactorily with girth increase. In compiling the growth data, there have been two possible pro- cedures, i. e. : I. Each variety could be averaged separately and then an average taken of these averages, thus giving a weighted average, where each variety has equal weight in the final average. 2. The growth made by all the trees on a plot could be added together re- gardless of variety and an average taken, thus giving a general aver- age. The Laurel orchard is planted in alternating blocks of four rows each in such a way that there are twice as many Grimes as either Jonathan or Stayman. If there was much difference in growth between varieties, therefore, it would be of considerable moment as to whether a weighted or general average was used. Table VII shows the results obtained with each of the above methods of computation. It will be seen that the Stayman variety made slightly greater girth gains during the five-year period than either Grimes or Jonathan. This was uniformly the case on all plots. However, the increase was not of sufficient magnitude to affect the averages materially, as is shown by the fact that five years’ re- sults on all plots on the basis of a weighted average, was 21.87 centimeters and on the basis of a general average 21.71 centimeters or a trifling difference. All subsequent growth data, therefore, are reported on the basis of a general average, regardless of variety. 20 Table VIL — The Effect of the Variety on Girth Increase of Trunk Girth gain in centimeters, 1912-1916 Systems of management Plot Grimes Jona- than stay- man Weighted average General average Clean culture cover crop A 25.65^ 25.46 26.54 25.88 25.86 B 23.67 26.38 26.61 25.55 25.14 Straw mulch grass cut, let lie C 25.19 26.36 26.90 26.15 25.94 Grass cut, let lie D 16.67 17.54 17.82 17.34 17.15 Grass cut, piled E 17.81 17.63 18.96 18.13 18.10 E 17.78 17.78 18.95 18.17 18.06 Average 21.13 21.86 22.63 21.87 21.71 Hillside grass cut, piled H 20.54 23.75 22.14 22.30 1 Field measurements were made to tenths of centimeters. It is necessary to carry two decimal places, however, in calculating averages, and these are retained in the table. It should not be inferred that the second decimal is significant from the standpoint of actual tree growth Growth Records by Plots. — In Table VIII we have the cir- cumference of the trees at the beginning and end of the five-year period and the gain in girth made each year, together with the av- erage gain for the period. Only such trees have been included in these data as were permanent throughout the entire period. The trees, at the close of the season of 1911, were practically uniform in size, with the possible exception of the trees on plots A and E which had a slight, although not significant advantage. This is graphically shown in Fig. 4. After the lapse of five years, an out- standing difference is noted in the average girth of the trees on the various plots. It will be seen that the major plots at this time group themselves into two divisions, i. e., one composed of large trees, and the other of much smaller trees. To the former belong plots A, B and C, and to the latter, D, E and E. The individual differences in growth between plots in either of these two groups are not of suffi- cient-magnitude to merit special mention. The above relations are further emphasized by the gains made in girth during each season. Plots A, B and C, without exception, ranked as the three highest plots while D, E and F ranked as the three lowest, (see Fig. 4) The growth data in brief, show that 21 Fig:. 4. The relative increase in trunk g:irth of trees by years undea: the four main systems of soil manag:ement Table: VIII. — Detailed Growth Record of Permanent Trees for Five-Year Period Systems of management Plot Number 1 trees in- cluded in averages Average girth Average gain in girth 1916 cm. 1911 cm. 1912- 1916 cm. 1912 cm. 1913 cm. 1914 cm. 1915 cm. 1916 cm. Year- ly cm. Clean culture cover crop A 90 33.88 “8.02 25.86 4.32 4.80 4.45 6.85 5.44 5.17 B 62 32.68 7.54 25.14 3.90 4.85 4.60 6.59 5.20 5.03 Straw mulch grass cut, let lie 0 61 33.24 7.30 25.94 3.69 4.66 4.80 7.15 5.64 5.19 Grass cut, let lie D 84 24.32 7.17 17.15 3.08 3.02 2.71 5.10 3.24 3.43 Grass cut, piled E 47 26.00 7.90 18.10 2.47 3.17 2.60 5.42 4.44 3.62 F 79 25.31 7.25 18.06 2.89 3.07 2.52 5.20 4.38 3.61 Average 70.5 29.24 7.53 21.71 3.39 3.93 3.61 6.05 4.72 4.34 Hillside grass cut, piled 0 53 28.93 15 . 151 13.782 3.48 5.89 4.41 4.59 H 89 30.71 8.41 22.30 4.20 4.04 3.60 6.31 4.15 4.46 1 Girth 1913 2 Gain in girth, 1914 to 1916 22 Figr. 5. Average conditions on clean culture cover crop plot. This system of manaffement while efficient in conserving: moisture tends to deplete the org:anic mat- ter in the soil. Averag:e yearly grain in grirth of trees 5.2 centimeters. Fig:, t). Averagre c ^ "o 1916 cm. 1912 cm. 1913-1916 cm. 1913-1916 cm. Clean culture cover crop A 6 31.46 9.75 21.71 21.54 B 4 32.80 12.28 20.52 21.24 Straw mulch grass cut, let lie C 4 36.45 12.78 23.67 22.25 Grass cut, let lie D 5 21.30 7.28 14.02 14.07 Grass cut, piled E 2 29.50 10.5 19.00 15.63 r 2 20.85 6.85 14.00 15.17 Average 3.8 28.73 9.91 18.82 18.31 1 For average girth of plot trees (unfertilized) see Table VIII It should be borne in mind, that a fertilizer experiment was not here attempted and that the number of trees is far too few upon which to base a final judgment. The purpose of the fertilizer ap- plication was rather to prevent the possibility of interpreting wrong- ly the responses of the trees to soil management methods as men- tioned on page 9. Many examples in the community afford ample evidence that farm crops on this soil are by no means unresponsive to fertilization ; the data bear this out. Samples of the rye cover crop have been weighed from fertilized and unfertilized areas, just before turn- ing under in the spring, with the result, that for the average of 1914, 1915 and 1916, the fertilized rye gave a green weight of 8.77 tons per acre and the unfertilized only 2.51 tons per acre. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF LAUREL SOIL Physical Analysis. — Three determinations have been made to show the. physical character of the Laurel soil : — hygroscopic moisture, water-holding capacity and specific gravity. The results of these determinations from samples secured in September, 1913, are given in Table XI. The hygroscopic moisture^ content of the subsoil samples is uniformly greater than that of the surface soil. This difference is large enough, so that it may be concluded that the subsoil contains more clay, as clay increases the moisture absorption of a soil. 1 Hygroscopic moisture was determined by heating five gram aliquots of the air — dry samples for five hours in an oven kept at 100 degrees C. 26 Tabi,k XI. — Physical Analyses of Laurel Soil and Subsoil Specific gravity Hygroscopic moisture Water holding capacity Systems of management Plot sur- face sub- soil differ- ence sur- face per cent. sub- soil per cent. differ- ence per cent. sur- face grams sub- soil grams differ- ence grams Clean culture cover crop A 2.44 2.53 -1-.09 1.31 1.40 •f .09 .544 .501 .043 B 2.40 2.52 -f.12 1.06 1.74 -1-.68 .514 .459 .055 Straw mulch grass cut, let lie C 2.37 2.47 -f .10 1.57 2.09 -f.52 .516 .575 + .059 Grass cut, let lie D 2.45 2.45 .00 1.87 2.10 + .23 .612 .530 .082 Grass cut, piled E 2.48 2.41 .07 1.79 2.10 + .31 .5.58 .535 .023 F 2.43 2.44 -f .01 1.53 1.80 + .27 .554 .548 .006 0 2.42 2.48 -f .06 1.10 1.66 + .56 .493 .477 .016 Hillside grass cut, piled H 2.43 2.37 .06 1.63 2.66 +1.03 .610 .585 .025 Average 2.43 2.46 -f .03 1.48 1.94 + .46 .550^ .526 .024 Variation 0.11 0.16 0.19 0.81 1.26 0.94 .1172 .126 .152 1 Equivalent to 35.5 per cent, of moisture 2 Equivalent to 10.4 per cent, of moisture The soil containing as it does a high percentage of silt and clay, a high water holding capacity^ would naturally be expected. The water holding capacity of the soil of the various plots is quite uniform. This bears out the uniformity found in the mechanical analysis of the soil. The specific gravity" of the subsoil is slightly greater than that of the surface soil. This would indicate either one or both of two things ; namely, that there is a little more organic matter in the surface soil than in the subsoil, or that the subsoil contains slightly more of the heavier constituents. The variation between the .spe- cific gravity of the soils of the various plots is small. 1 Water liokling- capacity was determined by the volumetric method of Fuelling, given in Wiley’s “Principles and Practices of Agricultural Analysis,’’ Vol. I, p. 151, edition of 1906. This method was chosen because it can be used satisfactorily on samples of air-dry soil “The specific gravity of the soil was determined as follows: five grams of the air-dry, prepared samples were placed in 25 c. c. tared specific gravity bottles; dis- tilled water was added until the bottles were three-fourths full. They were boiled in a water bath to drive out air, placed in a thermostat kept at 30 degrees C. for one hour, filled with distilled water free from gases and let stand for half an hour in bath. The stoppers were inserted,' the bottles dried and weighed 27 Chemical Analysis. — The chemical analysis^ of the Laurel soil appears in Table XII, and serves to place the soil in regard to its total elements of plant food. This analysis is not indicative of the crop producing power of this soil or of its fertilizer re- quirements. Not all samples of soil taken from the 66 sampling stations have been analyzed. It has been necessary to pick out and make determinations of those substances^ the amounts present of which it was thought would be varied by the cultural practices. The de- terminations chosen and which have been made upon all samples of soil taken in September, 1913, both surface and subsoil, are vola- tile matter, humus, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus. The acidity of the surface soil has also been determined. With the results of these determinations as a basis, those samples where the chemical analysis of the soil varied considerably were picked out (there be- ing 12 in number) and further analyses made. While it appears from the chemical analysis, that the soil has a fair amount of the soil elements, yet in reality it is not as produc- tive a soil as its chemical analysis might signify. Its low organic matter content and its high proportion of silt and clay are largely responsible for this condition, making a soil through which water percolates slowly and one which is easily puddled. Its high water- holding capacity is due to its silt and clay and not to its organic matter content. Plowing is often delayed in the spring because the soil dries off very slowly. Coupled with these conditions, as might be expected, is a slight acidity. A further study of the acidity at five different places on the plots, shows no. correlation of acidity with depth. An 1 The methods used in analyzing the Laurel soil were the “official methods” as published by the Association of the Official Agricultural Chemists of the United States, in the main. The soil was prepared according to the directions given in these methods, — 10 gram portions were taken and digested with hydrochloric acid, specific gracity 1.115 (constant boiling point) for 10 hours. Shakings were made hourly as methods required; and until the acid extracts were fully prepared, the only possible variation from the official rulings was that especial care was taken to see that filtrations were clear. If the filtrates were at all cloudy the solution was poured back through the filters time and time again, until the filtrate was absolutely clear, as far as the eye could determine. Phosphorus was determined in the acid extract thus prepared and compared with the results of the determinations ^made by the Method of Goss, as given in Wiley’s Principles of Agricultural Analysis, Vol. T. The Method of Goss, even when modified, as published by Noyes in the .Tournal of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, May, 1917, gives results slightly higher than those obtained in the acid extract. This is also true when the modification is applied in determining the phosphorus in the acid extract. The Method of Goss was used with modification referred to for determining the phosphorus present. The method used for determining humus was the “official method” as modified by Smith, and published in the Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, December, 1913. In soils that contain large amounts of very fine silt and clay, it is necessary to have clean, clear filtrates if determinations are to be even comparable. Iron was determined by treating an aliquot of the acid extract with sulfuric acid, and evaporating off the hydrochloric acid. The procedure published in the laboratory directions of the Yale Sheffield Scientific Schools was followed from^ this point: — reduce with hydrogen sulphide, boil off excess hydrogen sulphide, cool, dilute, and titrate with N/10 potassium permanganate 28 Table XII. — Chemical Analysis of Laurel SoiL Substances determined Re- ported as Surface soil 0-9 inches per cent. Subsoil 9-18 inches per cent. Insoluble matter and soluble Si02 _ _ __ 86.21 83.17 3.89" 1.94" 0.33 undetermined 0.58 0.26 Volatile matter 4.62 Hvgroseopie water 1.48" Potassium K 0.24 Sodium Na undetermined Paleium Ca 0.38 Mag-nesinm Mg Mn 0.35 Manganese 0.06 0 01 Iron Pe 2.18 2.77 2.47 Aluminum A1 1.57 Phosphorus P 0.079" 0.12 Sulphur S 0.03 0.03 ISTi tro geu N 0.15" 0.10 Humus 1.25" 0.76" Acidity^ 0.0127" 1 Based on air-dry soil 2 Average of determinations from all sampling stations 3 Acidity expressed as units of CaCOs necessary to neutralize 100 units of soil interesting thing in this connection was the discovery in some places of an acid soil in close proximity to limestone fragments. SOIL MOISTURE Having nO' apparatus by which the moisture content of the soil can be recorded continuously, the moisture determinations indicate the moisture present at specific times. One has no right to assume that the change in moisture between two dates of sampling can be graphed by a straight line between those dates. Variations in the manner of and the intervals between precipitations in the humid regions may be so great that soil moisture determinations at some periods or the average moisture for the season are meaningless. It is the progressive changes that occur, where different systems of soil management are practiced, that are important. It is conceiv- able that a certain system of soil management might be beneficial to the tree for a particular year, while it might be detrimental if prac- ticed in another season or for a longer time. The effect of the various systems of soil management on the soil moisture at Laurel cannot be directly applied in the abstract to the humid region in general. Of very great importance in the in- terpretation of results is the type of soil on which an investigation is carried out. The soils through which water can percolate rapidly may give entirely different results, in the same locality, from a soil like that at Laurel where the water percolates very slowly. 1 Noyes, H. A., “Study of Soil Containing Residual Limestone.” The Journal of The Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, Vol. Ill, No. 1 29 The present report is based on the moisture content of the sur- face nine inches of soild Samples for all soil studies have been taken at this, rather than a shallower depth, so as to be sure and obtain all the soil that has been subject to changes by plowing. (Depth of plowing has averaged about seven inches.) This depth would also be more representative from the standpoint of the tree. There is considerable lack of uniformity among investigators in reporting soil moisture. Two methods of expressing this are com- monly adopted, namely: i. The moisture content is reported as a cer- tain per cent, of the weight of the soil as it comes from the field. 2. The moisture is reported as a certain per cent, of the oven-dry soil, or on the dry basis. The former method has been adhered to in this publication and the figures represent that part of the weight of the soil sample taken for analysis, which is lost on drying the sample at lOO degrees C. In all cases in this publication, per cent, means parts in a hundred and not with a hundred. In Table XIII, there is given a review of the soil moisture de- terminations during the five-year period. From the samples taken, the soil on all plots seems to be plentifully supplied with moisture in the spring and fall in all of the five years and three out of the five years (1912, 1915 and 1916) this condition seemed to hold through- out the season. However, the moisture is not known on a sufficient number of dates to speak without reservation on the last point. On the dates that are known, the moisture during these years has not been so depleted as to be significantly low from the standpoint of the tree. The precipitation data show (see Table IV) that the rainfall, at least in 1915 and 1916, during May, June and July was suffi- ciently ample so that the soil moisture was probably not depleted at any time much below that given in the table. The same cannot be said of the season of 1912. It appears from the rainfall of that year, 1 Three borings were made and mixed together on an oilcloth. A part of this mixture was put in a glass jar which was immediately sealed and taken to the laboratory. Samples were not taken at the same spot each time, but at different points in a circle about the tree. The increase in the size of the mulch collar de- termines the increased distance from the tree. A departure was made from the method of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists for moisture determin- ations, because it has been necessary to make an immense number of determina- tions with dispatch and a fair degree of accuracy. First, however, a test was made to find out how small a sample of soil could be taken directly from the jars and give moisture results that checked inside of 0.1 per cent. The procedure followed in this test was as follows: aluminum and porcelain moisture dishes of such size, that when full would hold about 30 grams of soil, were used. The dishes were weighed accurately to 0.1 of a milligram and the weights recorded. A jar of soil, as it came from the field was opened, a spatula inserted, and the soil mixed. Any pieces of roots or limestone particles seen were picked out. Aliquots of soil were transferred from the jar to the moisture dishes with the spatula. The aliquots used were 2, 5, 7.5, 10, 15 and 20 grams and duplicate aliquots were weighed out. They were all dried in an oven kept at 100 degrees C., and the loss of weight de- termined. The 10, 15 and 20 gram aliquots checked to the degree desired, while the other aliquots gave disagreeing results as the size of the sample decreased. It was decided from these results that 10 grams of this soil could be used for trust- worthy moisture determinations as this aliquot of field soil was large enough so that variations in the proportions of the different soil constituents, that might be in dif- ferent aliquots, was overcome. The procedure decided upon for subsequent deter- minations was as follows: the soil as it came from the field was mixed with a spatula. Ten gram aliquots were weighed out, in duplicate, into tared moisture dishes, dried in the oven kept at 100 degrees C. for three hours and the loss of weight determined. All moisture results were reported to tenths of a per cent. This method has been followed in making all soil moisture determinations Table XIII. — Moisture (total) in Soil Clean culture cover crop straw mulch, grass cut, let lie Grass cut, let lie Grass cut, piled Hill- side grass cut, piled Aver- age Varia- tion A B C D E F 0 H per per per per per per per per per per cent. cent. cent. cent. cent. cent. cent. cent. cent. cent. 1912 May 30 17.7 16.9 23.1 18.3 15.8 18.3 22.1 18.9 7.3 July 23 16.1 14.5 21.0 16.0 14.1 15.9 20.5 16.9 6.9 Average 16.9 15.7 22.1 17.2 15.0 17.1 21.3 17.9 7.1 Variation 1.6 2.4 2.1 2.3 1.7 2.4 1.6 2.0 0.8 1913 Apr. 29 18.9 19.1 19.2 19.6 18.5 19.5 23.6 19.8 5.1 June 17 14.6 15.0 18.8 7.2 6.1 6.5 18.0 12.3 12.7 Sep. 4 14.0 13.8 15.6 9.4 9.4 9.4 15.7 12.5 6.3 Nov. 25 20.4 20.1 21.3 21.2 20.3 20.2 21.5^ 20.9 20.6 1.2 Average 17.0 17.0 18.7 14.4 13.6 13.9 19.6 16.3 6.0 Variation 6.4 6.3 5.7 14.0 14.2 13.7 7.9 9.7 8.5 1914 May 6 19.9 19.8 22.2 21.6 20.0 21.0 21.0 20.5 20.8 2.4 June 17 15.3 15.0 m] 6.5 6.1 6.0 10.4 13.5 11.3 11.6 Aug. 13 11.4 10.4 10.9 7.2 7.1 7.9 8.1 11.2 9.3 4.3 Nov. 25 14.3 14.7 18.6 16.1 15.9 17.3 15.6 20.2 16.6 5.9 Average 15.2 15.0 17.3 12.9 r2.3 13.1 13.8 16.4 14.5 5.0 Variation 8.5 9.4 11.3 14.4 13.9 15.0 12.9 9.3 11.8 6.5 1915 Apr. 8 18.5 18.5 21.8 21.7 '20.8 21.3 21.5 21.3 20.7 3.3 Apr. 30 17.5 18.2 21.6 20.4 20.0 21.0 20.6 20.4 20.7 4.1 June 10- 17.3 17.5 20.7 18.9 17.3 18.9 19.4 20.3 18.8 3.4 July 14 17.1 16.2 20.9 20.7 19.6 20.8 16.3 19.6 18.9 4.7 Aug. 18 19.8 18.2 21.6 22.3 22.2 21.5 19.8 20.6 20.8 4.1 Sep. 14 16.9 16.4 20.2 20.1 19.6 20.3 18.0 19.7 18.9 3.9 Nov. 26 19.0 19.0 21.0 20.4 20.2 21.0 19.2 21.2 20.1 2.2 Average 18.0 17.9 21.1 20.6 20.0 20.9 19.3 20.4 19.8 32 Variation 2.9 2.8 1.6 3.4 4.9 2.6 5.2 1.7 3.1 3.6 1916 May 9 19.9 19.5^ 21.7 21.9 21.2 21.5 20.4 21.2 20.9 2.0 June 27 16.4 14.0 20.8 16.0 14.7 16.2 14.7 15.5 16.0 6.8 July 31 15.3 10.6 ■ 14.4 12.9 12.9 13.5 11.9 13.6 13.1 2.5 Aug. 19 13.1 8.4 13.3 13.9 12.6 14.0 11.8 13.2 12.5 56 Average 16.2 13.1 17.6 16.2 15.4 16.3 14.7 15.9 15.8 4.5 Vai'iation 6.8 11.1 8.4 9.0 8.6 8.0 8.6 8.0 8.6 4.3 1 Plot O not in experiment until 1913 - Plot B seeded to grass — spring 191G 31 that had soil moisture samples been 'taken in June they might have shown as low moisture as in June, 1913. During the seasons 1913 and 1914 we have a positive indication of the effects of different soil treatments on soil moisture. In both of these seasons, the rainfall during the active growing period of the trees (May, June and July) was considerably below the five- year average for those months. Inasmuch as the cultural practices are conservation measures, preventing the loss of water after it enters the soil, it is largely in such dry periods that the value of cer- tain systems of management in conserving soil moisture are made manifest. In both of these years, during the month of June, the upland plots (D, E and F ) either where the grass was cut and let lie or piled about the trees, were low in soil moisture. Where an ade- quate mulch was maintained (plots A, B, C) on the surface of the soil either through the agency of cultivation or a heavy straw cover- ing, the percentage of moisture was more than twice that in straight grass land. The major plots thus naturally divide themselves into two groups as regards I'noisture, and the difference in moisture be- tween plots in either group is not significant. It will be seen by referring to Table I that the cutting of grass from plots E and F was very light and the mulch consequently in- adequate. It frequently happens in orchard practice, as in this case, that the yield of grass from an area of orchard is not to be relied upon to mulch the trees on that area effectively. If a greater amount of hay is produced, the mulching effect is more satisfactory, as shown by plot H which had a good sod from the start. How- ever, the extra mulch may not be entirely responsible for this, as there are other slightly different conditions on plot H, not the re- sult of soil management treatment. The interesting relation is between the moisture content of the soil and tree growth. By comparing the moisture content of the soil during the growing season of the trees in 1913 and 1914 with the growth of the trees as shown in Fig. 4, we see that plots low in moisture are also low in tree growth. Just as the major plots in the experiment naturally fall into two groupings, when soil moisture is considered, so do they divide themselves as to free growth. The great importance of water in the growth of apple trees is further emphasized by a study of the precipitation data in Table IV. At the bottom of this table, the rainfall for May, June and July, of each year, is summarized. It is during this period that the sea- son’s growth is largely determined. There is a close relation be- tween the precipitation at this time and growth. In fact, the varia- tion in growth due to seasonal moisture conditions appears to have been quite as large as that due to cultural practices. Furthermore, those plots lowest in soil moisture are more closely correlated with the precipitation than those having a higher moisture content, thus showing the greater dependence of the former, upon the rainfall, as might well be expected. An exact correlation, however, is not 32 to be looked for, because of the age factor introduced in comparing the growth of one year with another. The moisture data accumulated have been studied from various angles. Some attempt has been made to interpret moisture data with reference to rate of precipitation at various times, rate of per- colation, rate and amount of run off, capillary rise of subsoil mois- ture and fluctuations in the water table. It is felt that further in- formation from such studies may throw additional light on the interpretation of moisture conditions. The question arises also, as to whether the correlation between tree growth and moisture, expresses a simple relation between the plant and its moisture supply, or whether the moisture conditions induced by variations in soil management may not present a com- plex of environmental factors related perhaps to humification, bac- terial numbers and activities in the soil, the combined effect of which may account indirectly for the apparent reaction of tree to moisture. It is quite possible that the moisture data reported here may also need to be reinterpreted when additional information has been developed on the factors influencing the availability of moisture to the tree. SOIL TEMPERATURES The soil temperature work has been carried on under field con- ditions at a uniform depth of nine inches on all plots, i. e., the same depth included in samples taken for soil analysis. The thermometer bulb on mulched plots was planted beneath the mulch collar, about a foot from its outer edge and on other plots, at an equivalent distance from the tree. The data have been secured by soil thermographs which give continuous, automatic records. Thus the actual maximum and minimum temperatures are ob- tained, and not so-called extremes, as represented by morning and evening readings of thermometers. In Figs. 10 and ii, the maximum and minimum temperatures are given respectively by weeks under clean cultivation with cover crop, straw mulch and grass. Maxima and minima have been con- sidered preferable to averages or means in reporting temperatures. The extremes which are very significant to the growing plant are often entirely hidden when averages or means alone are reported. Clean cultivation with cover crop and the straw mulch occupy the extreme positions in soil temperature behavior that have been here experienced. If these two plots are followed through their temper- ature cycles the maximum differences that have been induced in the temperature of the soil by the cultural methods will have been observed. The curves for the other plots lie in general between these two extreme plots. Such a condition is expressed by the green line, in the figures representing the plot where the grass is cut 33 and let lie where it falls. The grass mulched plots have not been shown graphically (See Table XIV), because they follow very closely the temperature line made by the straw mulch plot. The air temperatures and pre- cipitation have been included in Figs. lo and ii for purposes of ready comparison with soil tem- peratures. The striking corre- lation between the temperature of the air and that of the soil is apparent at a glance. The air temperature is the most potent factor in influencing the temper- ature of the soil. There is no indication that the single factor of soil moisture has had an in- fluential bearing upon the tem- perature of the soil under ordi- nary field conditions. So far as the rainfall is concerned, there seems to be a relation only in so far as excessive moisture condi- tions are generally a presage of lower air temperatures, which in turn affect the temperature of Fig. 9. Soil thermograph in shelter Soil. house. By means of these instruments, continuous records of the temperature of There is alsO UO evidence tO the soil under the different systems of , . , • ' management were obtained SUpport the popular OpilllOn tfiat rains warm the soil. If the rain water happens to be appreciably warmer than the soil at the time, which is very seldom the case even in the spring, the result is to warm the soil. However, a warm, sunny day would be even more influential in this respect. The re- sult of a summer rain is almost invariably to lower the temperature of the soil because the rain water is colder than the soil at this time and the cloudy weather coincident with the rain, reduces the absorp- tion of heat. Greater evaporation after a rain would further tend to lower soil temperature. The immediate effect of a heavy rain is a tendency to bring the temperature of the soil to that of the rain wat- er, resulting in almost the complete disappearance of variations be- tween plots. This effect is practically limited to the time the rain falls. The three thermograph charts shown in Fig. 12 illustrate this point. They comprise clean cultivation with cover crop, straw mulch and grass for the week ending August 23, 1915. Note the straightening of the temperature curve under clean culture cover crop, on Friday and Saturday when 1.63 inches of rain fell. The straw mulch already having a low temperature, made little response. 34 It has not been the purpose to investigate the many complex factors that influence the temperature of the soil, but rather to ascertain the degree to which changes in soil temperatures might be induced by cultural practices and the efifect of such changes upon the apple tree. Attention has been called to the dependence of soil temperature upon the temperature of the air, to emphasize the fact that probably the most influential factor in governing soil tempera- ture is one beyond our control. It will be noted, however, that once the soil has reached the neighborhood of the freezing point, there is a very reluctant and re- duced response to a further lowering of the air temperature. This was due in some few cases to snow. The protecting effect of snow will be noted especially during the winter of 1914-1915, when the ground was covered during the greater part of December and Jan- uary. Although the air temperature reached a lower point that winter than at any other time during the period shown, the mini- mum soil temperature on the clean culture cover crop plot was actually the highest of any winter ; that snow is not the only factor responsible for the smaller range in soil temperature during the winter is quite evident. Undoubtedly the latent heat of ice, and the fact that no absorption of heat is taking place in winter, serve to keep a more constant soil temperature. As shown in Figs. 10 and ii, the most that soil temperatures have been influenced by cultural practices has been seven degrees in minimum and ii degrees in maximum temperature. The extreme variations between plots have always occurred about midsummer and are very small in late fall and winter. A straw mulch tends to keep the soil a few degrees warmer in winter than clean culture cover crop and much cooler in summer. The same thing is true of a grass mulch, although not so marked in this case because of less mulching material. Under ordinary meadow conditions, where the grass is cut and let lie where it falls, the sod has a warming effect in winter and a cooling effect in summer, as compared to clean cultivation, although this effect is not so great as in the case of grass mulch. The result, therefore, is to give clean cultivation with cover crop the greatest range ; grass cut, next ; then grass mulch and least range of all, the straw mulch. The range of variation varies inversely with the quantity of organic mulch material pro- vided. It should be remembered in connection with the temperature of the clean culture cover crop plot, that that plot was covered with a growing crop of rye from about September 4 to May 17 of each season, which would tend to make the temperature more moderate than if the ground had been left bare. In considering the diurnal progress of soil temperatures during the different seasons of the year it has been found^ that in winter 1 Oekamp, J., “Soil Temperatures as Influenced by Cultural Methods.” Journal of Agricultural Research, Vol. V, No. 4 iWl rig:ur< Figrure 10 Figure 11 SATURDAY. 35 of tM; :^"t'he"fempVrSo"' " »" ‘-f tom, .era, pro temperature between plot, „„ Friday and SaturdarXeii Fc7 i“ts of ram^eT"""^ 36 Tabi^e: XIV. — Soil Temperatures Under Different Systems of Management — 1913 to 1916 1913 1914 Month Week Clean culture cover crop Straw mulch grass cut, let lie Grass cut, let lie Clean culture cover crop Straw mulch grass cut, let lie Grass cut, let lie de- grees F min. de- grees F. max. de- grees F. min. de- grees F. max. de- grees F. min. de- grees F. max. de- grees F. min. de- grees F. max. de- grees F. min. de- grees F. max. de- grees F. min. de- grees F. max. January 1 35.0 36.0 37.5 38.5 36.0 37.0 2 34.0 35.0 36.0 39.0 35.5 37.0 3 33.0 34.0 34.0 36.0 33.5 36.5 4 33.0 37.0 36.0 38.0 33.0 36.5 Tebruary 1 34.0 46.5 37.0 41.5 35.0 44.0 2 34.0 40.0 35.0 39.0 35.0 39.5 3 33.0 34.0 34.0 35.0 34.0 36.0 4 32.0 33.0 32.5 35.0 32.5 35.0 March 1 31.0 33.0 33.0 34.0 32.0 35.0 2 31.0 32.0 33.0 34.0 32.0 34.0 3 30.0 32.5 33.0 33.5 31.0 34.0 4 31.0 34.0 33.0 34.0 33.0 34.0 5 33.0 50.0 33.0 37.0 32.0 46.0 April 1 41.0 51.0 37.5 42.0 40.0 48.0 2 38.0 46.0 38.0 43.0 37.5 44.0 3 42.5 55.5 40.0 48.0 41.0 53.0 4 44.0 61.5 44.5 49.5 44.0 57.0 May 1 45.0 58.5 47.0 53.0 44.5 57.5 51.5 66.0 49.0 51.5 50.5 61.0 2 53.0 60.0 50.0 53.0 48.5 59.0 52.5 63.0 51.0 52.5 52.0 58.5 3 53.0 63.0 . 50.0 56.0 49.0 62.0 52.5 64.0 51.0 54.5 53.0 60.5 4 54.0 63.0 55.0 57.0 53.0 62.5 56.0 67.0 52.0 55.0 54.0 62.0 June 1 54.5 66.5 56.0 60.0 53.5 66.0 64.0 74.0 56.0 59.5 60.5 67.0 2 60.0 69.0 58.5 61.5 58.0 67.0 65.5 73.5 58.0 62.0 60.5 69.0 3 58.5 68.0 57.0 60.0 57.0 69.0 70.0 77.0 63.0 65.0 65.0 71.0 4 67.0 74.0 60.0 65.0 66.0 74.0 67.0 74.0 60.5 64.0 63.5 70.0 5 67.5 78.0 64.0 70.0 65.0 76.5 68.0 79.0 64.0 67.0 67.5 73.5 July 1 73.0 80.5 68.0 71.0 70.0 78.5 72.0 2 69.0 77.5 67.0 69.0 67.5 76.0 65.0 75.5 63.0 65.0 63.5 3 69.0 77.5 68.0 71.0 70.0 80.0 64.0 67.5 68.0 76.0 4 67!o 76.0 66.0 68.5 68.0 78.0 66.0 68.0 67.0 75.0 5 70.0 80.0 66.0 69.0 68.0 77.0 August 1 72.0 80.0 68.0 70.0 69.0 76.0 71.0 79.0 65.0 70.0 68.0 74.0 2 70.0 77.5 66.0 70.0 67.0 74.5 72.0 78.0 65.0 67.5 69.0 74.0 3 71.0 78.0 70.0 72.0 68.0 74.0 70.0 77.5 65.0 68.5 67.0 73.5 4 66.0 77.0 68.0 72.0 64.0 73.5 70.0 80.0 66.0 68.5 68.0 75.5 5 66.5 74.5 65.0 68.0 65.0 71.0 September 1 66.0 73.0 66.0 69.0 62.5 68.5 64.0 74.5 64.0 67.5 63.0 . 70.0 2 68.0 76.5 66.0 70.0 64.0 69.5 59.5 72.0 61.5 66.0 60.0 67.5 3 59.0 75.0 62.0 69.0 57.5 69.0 61.5 73.5 61.5 64.0 60.0 66.0 4 55.5 66.0 61.0 64.5 55.5 62.5 57.0 74.0 59.0 65.0 56.0 66.5 5 51.0 61.0 57.5 61.0 51.0 57.0 October 1 55.0 63.0 58.0 61.0 52.5 59.5 58.0 64.5 58.0 60.0 55.0 60.0 2 54.0 65.0 57.0 61.5 52.0 60.0 59.0 67.5 60.0 62.5 58.0 62.5 3 50.0 59.0 51.5 58.5 49.0 56.0 56.0 60.0 58.0 60.0 56.0 58.0 4 43.5 51.0 50.0 54.0 43.0 47.0 53.0 60.0 51.0 56.0 54.0 56.5 November 1 41.5 47.0 45.0 57.5 56.0 58.0 46.0 53.0 2 41.0 48.0 45.0 48.0 39.0 49.0 45.0 53.0 51.0 52.5 47.0 51.0 3 37.0 48.5 42.0 47.0 45.0 54.0 43.0 52.0 48.5 52.0 44.0 50.0 4 45.0 56.0 46.0 51.5 34.0 46.0 40.0 50.0 37.0 47.0 5 33.0 45.0 41.0 45.0 35.0 44.0 December 1 43.0 52.5 47.0 51.0 43.5 51.5 43.0 50.5 45.5 47.5 44.0 47.5 2 43.0 53.0 46.5 51.0 44.0 52.0 37.0 43.0 43.0 46.0 40.0 44.0 3 36.0 42.0 41.0 47.0 36.5 44.5 34.5 37.0 38.0 43.0 35.5 41.0 4 36.0 41.0 39.5 42.5 36.5 41.0 34.0 35.0 36.0 38.5 34.5 36.5 5 36.0 37.0 38.0 40.0 36.5 37.0 37 Table: XIV. — Soil Temperatures Under Different Systems of Management — 1913 to 1916 (continued) 1915 Month Week Clean culture cover crop Straw mulch grass cut, let lie Grass cut, let lie Grass cut, piled Hillside grass cut, piled de- grees F. min. de- grees F. max. de- grees F. min. de- grees F. max. de- grees F. min. de- grees F. max. de- grees F. min. de- grees F. max. de- grees F. min. de- grees F. max. January 1 32.0 33.5 35.0 37.0 35.0 37.0 34.0 36.0 35.0 35.5 2 31.0 32.0 34.0 36.0 32.5 35.0 34.0 36.0 33.5 35.0 3 31.0 32.0 35.0 36.0 33.0 34.0 34.0 35.5 34.0 35.0 4 32.0 33.0 35.0 36.5 33.5 35.5 35.0 37.0 35.0 35.5 February 1 33.0 34.0 35.0 36.0 33.0 35.0 34.0 37.0 33.0 35.0 2 33.0 .^.0- 35.0 37.0 33.0 35.0 34.0 35.0 32.5 35.0 3 32.0 45.0 35.0 39.0 32.5 38.5 33.5 37.5 33.0 38.5 4 35.0 40.0 36.0 38.5 33.0 38.0 34.0 37.0 35.0 38.0 March 1 35.0 47.0 36.0 40.0 35.0 41.0 36.0 41.0 36.0 40.0 2 34.0 37.0 36.0 37.0 33.0 35.0 35.0 37.0 34.0 36.0 3 35.0 41.5 36.0 37.0 33.5 36.5 35.0 37.0 34.5 36.0 4 36.0 40.0 37.0 38.0 35.0 37.0 35.5 38.0 35.5 36.5 5 35.0 41.0 36.5 38.0 35.0 38.0 36.0 38.5 35.5 37.5 April 1 35.0 42.0 35.0 37.0 34.0 38.0 35.5 38.0 35.0 37.0 2 40.0 52.5 38.0 45.0 37.0 47.5 37.0 47.0 37.0 44.0 3 44.0 55.0 42.0 45.0 42.5 48.0 43.0 47.0 42.0 45.0 4 50.0 66.0 45.0 53.0 46.0 58.0 45.0 56.0 44.5 53.0 May 1 57.0 67.0 52.0 55.0 53.0 59.0 52.5 57.5 50.0 54.0 2 50.0 64.0 51.5 54.0 52.0 57.0 52.5 55.5 50.0 52.5 3 50.0 65.5 51.0 56.0 52.0 60.0 52.0 58.0 50.0 54.5 4 54.0 63.0 51.5 55.0 52.0 58.0 52.0 57.0 50.0 54.0 5 55.5 63.5 55.0 56.0 55.0 59.0 55.0 59.0 54.0 56.0 June 1 58.0 68.5 56.0* 59.0 57.0 62.5 57.0 62.0 55.0 59.0 2 60.0 71.0 57.0 60.0 58.5 65.5 58.5 64.0 56.0 60.0 3 63.0 70.5 60.0 62.0 62.0 65.5 61.5 65.0 58.5 61.0 4 62.0 72.0 60.0 62.5 62.0 66.0 61.0 65.0 59.0 61.5 July 1 62.0 74.0 62.0 64.0 62.0 66.0 63.0 64.5 60.0 62.0 2 61.0 71.0 61.0 64.0 61.5 66.5 62.0 65.0 59.5 62.5 3 68.0 80.0 64.0 67.5 66.0 71.0 64.5 69.5 63.0 66.0 4 67.0 77.0 64.0 67.5 64.5 71.0 65.0 70.0 62.0 66.5 August 1 71.0 80.0 65.0 69.0 66.0 71.0 66.0 71.0 63.0 67.0 2 64.0 79.0 65.0 69.0 65.0 71.0 65.5 71.0 63.5 67.5 3 65.5 75.0 65.0 66.0 65.0 68.0 66.0 68.0 64.0 65.0 4 61.0 76.5 64.0 66.5 63.0 68.0 64.0 68.0 62.5 65.5 5 62.0 71.0 62.0 64.5 62.0 65.0 63.0 66.0 61.0 63.0 September 1 57.0 70.0 60.0 63.0 58.5 63.5 60.0 64.0 59.0 61.5 2 62.0 75.0 63.0 66.5 61.5 67.0 63.0 67.5 61.0 65.0 3 68.0 76.0 66.0 67.0 66.0 68.0 67.0 68.5 65.0 66.0 4 56.0 70.0 61.0 67.0 57.0 66.0 60.0 68.0 59.0 65.0 October 1 54.5 63.0 59.0 62.0 56.5 61.0 58.5 63.0 57.5 60.0 2 45.5 65.0 53.0 61.0 49.5 60.5 52.5 62.0 52.0 59.0 3 47.0 62.0 54.0 58.0 50.0 57.0 53.0 59.0 52.0 57.0 4 50.5 61.0 55.0 59.0 52.0 58.0 54.5 59.0 53.0 57.0 November 1 47.0 54.5 53.0 56.0 48.0 53.0 52.0 56.0 51.0 53.5 2 46.0 55.0 52.0 55.0 47.0 51.5 50.5 55.0 50.0 52.5 3 42.5 55.5 50.0 54.0 46.0 52.0 50.0 54.5 47.5 52.0 4 38.0 43.5 45.0 50.0 41.5 46.5 45.0 50.0 43.5 47.5 5 38.0 48.0 45.0 47.5 40.0 45.0 43.0 47.0 43.0 45.0 December 1 35.0 39.0 41.0 46.0 37.0 43.0 40.5 46.0 39.5 43.0 2 34.5 35.0 40.0 41.5 36.0 38.0 39.0 41.0 38.0 39.5 3 32.5 34.5 38.0 40.5 34.0 37.0 36.0 40.0 36.0 38.0 ■ 4 32.5 33.5 38.0 39.0 34.0 35.5 36.0 38.5 35.0 36.5 Table XIV . — Soil Temperatures Under Different Systems of Management — 1913 to 1916 (continued) 1916 Month Week Clean culture cover crop Straw mulch grass cut, let lie Grass cut, let lie Grass cut, piled Hillside grass cut, piled de- grees F. min. de- grees F. max. de- grees F. min . de- grees F. max. de- grees F. min. de- grees F. max. de- grees F. min. de- grees F. max. de- grees F. min. de- grees F. max. January 1 33.0 43.5 38.0 41.0 35.0 41.0 37.5 42.0 40.0 36.0 2 33.0 41.0 37.0 40.0 34.0 39.0 37.0 41.0 3 32.0 42.0 36.0 41.0 34.0 40.0 37.0 41.5 4 28. 5 32.5 35.0 36.0 32.0 35.5 5 31.0 47.5 35.5 44.5 32.0 43.0 44.5 33.0 Fe or nary 1. 33.0 47.5 36.0 45.0 34.0 ' 43.0 36.0 44.0 45.0 35.0 *7 32.0 33.5 35.0 36.5 32.0 35.0 35.0 38.0 35.0 33.5 3 32.0 33.0 35.0 35.5 32.0 34.5 33.0 36.0 35.0 33.0 4 32.5 40.0 35.0 36.5 32.0 34.0 34.0 36.5 36.0 33.5 March 1 32.0 34.0 35.0 36.0 32.0 34.0 34.0 36.0 34.5 33.0 2 31.5 40.5 35.0 38.0 32.0 35.0 34.0 36.0 36.0 33.0 3 33.0 45.5 35.0 37.0 32.0 36.0 34.0 37.5 36.5 33.0 4 34.0 53.0 35.0 43.0 32.5 45.0 34.0 43.5 42.5 33.5 April 1 41.0 52.0 41.0 43.0 40.0 44.5 41.0 43.5 42.0 40.0 2 35.5 49.0 39.5 43.0 37.0 43.0 39.5 43.5 42.0 37.5 3 35.0 57.0 40.0 47.0 36.0 48.0 38.5 47.5- 46.0 37.0 A 44.0 56.0 46.0 50.0 45.0 50.5 45.0 50.0 50.0 43.5 May 1 46.5 60.0 46.5 49.0 45-5 50.5 46.0 49.0 47.5 45.0 2 49.0 68.0 49.0 53.0 48.0 56.0 49.0 54.0 51.5 47.0 3 54.0 67.5 51.5 53.5 53.0 57.0 53.0 55.0 52.0 .50.0 4 51.0 64.0 51.0 54.0 51.0 58.0 51.0 56.0 53.0 48.0 5 58.5 76.5 52.0 57.5 54.0 63.5 53.0 60.0 57.0 50.0 June 1 57.0 58.0 59.0 62.0 58.0 60.5 57.5 55.0 2 57.0 58.5 58.0 62.0 57.0 60.0 56.0 54.0 3 57.0 59.0 59.0 62.0 58.0 60.0 57.0 54.5 4 58.0 60.0 59.0 64.0 59.0 62.0 58.0 56.0 July • 1 60.0 64.0 62.0 67.0 61.0 65.0 61.0 57.0 2 62.0 63.5 63.0 67.5 63.0 65.5 61.5 59.0 3 4 70.5 78.0 67.0 69.0 68.5 73.0 68.5 72.0 71.0 69.0 5 72.0 78.5 67.0 70.0 68.5 73.0 69.0 73.0 73.0 69.0 August 1 70.5 78.5 68.0 71.0 69.0 73.5 69.0 73.5 74.5 71.0 2 67.0 80.0 68.0 71.5 68.0 74.0 69.0 74.0 75.0 71.0 3 67.0 77.0 68.0 70.5 67.5 72.0 68.0 71.0 71.5 70.0 4 66.0 78.0 66.0 71.0 66.0 72.5 67.0 72.5 72.5 69.0 September 1 62.5 69.5 64.0 66.0 62.0 67.0 62.5 67.0 68.5 65.0 2 63.0 72.0 64.0 68.0 62.5 68.0 63.0 68.5 68.5 65.0 3 61.0 71.5 60.0 66.5 59.0 66.5 59.0 67.0 67.5 62.5 4 58.0 63.5 58.0 60.5 56.0 61.0 57.0 60.0 62.0 60.0 October 1 51.0 65.5 56.0 62.0 53.0 61.0 54.0 62.0 62.5 57.0 2 51.5 62.0 55.5 60.0 52.0 58.0 53.0 59.0 59.0 56.0 3 50.0 62.5 53.0 59.5 51.0 60.0 52.5 61.0 62.5 56.0 4 43.0 54.5 49.0 55.5 46.5 55.0 48.0 56.0 56.5 51.0 5 44.0 49.0 49.0 50.5 47.0 50.0 51.0 50.0 November 1 44.5 52.0 '48.5 51.0 45.0 50.0 47.0 51.0 52.0 50.0 2 44.5 52.5 49.0 52.0 45.0 50.0 47.0 52.5 52.0 50.0 3 38.0 47.0 43.0 48.0 38.0 46.5 40.0 49.0 50.0 43.0 4 37.0 44.5 41.0 46.0 37.5 43.0 41.0 45.0 46.0 42.5 December 1 37.0 45.5 41.0 45.0 37.5 44.0 40.0 45.5 45.5 42.5 2 39.0 46.5 42.5 46.5 39.0 45.0 41.0 46.5 46.5 43.0 3 35.0 40.0 37.0 42.0 35.0 40.0 37.0 43.0 44.0 39.0 4 34.0 35.5 36.0 37.0 35.0 37.0 35.5 38.0 39.0 38.0 5 33.0 35.0 35.0 37.0 33.5 37.5 34.5 37.0 38.0 87.0 39 when the soil is near the freezing point, the temperature remains fairly constant on all plots from day to day with comparatively small variation between plots clean culture cover crop, exhib- iting the lowest and mulch the highest temperatures. With the coming of spring and the rapid rise in air temperature, the clean cul- ture cover crop plot is the first to respond, and now becomes the warmest plot. This plot invariably gives the quickest and greatest response to changes in air temperature. The straw mulch plot warms up very slowly with little daily fluctuations and never reaches a very high maximum. During the summer, the tided plot undergoes the greatest fluctuations ; the grass also exhibits wide daily changes, while the straw mulch maintains its narrow range. In the fall, the diurnal temperatures exhibit the same general phenomena as in the spring, although the trend of course is downward in the fall. As to the role of soil temperatures in tree growth, the varia- tions in temperature that have been induced by cultural methods, are neither detrimental nor beneficial to growth, so far as we can segregate the temperature factor from other factors. The two best plots, clean cultivation with cover crop and straw mulch, while they stand close together in tree growth, yet exhibit the extremes in soil temperature behavior as here experienced. A cool soil tempera- ture during the growing season of the trees, has apparently not been inimical to tree growth under the conditions of this experiment. It may be suspected from the behavior of the trees under observa- tion, that the tolerance of the apple tree for variations in soil temperature is great enough to make the variations induced by dif- ferent systems of soil management of no direct significance. Varia- tions of the range of those induced, however, may have an indirect effect through their influence on nitrification, ammonification and other processes connected with the metabolism of soil microorgan- isms. In summing up the results of the soil temperature studies it may be said; i. That as the soil temperature is largely a reflection of the air temperature, the extent to which soil temperature can be controlled by cultural practices, is quite limited. 2. The evidence does not support the opinion sometimes expressed that rains are an important adjunct in warming the soil. 3. There is no indication that the single factor of soil moisture has had an influential bearing upon the temperature of the soil. 4. Clean culture cover crop ex- hibited the greatest diurnal and annual extremes in soil tempera- tures. 5. The mulch system of management, either straw or grass, maintained the most uniform temperature throughout the year. 6. Sod, in general, showed a temperature curve intermediate be- tween cultivation and mulch. 7. The role of soil temperature within the limits of ordinary cultural practices appears to be a neutral fac- tor in tree growth. 40 SOIL CHANGES INDUCED BY CULTURAL PRACTICES Determinations^ of the four factors that were thought would be the most likely to undergo changes in the Laurel soil, as the re- sult of different cultural treatments are given in Table XV. This covers the period 1910 to 1915, and the determinations for 1913 show the midway point. It appears that the cultural treatments are having an effect on the organic matter content of the soil. Clean cultivation tends to deplete the soil of its organic matter, despite the fact that a cover crop of rye is being turned under each year. Straw mulch has made a slight increase in organic matter, while the straight sod plots, as a whole, have come nearer to holding their own in volatile mat- ter, humus and nitrogen, than the clean culture cover crop plots. There is no apparent correlation between these factors and tree growth. True, the straw mulch plot which is showing Table: XV. — Changes in Laurel Soil — 1910 to 1915 Year Clean culture cover crop Straw mulch grass cut, let lie Grass cut, let lie Grass cut, piled Grass cut, piled Hill- side grass cut, piled Aver- age A B C D E E 0 H per per per per per per per per per cent. cent. cent. cent. cent. cent. cent. cent. cent. Hygroscopic 1910 1.06 1.27 1.31 1.39 1.24 1.39 1.77 1.35 moisture 1913 1.15 1.10 1.41 1.38 1.43 1.39 1.03 1.66 1.32 1915 1.20 1.24 1.36 1.10 1.25 1.32 1.08 1.58 1.27 Volatile matter 1910 4.35 4.32 4.29 4.71 4.54 4.55 6.24 4.71 1913 3.88 4.08 4.44 4.37 4.38 4.86 4.23 5.65 4.49 1915 3.80 3.64 4.34 4.60 4.39 4.75 4.31 5.74 4.45 Humus 1910 1.52 1.52 1.42 1.78 1.80 1.85 2.06 1.71 1913 1.21 1.31 1.48 1.48 1.54 1.38 0.89 1.68 1.37 1915 1.25 0.89 1.34 1.35 1.29 1.76 1.25 1.99 1.39 Total nitrogen 1910 0.148 0.134 0.184 0.148 0.137 0.146 0.217 0.152 1913 0.122 0.136 0.134 0.135 0.124 0.137 0.139 0.167 0.187 1915 0.108 O.liOO 0.142 0.139 0.134 0.145 0.129 0.181 0.135 Subsoil 1913 1.35 Hygroscopic H 2 O 1.16 1.18 1.21 1.33 1.28 1.58 1.23 1.81 Volatile matter 3.54 3.42 4.45 3.85 3.85 3.83 3.51 4.90 3.92 Humus 0.45 0.65 1.32 0.55 0.80 0.84 0.78 0.88 0.78 Total nitrogen 0.085 0.067 0.096 0.077 0.074 0.079 0.062 0.107 0.081 1 Part of the duplicate samples taken in 1910 have been retained in the labora- tory. They represent five-sixths of the sampling stations, and the missing samples are practically evenly distributed over all plots. One hundred gram portions of each sample of soil taken in 1910 were taken, and put with 100 gram portions of all other samples taken on the same plot. The composite samples were mixed and analyzed for hygroscopic moisture, volatile matter, humus, and total nitrogen. These samples were representative of the Laurel soil at the start of the investiga- tion in 1910. One hundred gram portions of the 1913 soil and subsoil samples were taken from those samples, corresponding in number to the 1910 samples. These were put together according to plots and composites made. The same determinations were made on these samples as were made on the 1910 samples. Again in 1915 another set of aliquots were taken from corresponding samples, composited according to plots, and the same determinations made some accumulation of organic matter has also made the best tree growth; but at the same time the clean culture cover crop plots which have made an equally good tree growth, have lost in organic matter. The fact that the clean culture cover crop plots have lost in nitrogen need not be taken to mean that these plots are low in nitrates, (see Table XXII) BACTERIOLOGICAL STUDIES Attacking thi: Problem. — The field of soil biology is new ; there is at the present time no definite agreement as to methods of attack. Investigators are applying industrial and medical technique with varying success. For these reasons, it has been hard to choose methods and technique for investigating the bacteriological changes in the Laurel soil. The Laurel problem is a little different from the ordinary soil problem, in that the orchard is located about 120 miles from the laboratory. Samples have to be transported. The soil under the various systems of management is under different conditions as to temperature and soil moisture. Care has to be taken subsequent to sampling, to see that an environment is not produced whereby a class of organisms in the minority in a certain soil sample will not be in the majority when the sample reaches the laboratory. It is common practice in soil bacteriology to remove the surface inch or so of soil before taking samples for analysis. As far as can be learned, this is based on work which shows that ordinarily there are fewer bacteria in the surface inch or two of soil than there are in the depths just below. The systems of soil management in practice at Laurel have to do with changes in the surface two inches of soil; and thus in all the bacteriological work done the soil has been in- cluded from the surface to a depth of nine inches. Investigators are not agreed as to the depth at which the maxi- mum number of bacteria are present. This maximum number varies with the soil ; not only as to its texture and chemical composi- tion, but, it is believed, in proportion to variations in soil aeration. The soil at Laurel under the clean culture cover crop plots is plowed to a depth of approximately seven inches. Thus, if samples are taken to a depth of nine inches on this plot, all the soil is sampled that is being turned over. If it is wise to conduct studies on the clean culture cover crop plots to a depth of nine inches, studies must also be conducted to that depth on all the other plots. There are various methods for obtaining samples of soil for bacteriological analysis. A new method has been devised and used in this work.^ Bacteria decompose organic matter, using it as food ; since the different systems of management at Laurel are con- cerned with the utilization of organic matter in different ways, it was thought worth while to adopt a method of sampling which ^ Noyes, H. A., Journal American Society of Agronomy, December, 1915 42 would sample soil as accurately under sod as under clean cultivation. At some periods of the year, the maximum number of bacteria un- der sod are much nearer the surface than they are at others; also, bacterial activities vary in the clean culture cover crop plot where rye is turned under every spring. The method of sampling em- ployed, namely, that of obtaining a column of soil two inches in diameter and to a depth of nine inches, and keeping that column of soil upright in the sampler while it is being transported from the held to the laboratory, keeps the classes of bacteria relatively in the same position as they were in the held. The studies made in connection with the bacteriology of the soil have been limited because of indecision regarding the selection of tests which are important for the purposes of these investiga- tions. Much time has been devoted to developing a technique^ by which certain errors may be eliminated. The so-called '‘synthetic” agar, recommended by Lipman and Trown," has been used for all plating work reported upon. On the soils on which the work has been done, the Lipman and Brown agar is much superior to the sodium asparaginate agar of Conn. The colony development on the synthetic agar, in comparison with the sodium asparaginate agar is roughly in the proportion of 3 to 2 when incubated for ten days at 20 degrees C. 1 The main points in the technique, for details of which, see Noyes, H. A., Proceedings Indiana Academy of Science, 1915 and 1916, are: — (a) A sample of soil whicTi is representative, is taken in an accurate way with a special apparatus and kept practically under field conditions until it reaches the laboratory. (b) A thorough mixing of the soil sample, and the taking from that sample of an aliquot large enough to be representative have been proven necessary. Literature and answers to questionnaire vary considerably as to the size of sample that is necessary for bacterial analysis. The amounts given vary all the way from 0.1 to 100 grams. (The amount used in this laboratory is 50 grams of field soil.) (c) The making of a large number of dilutions, the using of large aliquots and the making of each successive higher dilution just 10 times the previous one, so that clumps of bacteria may be more evenly aliquoted in the low dilutions and more thoroughly disintegrated by the time the higher dilutions are made. (d) in using a one c. c. aliquot for plating, and triplicate platings for com- parison, we depend upon large aliquots to give uniformity, and triplicate plates for a fair average. Much of the criticism of the plate method of determining the number of bac- teria in soil is based on the fact that plates rarely check. In order to find out how closely we may expect triplicate plates to check, we. have undertaken. 1. To study vari- ations in media, to see what effect they have on colony development. This has been done in connection with increased length of time for holding plates. 2. To determine the proportion of bacteria which are facultative aerobes in proportion to the number that are facultative anaerobes. Soil samples are taken from the three sampling stations on each plot where the soil conditions are nearest alike. These samples are taken several times during the season, and the results of bacteriological counts are tabulated for the individual stations and for the plots as well. - This media is made up of the following constituents: .05 grams Witte peptone .2 gram magnesium sulphate, (MgS04 TH^O), .5 gram potassium acid phosphate (K2HLO4), 10 grams of dextrose (C«Hi20fi), 15 grams agar-agar, and distilled water, to make 1000 grams. In this laboratory, only chemically pure dextrose has been used, and the other chemicals have been the purest obtainable. The agar-agar is selected by the procedure outlined in “Science,” December 1, 1916. The agar is dissolved in a double boiler; when solution is complete, the chemi- cals are added, the mixture is brought up to weight with boiling distilled water, titrated, tubed, and sterilized. The quality of the chemicals and agar used, has made filtering superfluous. It has been unnecessary to adjust the reaction of the media, for we find that when proper precautions (see Journal of Bacteriology, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 87), are taken the reaction of the media is never over -j-.4 acid 43 In reporting on the bacterial flora it may be well to state that the figures represent plot averages which are the result of individual determinations and not composite samples. Bacterial Counts. — The bacterial numbers are discussed by seasons in relation to soil moisture and soil temperature. The fig- ures express millions of bacteria per gram of dry soil. The moisture figure is per cent. The column in Table XVII, headed ‘‘Average Soil Temperature,” is the mean average temperature of the soil at a depth of nine inches for the week during which the bacterial samples were taken. The column headed “Range in Soil Tempera- ture,” is the difference between the highest and lowest soil tempera- ture registered the week the samples were taken. Season of 1914. — On August 19, plot C, under the straw mulch system of management, had the lowest bacterial count. There is no relation between the moisture on the various plots and bacterial numbers. Table XVI. — Bacterial Counts in Relation to Soil Moisture — 1914 August 19 September 16 November 9 Systems of management Plot Bac- teria mil- lions per gram Moist- ure per cent. Bac- teria mil- lions per gram Moist- ure per cent. Bac- teria mil- lions per gram Moist- ure per cent. Clean culture cover crop A 3.14 10.6 7.94 13.8 10.27 17.7 Straw mulch B 2.68 9.8 6.90 14.2 7.23 19.3 grass cut, let lie C 1.32 10.6 4.93 17.3 13.67 23.5 Grass cut, let lie D 4.37 5.0 8.37 15.4 10.44 19.4 Grass cut, piled E 3.02 5.2 8.53 14.2 7.06 21.4 E 2.24 6.4 7.68 17.9 8.57 20.0 Hillside 0 1.89 8.4 9.18 17.2 12.54 20.7 grass cut, piled H 3.74 8.3 8.29 18.5 11.63 20.4 Average 2.80 8.0 7.73 16.1 10.18 20.3 Variation 3.05 5.6 4.25 4.7 6.61 5.8 September 16, plot C, the straw mulch plot, has the lowest bac- terial content. There is neither any relation between moisture and bacterial numbers, nor between cultural practice and bacterial numbers. November 9, plot C, the straw mulch plot, which was lowest on the two preceding dates on which samples have been taken for bac- terial analysis, has the largest number of bacteria of any of the plots at this time. The amount of moisture in the soil on November 9 is much greater than it was on August 19 or September 16. There 44 is no direct correlation between moisture and numbers, or between the cultural practice and the number of bacteria. The averages of the moisture and bacteria for all plots on the different dates show that there is some correlation between moisture and bacterial numbers. Double moisture on September i6 means more than double the number of bacteria. A further increase of moisture on November 9 means a proportionately greater number of bacteria on that date. Table XVII gives the bacterial counts in relation to soil tem- perature for 1914. There is no correlation between the number of bacteria per gram of soil, and the mean average soil tempera- ture or the range in soil temperature for the week. There is a grad- ual lowering of the temperature of the soil from August 19 to November 9, and the number of bacteria increases during this period. Using the averages for the different dates, we should conclude from these data that bacterial numbers are increasing with decreas- ing soil temperatures. Looking at the season’s results as a whole, it might be suspected that high soil temperature and low moisture content mean low bacterial content but this would be unwarranted. Tabi,k XVII. — Bacterial Counts in Relation to Soil 'Temperature —1914 August 19 September 16 November 9 Aver- Aver- Aver- Bac- age Range Bac- age Range Bac- age Range teria soil soil teria soil soil teria soil soil Systems of Plot mil- temper- temper- mil- temper- temper- mil- temper- temper- management lions ature ature lions ature ature lions ature ature per de- de- per de- de- per de- de- gram grees grees gram grees grees gram grees grees soil F. F. soil F. F. soil F. F. Clean culture A 3.14 75.0 10.0 7.94 67.5 12.0 10.27 49.0 8.0 cover crop B 2.68 75.0 10.0 6.90 67.5 12.0 7.23 49.0 8.0 Straw mulch grass cut, let lie C 1.32 67.2 2.5 4.93 62.8 2.5 13.67 51.7 1.5 Grass cut, let lie D 4.37 72.8 7.5 8.37 63.0 6.0 10.44 49.0 2.0 Grass cut. piled E 3.02 72.8 7.5 8.53 63.0 6.0 7.06 49.0 2.0 F 2.24 72.8 7.5 7.68 63.0 6.0 8.57 49.0 2.0 0 1.89 72.8 7.5 9.18 63.0 6.0 12.54 49.0 2.0 Hillside grass cut. piled H 3.74 72.8 7.5 8.29 63.0 6.0 11.63 49.0 2.0 Average 2.80 7.73 10.18 Variation 3.05 4.25 6.61 45 Season of 1915. — The samples taken on June 14 show the straw mulch plot to have had the largest number of bacteria pres- ent. The clean culture cover crop plots, when compared with plots E, F and O, where the grass is cut and piled, cannot be said to have more bacteria than these plots. It is surprising that the hillside plot is almost as low in bac- terial count as plot D, which received no mulching material. There is no correlation between the amount of moisture in the soil and the bacterial content. On July I plot C, the straw mulch plot, again contains more bac- teria than any other plot. The grass mulched plots, O and H, rank next in order, and the clean culture cover crop plots come last The only correlation between moisture and bacterial counts is on plot C, which is highest both in moisture and bacterial content. The aver- age number of bacteria, when all plots are taken into consideration, decreases slightly from June 14 to July i. The soil moisture has decreased 9.5 per cent. On July 27, bacterial numbers have decreased on all plots when compared with counts made on July i samples, except on plot B. It is noted that plots A and B, which are duplicates, do not check well either on July i or July 27. From the study of the individual de- terminations, from which the averages for the plots are made, it seems that the difference in time of plowing is responsible for dis- crepancies. The season was wet, the ground contained a large Tabi^e XVIII. — Bacterial Counts in Relation to Soil Moisture — 1915 Systems of management Plot June 14 July 1 July 27 August 19 Average Bac- teria mil- lions per gram soil Moist- ture per cent. Bac- teria mil- lions per gram soil Moist- ture per cent. Bac- 1 teria mil- lions per gram soil Moist- ture per cent. Bac- teria mil- lions per gram soil Moist- ture per cent. Bac- teria mil- lions per gram soil Moist- ture per cent. Clean culture A 11.24 25.7 9.13 15.4 3.33 15.1 6.60 18.7 7.58 18.7 cover crop B 13.55 27.6 4.55 14.7 10.75 14.8 7.51 19.0 9.09 19.0 Straw mulch grass cut, let lie, C 17.12 29.8 18.83 19.8 5.99 17.2 11.12 20.5 13.27 2.18 Grass cut. let lie D 8.74 26.5 11.71 16.5 7.02 15.8 12.88 21.5 10.09 20.1 Grass cut. piled E 12.85 24.9 11.21 15.1 8.07 17.9 13.76 20.6 11.47 19.6 P 10.05 26.3 11.10 16.7 8.97 18.8 23.59 22.0 13.93 21.0 0 12.94 29.6 14.75 14.1 12.71 10.1 12.38 19.8 13.20 18.4 Hillside grass cut. piled H 9.52 21.7 12.96 15.9 12.51 14.0 14.98 19.4 12.49 17.8 Average 12.01 26.5 11.78 16.0 8.67 15.5 12.85 20.2 11.33 19.6 Variation 8.38 8.1 14.28 5.7 9.38 8.7 16.99 3.3 46 amount of moisture, and when plowing was started, it had to be discontinued for a week, because of rain. Plot A was plowed first, and bacterial activities increased on this plot before they did on plot B. On August 19, bacterial counts on the clean culture cover crop plot are lowest, on the straw mulch plot next, and those for the grass, which is cut and piled about the trees, are highest. There is no correlation between moisture and bacterial numbers. When the bacterial numbers are averaged for all plots on June 14 and July i, and compared with soil moisture, there is no correla- tion between moisture and bacterial counts. The average figures for July I, July 27 and August 19, however, may be roughly said to confirm the assumption made in regard to the 1914 season’s results; that bacterial numbers are somewhat dependent upon moisture, and they vary roughly in proportion to moisture increases and decreases. As an average for the season, the straw mulch plot has the highest average bacterial content and the highest average moisture content. The clean culture cover crop plots have the lowest average bacterial content and medium low moisture averages. The fact that plot C was highest in bacteria and highest in moisture on July i, next to lowest in bacteria and high in moisture on July 27, shows that there can be no correlation between the moisture present in the ground during the growing season of the trees, and the bacterial population. Season of 1916. — In 1914, bacterial counts were made between August 19 and November 10, after the active growing season of the trees. In 1915, the four sets of counts of bacteria were made be- tween June 14 and August 19, at the time when the trees were actively growing. In 1916, it was planned to ascertain bacterial numbers present in the winter, at the start of the growing season of the trees, at the height of the growing season of the trees, and late in the fall. On January 24, it seems impossible to find any correlation be- tween bacterial counts, consistent with soil management. It hap- pens, however, that a grass mulched plot is highest in bacterial num- bers, and one of the plots, having a rye cover crop is lowest in bac- terial numbers. Variation between moisture in the ground under the various systems of management at this time are so slight that any correlation between bacterial numbers and soil moisture would not be expected. On May 2, there is not enough difference between the moisture content of the soil of the various plots to make any comparisons be- tween bacterial numbers and soil moisture. The bacterial numbers vary from 9.78 millions per gram of dry soil on plot B, to 20.32 millions on plot D ; but, any correlations between counts and cul- tural ])ractice are undetermined. On July 18, the bacterial content of various plots has increased over that of May 2, and the moisture content has decreased. There is 47 considerable variation between the moisture present in the soil under the various systems of management, but little variation be- tween bacterial counts on this date. The only significant figures are those for plot B, which has just been changed over from a clean culture cover crop plot to a sod plot. It is low both in moisture and in bacterial content, and this is undoubtedly due to the change in system of management. On November 23, plot B was again found to be low in bacterial content. There is very little difiference between the moisture con- tent found on the various plots, and therefore the low bacterial content is ascribed to the change in system of soil management. Table XIX. — Bacterial Counts in Relation to Soil Moisture — 1916 Systems of management Plot January 24 May 2 July 18 November 23 Average Bac- teria mil- lions per gram soil Moist- ture per cent. Bac- teria mil- lions per gram soil Moist- ture per cent. Bac- teria mil- lions per gram soil Moist- ture per cent. Bac- teria mil- lions per gram soil Moist- ture per cent. Bac- teria mil- lions per gram soil Moist- ture per cent. Clean culture A 10.40 21.6 15.72 21.3 19.58 14.5 13.90 15.9 14.90 18.3 cover crop B 15.37 23.6 9.781 20.6 10.54 9.7 9.74 14.5 11.11 17.1 Straw mulch grass cut, let lie C 12.92 23.0 10.05 22.8 21.73 14.6 15.27 14.9 14.99 18.8 Grass cut, let lie. D 14.31 24.6 20.32 22.7 18.88 8.8 12.87 17.5 16.60 18.4 Grass cut, piled E 18.09 22.9 15.81 22.2 18.83 7.3 12.16 17.3 16.10 17.4 F 18.92 23.0 12.26 22.9 19.14 7.9 14.63 17.0 0 17.16 23.9 13.63 23.0 20.42 7.3 15.44 16.9 16.66 17.8 Hillside grass cut. piled H 15.86 20.4 14.47 21.1 18.20 8.8 19.30 18.8 16.96 17.3 Average 15.38 22.9 14.01 22.1 18.42 9.9 14.16 16.6 16.26 17.7 1 Plot B seeded to grass in April Summary of Counts . — Covering a period of three seasons, eleven sets of soil samples have been taken for bacteriological anaylsis. The averages of these samples appear in Table XX. Table XX. — Average of Bacterial Counts and Soil Moisture on Eleven Dates Covering Three Seasons Clean culture Clean culture Grass cut. Grass cut. cover crop Straw mulch cover crop let lie piled 4 years, then in grass Bacteria Moist- Bacteria Moist- Bacteria Moist- Bacteria Moist- Bacteria Moist- millions ture millions ture millions ture millions ture millions ture per per per per per per per per per per gram cent. gram cent. gram cent. gram cent. gram cent. soil soil soil soil soil 11.18 19.5 10.11 17.4 11.81 17.5 12.52 17.4 18.96 17.1 48 The general conclusions are : — 1. That there are more bacteria present in the sodded ground at Laurel than in the clean culture cover crop plots. 2. That the variation in mulching on the sod plots has some influence on bacterial content, for the grass mulch plots have high- er average bacterial content than the straw mulch plot. 3. Changing plot B from a clean culture cover crop plot to a sod plot decreased bacterial numbers during the season of 1916. 4. Tree growth cannot be correlated with bacterial counts. 5. There is no correlation 'between bacterial numbers and soil moisture. AmmoniFication Tests. — One hundred grams of thoroughly mixed soil, which is an aliquot of the same samples on which the counts were made, were weighed out in jell glasses and incubated for five days at 20 degrees C. for ammonia production."^ The re- sults of the ammonification tests made are given in Table XXI. Table XXL— Ammonification in Relation to Cultural Practices 1914 1915 1916 Aver age Systems of management Plot Aug. 19 Grams (NHs) per .gram soil Sep. 16 Grams (NHa) per gram soil Nov. 9 Grams (NHs) per gram soil June 14 Grams (NHs) per gram soil July 1 Grams (NHs) per gram soil July 27 Grams (NHs) per gram soil Aug. 19 Grams (NHs) per gram soil May 2 Grams (NHs) per gram soil Grams (NHs) per gram soil Clean culture cover A .00185 .00105 .00113 .00128 .00122 .00121 .00131 .00099 .00126 crop Straw mulch B .00155 . 00102 .00112 .00148 .00112 .00120 .00143 .00093 .00123 grass cut, let lie 0 .00123 .00118 .00117 .00142 .00128 .00127 .00139 .00095 .00124 Grass cut, let lie D .00108 .00121 .00111 .00149 .00132 .00122 .00131 .00093 .00121 Grass cut, piled E .00079 .00105 .00119 .00139 .00121 .00127 .00129 .00107 .00116 P .00114 .00121 .00119 .00148 .00115 .00131 .00130 .00098 .00122 Hillside 0 .00190 .00109 .00114 . 00137 .00116 .00107 .00146 .00099 .00127 grass cut, piled H .00132 .00114 .00115 .00138 .00110 .00115 .00125 lost .00121 Average .00136 .00112 .00115 .00141 .00120 .00121 .00134 .00098 1 The method followed is identical with that published in Research Bulletin No. 12 of the Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station, i. e., 20 grams of casein is made up to 200 c. c. with water and 14 c. c. of normal sodium hydroxide solution. A 10 c. c. aliquot is pipetted out and placed upon and mixed with every hundred gram aliquot of field soil. There were times during the season when there were as much as 12 per cent, differences between the moisture content of the soil on the various plots. Published methods advocate bringing the soil to optimum; i. e., to one-half of its water-holding capacity, and keeping it with this amount of mois- ture throughout the period of incubation. The object was to find out differences due to variations in cultural practice, and it was not deemed best to alter the moisture content of the soil, except as was absolutely necessary in mixing the aliquots, and in adding the chemicals. The inability to obtain casein, chemically pure, according to Hammarstein, is the reason for not making ammonification tests on all samples taken in 1916. Var- ious publications have given data indicating that when soil is distilled with magne- sium oxide in copper flasks, more ammonia is given off than should be. The results reported in the above table are not attributed to the uniformity of the organic matter in the various samples tested, or to its uniform decomposition due to distillation with magnesium oxide. The procedure for distilling off the ammonia was as follows: Eight hundred c. c. Kjeldahl flasks made of non-soluble glass, were secured. One hundred gram portions of soil which had been incubated was transferred to a flask with 250 c. c. of distilled water. The flasks were set in baths of melted paraf- fin after magnesium oxide was added at the rate of five grams to 100 grams of soil; the ammonia was distilled into one-fifth normal acid. The length of time of distillation was approximately one and one-half hours. It was found that only rarely, with this method of distillation, does the soil cake down or stick to the bottom of the flasks, whereas when copper flasks are used, fhe soil sometimes burns down so badly that it is removed with great difficulty 49 Ammonification tests were made on all three sets of samples taken for bacterial analysis in 1914, on four sets taken in 1915, but on only one set taken on May 2, 1916. The table may be summarized as follows : — 1. Ammonification varies with the season. 2. Plot variations are not consistent with seasonal variations. 3. It is impossible to say that any cultural practice has af- fected the ammonifying power of this soil. In only two samples of all those tested were we able to find any ammonia present in the soil before incubation. Nitrogen Fixation. — For nitrogen fixation, 100 gram ali- quots of the sample of soil taken for bacterial analysis, are incu- bated for 10 days with 10 c. c. aliquots, or a mannite solution pre- pared by dissolving 30 grams of chemically pure mannite in water, and making up to a volume of 300 c. c. The number of nitrogen fixation tests made on the Laurel soil has been limited, for the amount of nitrogen fixed has been small or negligible. No data are presented, as the nitrogen changes obtained were practically all within experimental error. Nitrification Tests. — These tests are carried out by incu- bating 100 gram aliquots of the prepared bacterial samples of soil with ammonium sulphate solution for six weeks. Incubation is carried out at 20 degrees C., and the beaker method is employed.^ It happens that with the facilities available for incubation, approxi- mately five grams of moisture are evaporated from each jell glass during the six weeks. Thus, the samples are taken out with the same moisture content that they had when they were placed in the in- cubator. In addition to making nitrification tests, detailed studies of the nitrate content of the soil are made before it is subjected to the incubation tests. The method used for determining nitrates is the phenol-disulphonic acid method^ proposed by the Bureau of Soils, United States Department of Agriculture, in Bulletin No. 31. 1 The method is described in Research Bulletin No. 12 of the Iowa Experiment Station. It has been carried out as follows: four grams of chemically pure am- monium sulphate is made up to 200 c. c. with sterile distilled water. A five c. c. ali- quot of this solution is added to each 100 gram aliquot of soil. In discussing meth- ods for ammonification, it has been stated that in the Laurel work the moisture content of the different samples has not been brought up to optimum. The same procedure is followed in the nitrate work, and the results are believed to come nearer to field conditions than would be the case if incubations had been carried out under optimum moisture conditions 2 The method was carried out as follows: fifty grams of the field soil were put in 16 ounce bottles, and 200 c. c. of distilled water added. The bottles are stoppered; shaken at intervals, and allowed to stand over night. The next morning they are thoroughly shaken, and a large proportion of the solution filtered off. The procedure in filtering is to thoroughly shake the bottle and turn the soil and water emulsion into a 24 centimeter filter that has been placed in a proper funnel. The filtrate is invariably cloudy, and is poured back into the filter until the solution comes through clear. Twenty-five c. c. aliquots of the filtrate are placed in evaporating dishes, evap- orated to dryness, treated with a one c. c. portion of phenol-disulphonic acid, and allowed to stand a few minutes, and then diluted with about 10 c. c. of water, and made alkaline with four per cent, ammonium hydroxide solution. Standard solu- tions containing known amounts of nitrates are prepared and handled in the same manner as the solutions under test. After considerable testing it was decided that all solutions should be read by either one or the other of the following standards: 10 c. c. of a solution containing .1 milligram of nitrate per cubic centimeter, or 10 c. c. of one containing one milli- gram of nitrate per cubic centimeter. In coiyiparing the unknowns with a known, the raising or lowering of the standard gives distinct color changes 50 Nitrates in Soil . — The nitrates in the Laurel soil are shown in Table XXII. This table may be summarized as follows: Tabi^e: XXII. — Nitrates in Laurel Soil Systems of management Plot 1914 1915 1916 Aver- age all Aug. 19 Sep. 16 Nov. 9 Aver- age June 14 July 1 July 27 Aug. 19 Aver- age Jan. 24 May 2 July 18 Nov. 23 Aver- age Parts (NO 3 ) per million parts soil Parts (NO 3 ) per million parts soil Parts (NO 3 ') per million parts soil Parts (NO 3 ) per million parts soil Parts (NO 3 ) per million parts soil Parts (NO 3 ) per million parts soil Parts (NO 3 ) per million parts soil Parts (NO 3 ) per million parts soil Parts (NO 3 ) per million parts soil Parts (NO 3 ) per million parts soil Parts (NO 3 ) per million parts soil j Parts (NOs) per million parts soil Parts (NOs) per million parts soil Parts (NOs) per million parts soil Parts (NOs) per million parts soil Clean A 118 98 4 73 63 112 77 63 79 22 0 80 0 26 59 culture cover crop B 120 106 18 81 47 91 100 76 79 30 01 0 0 81 56 Straw mulch grass cut, let lie C 48 168 28 81 25 7 60 9 25 33 66 41 trace 35 47 Grass cut. let lie D 22 47 4 24 6 6 9 9 8 23 14 trace 0 9 14 Grass cut, piled E 16 58 2 25 8 0 7 6 5 0 25 trace 0 6 12 P 40 42 2 28 8 0 10 10 7 0 24 trace 0 6 14 0 31 79 6 39 24 6 4 4 10 0 14 0 0 4 18 Hillside grass cut. piled H 33 86 24 48 5 2 10 7 6 11 90 58 trace 40 31 Average 54 86 11 50 23 28 34 23 27 15 39 22 0 19 32 Variation 104 126 26 100 58 112 96 72 54 33 90 80 0 90 1 Plot B seeded to grass in April, 1916 1. A growing crop of grass or rye lowers the nitrate content of the soil ; shown especially by nitrate content of plots D, E and F, by the absence of nitrates on plot B in 1916 and on plot A on May 2 and November 23, 1916. 2. The most nitrates are found under the clean culture cover crop system of soil management. This is plainly shown in the averages. 3. The straw mulch ranks next to cultivation in its field nitrate content. 4. The nitrate content of the soil on all plots varies with the season and time of year samples were taken. (a) Very little nitrate was found in late fall and winter. (b) The nitrate content in August, 1915 was much higher than on the same date in 1914. (c) The soil nitrates were low in May and July, 1916. 5. In November, more nitrates were present under the heavier mulches on plots C and H, indicating that bacterial activities persist later in the season in the warmer soil, as found under the mulch system at this time. 6. The girth gains made by the trees were roughly propor- tional to the nitrate content of the soil. 51 _ Nitrates After Incubation .— Table XXIII are tabulated the nitrates m the Laurel soil after incubation with ammonium sulphate 1 his table shows : I. That the nitrates present after the incubation of the soil vary with the season and the time of year samples were taken. That there is no relation between nitrifyinp- power of the soil and cultural practices. u ^-1 relation between the nitrifying power of the soil and tree growth. Tabi,k XXIII. Nitrates in Soil after Incubation with IN H I Q rA A .* 1 1 4/2 1 1914 1 1915 1 1916 1 Aug. 19 Sep. 16 Nov. 9 Aver age - June 14 July 1 July 27 Aug. 19 Aver- age 1 1 Jan. 24 May 2 July 18 Nov. 23 Aver- age Aver- age all Systems of ’ Plot / management Parts CNOsl per million parts soil Parts (NOs) per million parts soil Parts (NOs) per million parts soil Parts fNOa) per million parts soil Parts (NOa) per million parts soil Parts (NOa) per million parts soil Parts (NOa) per million parts soil Parts CNOa) per million parts soil Parts (NOa) per million parts soil Parts (NOa) per million partsjsoll Parts (NOa) per million parts soil Parts (NOa) per million parts soil Parts (NOa) per million parts soil Parts (NOa) per million 3arts soil Parts (NOa) Vermillion varts soil Clean culture A 175 211 163 183 189 223 231 215 214 278 2355 936 159 932 443 cover crop Straw mulch B 228 207 225 220 448 275 305 261 322 364 32861 4351 1421 10571 533 grass cut, let lie 3rass cut, C 262 242 362 289 234 426 274 289 305 411 5017 885 167 1620 738 let lie 3rass cut, D 170 237 235 214 303 290 262 268 280 359 4845 771 167 1536 677 piled iillside E P 0 180 184 286 197 288 379 197 143 305 191 188 323 338 322 391 206 289 368 203 295 119 246 274 227 248 295 276 400 654 1028 7247 4352 3772 461 470 649 148 169 154 2064 1411 1401 834 631 667 grass cut, piled H 246 492 438 392 366 567 331 384 412 445 5583 621 199 1712 839 iverage 'ariation 1 TmTj. 209 116 275 295 259 295 250 209 323 202 330 361 252 212 270 169 294 192 1 492 750 4557 4892 654 501 163 57 1467 1132 670 to grass in April, 1916 Field Efficiency.— A table has been prepared from the tables already given to show the ratio between the nitrates present in the held and the nitrates present in the soil after the soil is brought to pe laboratory, rnixed with ammonium sulphate and allowed to incu- bate for six weeks. Table XXIV shows the per cent, efficiency of field conditions. The figures obtained for the individ- ua dates vary. Those cultural practices having a high per cent of efficiencron'otherTtes'*"’ 52 The table may be summarized then as showing that those plots having a high per cent, of field efficiency may be correlated with cultural practices and tree growth and the ratio between the'nitrates present in the field and the nitrifying power of the soil bears also a relation to tree growth. Table: XXIV.— The Ratio Between the Nitrates Present in the Field and the Nitrifying Power of the Soil Systems 1914 1915 1916 Aver- of manage- ment Plot Aug. 19 Sep. 16 Nov. 9 Aver- age June 14 July 1 July 27 Aug. 19 Aver- age Jan. 24 May 2 July 18 Nov. 23 Aver- age age aU Clean A 67.4 46.4 2.5 38.8 33.3 50.2 33.3 29.3 36.5 7.9 0.0 8.5 0.0 4.1 26.5 culture cover crop B 52.6 51.2 8.0 37.3 10.5 33.1 32.7 29.1 26.4 8.2 O.Oi 0.01 O.Qi 2.1 21.9 Straw mulch grass cut, let lie 0 18.3 69.4 7.7 31.8 10.7 1.6 21.9 3.1 9.3 6.5 1.3 4.6 0.0 3.1 14.7 Grass cut, let lie D 12.9 19.8 1.7 11.5 2.0 2.1 3.4 3.4 2.7 6.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.8 5.3 Grass cut, piled E F 0 8.9 21.7 10.8 29.4 17.6 20.8 1.0 1.4 2.0 13.1 13.6 11.2 2.4 2.5 6.1 0.0 0.0 1.6 3.4 3.4 3.4 2.4 3.6 1.8 2.1 2.6 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 5.1 5.4 4.8 HiUside grass cut, piled H 13.4 17.5 5.5 12.1 1.4 0.4 3.0 1.8 1.7 2.5 1.9 9.3 0.0 3.4 5.7 Average 25.8 34.0 1 3.1 1 8.6 11.1 1 13.1 1 9.3 3.9 1 0.6 2.8 0.0 — 1 Plot B seeded to grass in April, 1916 AUTHORSHIP AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Authorship. — The investigation of which this publication is a preliminary report, was planned and organized and has been car- rib out under the general administrative airection of C. G. Wood- bury Chief in Horticulture. , , j i Vhe supervision of the field work, the cultural and orchard management practices, the obtaining of physiological data, the me- teorological and soil temperature records and m general, Hso, Ae horticuftural phases of the investigation, have been under the active oversight of Joseph Oskanip, Research Associate m Porno ogy. The taking of soil samples for various purposes, the labora ory work in soil chemistry and soil bacteriology, the stupes m technique etc have been in immediate charge of H. A. Noyes, Kesearc Associate in Horticultural Chemistry and Bacteriology. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.-The authors wish to make acknowledg- ment to Mr. Joseph W. Wellington for field work done i" ^e e^r^y years of the investigation and to Messrs. Edwin Voigt, Lester Yo Lr, J. D. Luckett and E. L. Whitsitt for assistance m laboratory work at various times. ^ iv/r,. rr a ^rbiiltze Special acknowledgment is due also to Mr F. A. bcnult , managb of the Laurel Company, Laurel, Ind., whose keen interest in the^work from its inception, and whose hearty co-operation have been invaluable in the prosecution of the investigation. ( so '7 2 - PURDUE UNIVERSITY H YEHilir OF ILU-iOIS Agricultural Experiment Station ^ ^ Bulletin No. 206, Vol. XX September, 1917 CATTLE FEEDING XIII Part I. Part IL Part III. WINTER STEER FEEDING 1916-1917 Corn Silage and Leguminous Hay vs. Leguminous Hay ' as Roughage for Fattening Steers A Limited Feed of Corn as Compared with a Full Feed ^ of Corn for Fattening Cattle Clover vs. Alfalfa Hay as Roughage for Fattening Steers Published by the Station; LAFAYETTE, INDIANA U. S. A. 1 i PURDUE UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT. STATION BOARD OP CONTROL Joseph D, Oliver, President, South Bend Pay S. Chandler Indianapolis Warren T. McCray Kentland Charles Downing Greenfield James W. Noel Indianapolis John A. IIh^lenbrand Batisville George W. Purcell Vincennes Cyrus M. Hobbs Bridgeport Andrew E. Reynolds Crawfordaville WiNTHROP E. Stone, A. M., Ph. D President of the University ADVISORY COMMITTEE (Under Legislative Act of 1909) U. R. PisHEL, Hope D. P. Maish, Prankfort State Poultry Panciers^ Association State Corn Growers^ Association D. B. Johnson, Mooresville..r J. P. Prigg, Daleville State Dairy Association State Live Stock Association H. H. SvvAiM, 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. \1^oom Bookkeeper J r;'*' AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION George I. Christie, B, S. A., Superintendent Thomas A, Coleman Ass’t State Leader Pield Studies and Demonstrations George M. Prier, 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 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 Sherman L. Ander.son, B. S Assistant In Creamery Inspection Turner H. Broughton, B. S Assistant in Creamery Inspection William P. 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 POULTRY HUSBANDRY Allen G. Philips, B. S. A., Chief Charles S. Brewster, M. 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.* State Chemist Edward G. Proulx, M. S.^.. Acting State Chemist Reuben O. Bitler, B. S.2....Deputy State Chemist Carleton Cutler, B. S.^ First Deputy State Chemist and Microscopist (Feeds) Ralph B. Deemer, B. S.^.... 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.^ Deputy State Chemist Samuel P. Thornton, B. S.=^ Deputy State Chemist Otis S. Roberts, B. S.^ Chief Inspector State Chemist’s Department Paul R, Bausman, B. S.^ Inspector State Chemist’s Department Harry D. Bur.\;side, B. S. A . 2 Inspector State Chemist’s Department Glenn G. Carter, B. S .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 OP 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 Shirley L. Mason, A. B Scientific Assistant Dean A. Ricker, B. S Scientific Assistant Chester P. 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 ’ Died August 31, 1917 WINTERMSTEER feeding 1916-1917 J. H. Skinne:r F. G. King^ SUMMARY PART I 1. The addition of 33.88 pounds of corn silage to a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal and clover hay, decreased the daily corn consumption 2.79 pounds per head and the daily hay con- • sumption 11.46 pounds per steer: 2. The addition of 34.21 pounds of corn silage to a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal and alfalfa hay, decreased the daily corn consumption 3.06 pounds per head and the daily hay consump- tion 13.00 pounds per steer. 3. The addition of corn silage to a ration of shelled corn, cot- tonseed meal, and clover hay increased the rate of gain .19 pound daily per steer. 4. The addition of corn silage to a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal, and alfalfa hay decreased the rate of gain .15 pound daily per head. 5. The addition of corn silage to the ration, decreased the cost of gain $2.48 per hundred pounds when clover hay was fed and 41 cents per hundred pounds when alfalfa hay comprised a part of the ration. 6. Corn silage in the ration increased the selling value of the cattle 25 cents per cwt. 7. The profit per steer not including pork was increased $10.08 per steer by adding corn silage to a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal and clover hay; the profit per steer not including pork was increased $6.10 by the addition of corn silage to a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal and alfalfa hay. PART II 8. The elimination of corn from the ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage and clover hay induced the cattle to in- crease the roughage consumption 19.33 pounds of corn silage and .87 pound of hay daily per head. 9. The elimination of one-half the corn in the ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage and clover hay induced the cattle to increase the roughage consumption 8.77 pounds of corn silage and .7 pound of hay daily per head. 10. Feeding no corn during the first month and afterward a gradually increasing amount until the fifth month when it amounted to II pounds daily per head, induced the cattle to increase the con- 1 Associate in Animal Husbandry. Withdrew July 31, 1917 to serve In the United States Army as Captain 4 sumption of roughage 10.15 pounds of corn silage and 1.97 pounds of hay daily per head. 11. Cattle receiving a full feed of shelled corn in addition to cottonseed meal, corn silage and clover hay, gained 2.50 pounds daily per head at a cost of $17.51 per one hundred pounds gain. 12. Cattle receiving no corn in addition to cottonseed meal, corn silage and clover hay, gained 1.63 pounds daily per head at a cost of $14.87 per hundred pounds gain. 13. Cattle receiving one-half feed of shelled corn in addition to cottonseed meal, corn silage and clover hay, gained 1.62 pounds daily per head at a cost of $20.97 P^^ hundred pounds. 14. Cattle receiving a gradually increasing amount of corn in addition to cottonseed meal, corn silage and clover hay, gained 1.91 pounds daily per head at a cost of $18.12 per hundred pounds. 15. Cattle receiving a full feed of shelled corn in addition to cottonseed meal, corn silage and clover hay, were valued at $12.00 per cwt. and returned a profit including pork of $35.65 per head. 16. Cattle receiving no corn in addition to cottonseed meal, corn silage and clover hay were valued at $10.75 P^^ cwt. and re- turned a profit including pork of $21.21 per head. 17. Cattle receiving one-half feed of shelled corn, in addition to cottonseed meal, corn silage and clover hay, were valued at $10.85 per cwt. and returned a profit including pork of $14.95 pcr head. 18. Cattle receiving a gradually increasing amount of shelled corn in addition to cottonseed meal, corn silage and clover hay, were valued at $10.85 pcr cwt. and returned a profit including pork of $20.53. PART III 19. Cattle fed a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal and clover hay, consumed slightly less corn and considerably less hay than cattle fed alfalfa hay instead of clover hay. 20. Cattle fed a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage and clover hay consumed slightly more grain and hay but less silage, than cattle receiving a similar ration with alfalfa hay replacing the clover hay. 21. Cattle fed hay in addition to shelled corn and cottonseed meal, gained 2.31 pounds daily per head when clover hay was fed and 2.16 pounds daily per head when alfalfa hay was fed. 22. Cattle fed hay in addition to shelled corn, cottonseed meal and corn silage, gained 2.5 pounds daily per head when the hay was clover and 2.01 pounds daily per head when it was alfalfa. 23. Gains on cattle were made at a cost of $19.99 hundred pounds when the roughage was clover hay and $21.77 P^^ hundred pounds when it was alfalfa hay. 24. Gains on cattle were made at a cost of $17.51 per hundred pounds when the roughage fed consif'led of corn silage and clover 5 hay as compared to a cost of $21.36 per hundred pounds when the roughage consisted of corn silage and alfalfa hay. 25. Cattle fed a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal and clover hay, were valued at $11.75 per cwt. and returned a profit not including pork of $10.85 head, as compared to a value of $11.75 cwt. and a profit of $7.74 per head when clover hay was replaced by alfalfa hay. 26. Cattle fed a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage and clover hay were valued at $12.00 per cwt. and returned a profit not including pork of $20.93 as compared to a value of $12.00 per cwt. and a profit of $13.84 per head when clover hay was replaced by alfalfa hay. INTRODUCTION The cattle feeding trials reported in this bulletin were conduct- ed under exceptional economic conditions. The corn was low in yield but of good quality and the price the highest in years. Feed- ing cattle were not selling at an exceptionally high price in the fall but the scarcity of fat cattle the following spring caused very high prices for finished cattle, thus enabling the cattle in these trials to return a handsome profit in spite of the continually increasing price of corn. OBJECT The object of the trial was to obtain additional information on the comparative value of leguminous hay alone and in combination with corn silage as roughage for fattening cattle; to test the com- parative value of clover hay and alfalfa hay as roughage for full-fed cattle; and to test the value of different rations with a limited feed of corn with corn silage as compared with a full feed of corn for finishing steers. PLAN Seventy medium feeding cattle were secured and divided into seven lots of ten steers each, as nearly alike as possible in size, con- dition, quality, thrift and breeding. Each lot of cattle was placed in similar surroundings and fed for one hundred forty days. The only differences between lots were in the rations fed which were as follows : Lot I. No corn during the first month and a gradually in- creasing amount of shelled corn for the remainder of the period, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, corn silage, clover hay throughout entire period. Lot 2. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, clover hay. Lot 3. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, alfalfa hay. Lot 4. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, corn silage, clover hay. 6 Lot 5. No corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, corn silage, clover hay. Lot 6. One-half feed corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, corn silage, clover hay. Lot 7. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, corn silage, alfalfa hay. SHELTER, FEED LOTS AND WATER SUPPLY Each lot of cattle occupied similar quarters which consisted of an open, concreted lot 20 by 28 feet joined on the west by an open shed 16 by 28 feet.^ The concrete floors which were cleaned every two or three weeks, kept the yards in comfortable condition during the entire season. The sheds were kept well bedded. Both grain and roughage were fed under cover. Grain and silage were fed in troughs, 30 inches wide, arranged along the feed alley. Hay was fed in the racks under the shed on either side of the lots. Water was supplied in galvanized iron tanks (surrounded by flve or six inches of manure held in place by wooden jackets) and adjacent to the open lots. No heaters were used but ice was re- moved regularly in severe weather. A fresh supply of water was kept before the cattle at all times. WEIGHTS Each steer was weighed individually for three consecutive days at the beginning and end of the trial, and every thirty days during the progress of the same. The averages of the three weights at the beginning and end of the trial were taken as the initial and final weights respectively. The identity of each steer was known by means of a numbered tag on a strap fastened around the neck. Lot weights were taken every ten days in order to facilitate keep- ing records of feed consumed and gains made. Weights were taken at 9:00 A. M., without change in the ration or water of the cattle. Each lot of hogs was weighed every ten days. METHOD OF FEEDING The method of feeding was practically the same in all lots. Grain was fed at 6:00 A. M. and 4:30 P. M. in troughs, under cover. The corn was placed in the trough and cottonseed meal poured upon and mixed with it. After the cattle had cleaned up the grain, which usually required from a half to three-quarters of an hour, roughage was fed. The lots receiving silage were fed this roughage both morning and evening. Lots 2 and 3 received hay twice daily; the other lots received dr}^ roughage at the morning feed. It was the intention to have all silage cleaned up within two hours after it was offered and all dry roughage before time for the next feed. Salt was kept before the cattle at all times. 7 DESCRIPTION OF THE CATTLE The cattle used in this trial were choice ^rade vShorthorns and Herefords purchased on the Chicago market. They were very uni- form in quality and condition. All showed evidence of Shorthorn blood and were two and three years old. METHOD OF VALUING THE CATTLE The feed lots were visited at the beginning of the trial by Messrs. J. T. Alexander of Chicago and J. S. Taylor of Indianapolis who placed a value on the cattle on the basis of the Chicago mar- ket. At the end of the trial the cattle were' valued by Messrs. J. T. Alexander and Thomas Murray of Chicago. Financial statements are based on the Chicago value of feeding cattle, plus 15 cents per hundred pounds, and Chicago prices for fat cattle, less 75 cents per hundred pounds. QUALITY OF FEEDS Rations fed in this trial consisted of various combinations of the following feeds : shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay, al- falfa hay, and corn silage. The corn was of good quality at all times. Cottonseed meal was of choice grade guaranteed to contain 41 per cent, protein and 6 per cent, crude fat. Clover hay was of medium quality. Alfalfa hay consisted of about equal parts first, second, and third cuttings and was of good quality. Corn silage was made from corn produced on Purdue Farm, yielding approx- imately 30 bushels per acre. The corn was well matured when put into the silo. PRICES OF FEEDS The prices of feeds used in presenting financial results are based on the actual market prices at the time the experiment was in progress. The average price of corn in LaFayette was as fol- lows : first month 88.3 cents; second month 93.9 cents; third month $1,007; fourth month $1,138; fifth month $1,431 per bushel; cot- tonseed meal $45.00 per ton; clover hay and alfalfa hay, $12.00 per ton ; corn silage $6.00 per ton. All financial statements are based on the above mentioned prices of feeds. HOGS Each lot of cattle also contained ten hogs. They were of good quality and averaged approximately 105 pounds per head at the time the experiment started. All lots of hogs received corn in addition to droppings from the cattle. The amount of corn fed de- pended on the appetites of the hogs. Five hogs in each of the three lots (2, 3, and 4) of cattle were fed a small quantity of shorts and tankage in addition to the corn and droppings. 8 METHOD OF STARTING CATTLE ON FEED The cattle had been in the feed yards six weeks before they were started in the experiment. During that time they received one-half feed of corn silage and all the second class hay they would eat. When the experiment started, silage was dropped from the ration in Lots 2 and 3 and alfalfa substituted for clover hay in Lots 3 and 7. During the first part of the experiment the ration consisted of all the roughage the cattle would eat, one pound of cottonseed meal in all lots and five pounds of corn daily per head in all lots except Lots i and 5 which received no corn, and Lot 6 which received two pounds of corn. The corn was slowly in- creased in Lots 2, 3, 4, and 7, until within six weeks they were on full feed. Lot 6 was fed one-half as much corn as Lot 4. Lot 5 received no corn during the experiment. Lot i received no corn the first month, five pounds daily per head the second month, seven pounds the third month, nine pounds the fourth month and ii pounds the fifth month. The cottonseed meal was increased until at the end of 10 days it was being fed at the rate of 2.5 pounds per 1000 pounds of live weight, which amount was fed throughout the experiment. Roughage was fed according to appetite. PART I CORN SILAGE AND LEGUMINOUS HAY VS. LEGUMINOUS HAY AS ROUGHAGE FOR FATTENING STEERS The trials herein reported in this bulletin giving data on the value of corn silage as compared with hay as roughage- for fattening cattle are a duplication of the tests conducted at this station during the winters of 1914-15 and 1915-16. This publication gives in- formation as to the comparative economy of adding corn silage to rations of corn, cottonseed meal and clover hay and corn, cotton- seed meal and alfalfa hay. The rations fed were as follows: Lot 2. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, clover hay. Lot 4. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, clover hay, corn silage. Lot 3. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, alfalfa hay. Lot 7. Shelled corn, cottonseed meal 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight, alfalfa hay, corn silage. The only difiference in the rations between Lots 2 and 4 and Lots 3 and 7 was the addition of corn silage. Cottonseed meal was fed in all lots in the proportion of 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds live weight. The cattle used in the trial and the method of starting them on feed are reported on pages 7 and 8. 9 Daily Ration. — Table I shows the influence of the dififerent feeds on the daily consumption of the various constituents of the ration by 30-day periods. fl'AnivE I. — Showing Average Amount of Feed Consumed Daily Per Head by Fattening Steers, December 13, 1916, to May 2, 1917 (140 days) Lot 2 Lot 4 Lot 3 Lot 7 Shelled corn, Shelled corn. Shelled corn. Shelled corn. RATION cottonseed cottonseed cottonseed cottonseed meal, meal. meal. meal. clover hay corn silage, alfalfa hay corn silage, clover hay alfalfa hay First month shelled corn 8.12 lbs. 8.12 lbs. 8.12 lbs. 8.12 lbs. cottonseed meal 2.36 “ 2.36 2.36 “ 2.36 “ corn silage 45.90 a 45.80 “ clover hay alfalfa hay 17.53 “ 2.07 a 17.87 “ 2.46 “ Second month 1 shelled corn 14.40 “ 12.40 n ! 14.89 “ 12.40 “ cottonseed meal 2.83 “ 2.90 2.93 “ 2.85 “ corn silage 39.63 40.10 “ clover hay alfalfa hay 16.00 “ 2.12 17.85 “ 1.65 “ Third month shelled corn 17.10 “ 14.67 4( 17.13 “ 14.67 “ cottonseed meal 2.98 “ 3.12 (4 2.98 “ 2.98 “ corn silage 30.88 44 32.07 “ clover hay alfalfa hay 14.28 “ 2.08 44 15.00 “ 1.20 “ Fourth month shelled corn 20.57 “ 16.00 20.57 “ 16.00 “ cottonseed meal 3.13 “ 3.28 3.17 “ 3.13 “ corn silage 25.00 44 25.00 “ clover hay alfalfa hay 9.18 “ 1.93 11.33 “ no CO T— 1 Last 20 days shelled corn 22.00 “ 16.00 22.00 “ 14.85 “ cottonseed meal 3.33 “ 3.43 44 3.36 “ 3.25 “ corn silage 25.00 44 25.00 “ clover hay alfalfa hay 9.00 “ 2.00 44 9.11 “ 1.20 “ Average daily feed for entire period shelled corn 16.04 lbs. 13.25 lbs. 16.15 lbs. 13.09 lbs. cottonseed meal 2.90 “ 2.99 ,2.93 “ 2.89 “ corn silage 33.88 44 34.21 “ clover hay alfalfa hay 13.50 “ 2.04 14.60 “ 1.60 “ lO Table I shows that during the first month, while the cattle were being placed on feed, there was no difference between the amounts of grain eaten by the cattle receiving silage and those not receiving silage. As the cattle were raised to full feed, it required larger amounts of corn to satisfy the appetites of the cattle not re- ceiving silage than it did to satisfy those receiving this roughage. As the feeding period prdgressed the difference in grain consump- tion between the lots increased until during the last 20 days, the cattle receiving clover and no silage consumed six pounds of corn more than those receiving silage, in addition to the clover ; and in the lots receiving alfalfa hay in combination with the silage, there was a greater difference, also corn silage replaced practically all the hay in the ration. The average amount of corn consumed in Lot 2, not receiving silage, was 16.04 pounds daily per head as compared to 13.25 pounds in Lot 4 receiving silage. In Lot 3, not receiving silage, the daily corn consumption was 16.15 pounds as compared to 13.09 pounds in Lot 7 receiving silage. In Lot 4, 33.88 pounds of silage replaced 2.79 pounds of corn and 11.46 pounds of hay in the daily feed consumption. In Lot 7, 34.21 pounds of silage re- placed 3.06 pounds of corn and 13 pounds of hay in the daily feed consumption. Gains. — Table II shows the gains made by the four lots of cattle. Table II. — Showing Average Daily Gain per Steer by Months, December 13, 1916 to May 2, 1917 (140 days) Rot 2 Rot 4 Rot 3 Rot 7 Shelled corn, Shelled corn. Shelled corn. Shelled corn. RATION cottonseed cottonseed cottonseed cottonseed meal, meal, meal. meal. clover hay corn silage, alfalfa hay corn silage, clover hay alfalfa hay First month 1.92 lbs. 2.74 lbs. 2.01 lbs. 2.39 lbs. Second month 1.95 “ 2.10 “ 1.17 “ 1.72 “ Third month 2.62 “ 3.48 “ 2.74 “ •2.12 “ Fourth month 2.45 “ 2.23 “ 2.98 “ 2.07 “ Last 20 days 2.74 “ 1.67 “ 1.78 “ 1.64 “ Total gain per steer Average daily gain for 322.9 lbs. 350.0 lbs. 302.4 lbs. 2.16 “ 281.6 lbs. 2.01 “ entire period 2.31 “ 2.50 “ Table II shows that the addition of corn silage to a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal and clover hay increased the rate of gain during the entire period from 2.31 pounds daily per head to 2.50 pounds daily per head. During only two periods of the five did the cattle not receiving silage, make as rapid gains as those in Lot 4 receiving silage. The addition of corn silage to a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal and alfalfa hay did not increase the rate of gain. This can be accounted for by the fact that one steer II in Lot 7, proved to be far below the average in ability to make gains. The other nine steers in the lot made more rapid gains than the steers in Lot 3, not receiving silage. The average of the two lots receiving silage compared with the average of the lots not receiving silage shows that the addition of silage to the ration pro- duced more rapid gains than where it was not used in the ration. Cost ot Gains. — ‘The influence of corn silage on the cost of gains is shown in Table III. Tabte) III. — Showing Average Amount of Feed Consumed per Pound Gain and Cost per Hundred Pounds Gain Lot 2 Lot 4 Lot 3 Lot 7 Shelled corn, Shelled corn. Shelled corn. Shelled corn. RATION cottonseed cottonseed cottonseed cottonseed meal, meal. meal. meal. clover hay corn silage, alfalfa hay corn silage, clover hay alfalfa hay Peed per pound gain shelled corn 6.95 lbs. 5.30 lbs. 7.48 lbs. 6.51 lbs. cottonseed meal 1.26 “ 1.20 “ 1.36 “ 1.44 “ corn silage 13.55 “ 17.01 “ clover hay alfalfa hay 5.85 “ .82 “ 6.76 “ .79 “ Cost per cwt. gain $19.99 $17.51 $21.77 $21.36 It will be noted in Table III, that in both lots where silage was fed, it required a smaller amount of corn to produce a pound of gain than where the silage was not fed. Thirteen and fifty-five hundredths pounds of silage replaced 1.65 pounds of corn and '5-03 pounds of clover hay and 17.01 pounds of silage replaced .97 pound of corn and 5.97 pounds of alfalfa hay in the feed required to make a pound of gain. Since silage replaced a large amount of hay, the economy of gain depends primarily upon the value affixed to these two classes of roughages. Silage was comparatively high in price while hay was at a moderate price. When silage was added to a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal and clover hay, gains were made at a cost of $2.48 per hundred pounds less than when no sil.age was fed. When corn silage was added to a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal and alfalfa hay, there was a saving of 41 cents per hundred pounds of gain. However, since one steer in Lot 7 failed to gain satisfactorily, we would normally expect a greater spread in cost than is shown between Lots 3 and 7. 12 Tabi^e: IV. — Summary of Part I Lot 2 Lot 4 Lot 3 ^ L Lot 7 Shelled corn, Shelled corn. Shelled corn, Shelled corn. RATION cottonseed cottonseed cottonseed cottonseed meal, meal. meal. meal. clover hay corn silage, alfalfa hay corn silage, clover hay alfalfa hay Initial value $ 8.15 $ 8.15 $ 8.15 $ 8.15 Initial weight 10408 lbs. 10443 lbs. 9513 lbs. 10442 lbs. Final weight 13637 “ 13943 a 12235 44 13258 “ Total gain 3229 44 3500 a 2722 44 2816 44 Average daily gain 2.31 44 1 2.50 “ 2.16 2.01 44 Total feed consumed i 18555 shelled corn 22455 “ “ 20350 18325 cottonseed meal 4059 i 4184 “ 3693 4049 . corn silage 147425 “ 47891 clover hay alfalfa hay 18900 44 2860 18394 “ 2237 ] 44 Daily feed per steer 1 shelled corn 16.04 44 ' 13.25 n 16.15 44 j 13.09 44 cottonseed meal 2.90 1 2.99 “ 2.93 44 1 2.89 44 corn silage 1 33.88 “ i 34.21 clover hay alfalfa hay 13.50 44 i 2.04 i 14.60 “ 1.60 Feed per pound gain 1 shelled corn 6.95 5.30 “ 7.48 44 6.51 cottonseed meal 1.26 1.20 (( 1.36 44 1.44 44 corn silage 13.55 “ 1 17.01 44 clover hay alfalfa hay 5.85 .82 1 6.76 99 .79 Cost of gain per cwT. $ 19.99 $ 17.51 $ 21.77 $ 21.36 Necessary selling price Actual selling price in 10.95 t 10.50 1 i 11.18 1 1 1 10.96 lots without shrink j 11.75 I 12.00 i 11.75 i 12.00 Profit per steer i not including pork 10.85 20.93 7.74 13.84 Pork produced 1479 lbs. 1275 lbs. 1586 lbs. 990 lbs. Corn fed to hogs 2594 “ 1996 “ 2594 “ 1959 “ Shorts fed to hogs 210 “ 210 44 210 “ Tankage fed to hogs Profit per steer 210 210 1 210 $ 25.48 including pork $ 27.60 ! $ 35.65 1 $ 28.20 i 1 Nine steers in Lot 3 Pork is valued at $15.50 per cwt., and cost of additional feed consumed by hogs is deducted before value of pork from droppings is accredited to receipts from cattle Based on the following prices for feeds: shelled corn, first month 88.3 cents; second month 93.9 cents; third month $1,007; fourth month $1,138; last 20 days $1,431 per bushel; cottonseed meal $45.00 per ton; corn silage $6.00 per ton; clover and alfalfa hay $12.00 per ton 13 Summary. — A summary of the data secured from the four lots of cattle is shown in Table IV. Prices of feeds are given on page 7. No charge was made for straw used for bedding nor for labor of feeding; neither is any credit given for any manure pro- duced by the cattle, it being considered that this by-product will pay for the labor of feeding and the straw used for bedding. There were 10 hogs in each lot throughout the progress of the trial. Enough corn was fed these hogs to make them gain satisfac- torily. Five hogs in Lots 2, 3 and 4, received a small quantity of shorts and tankage in addition to corn and droppings. Corn fed to hogs was valued at $1.06 per bushel, shorts at $50.00 per ton and tankage at $70.00 per ton, and the cost of these feeds was deducted from the value of the pork actually produced before pork pro- duced from droppings is accredited to the receipts from the cattle. Table IV shows that the addition of corn silage to a ration of shelled corn, cottonseed meal and clover hay, resulted in an increase in the gains of the cattle and a decrease in the cost of gain amount- ing to $2.48 per hundred pounds. With an initial weight of 1040.8 pounds per head, cattle fed clover hay alone as a roughage required a selling price of $10.95 hundred pounds in order to break even at the end of the 140-day feeding period. They actually sold for $11.75 returned a profit of $10.85 head, not including pork. When pork is considered, the profit was $27.60 per head. When corn silage was added to the above ration, similar cattle could have sold at the end of 140 days for $10.50 per hundred pounds without returning a profit or loss. They actually sold for $12.00 per hundred pounds and returned a profit not including pork of $20.93 per head. When pork is considered they returned a profit of $35.65 per head or $8.05 per head more than when silage was not fed. The addition of corn silage to a ration of corn, cottonseed meal and alfalfa hay did not increase the rate of gain, unless nine steers in Lot 7 are considered. There was a slight reduction in cost of gain and in the necessary selling price. Cattle averaging 1057 pounds at the beginning and fed for a period of 140 days on shelled corn, cottonseed meal and alfalfa hay, would have had to sell at $11.18 per hundred weight in order to equalize expenditures. They actually sold for $11.75 hundred weight and returned a profit of ’ $7.74 per head not including pork and $28.20 per head including pork. Cattle fed a similar ration with silage added, could have sold at $10.96 per head without profit or loss. They actually sold for $12.00 per hundred pounds and returned a profit of $13.84 without pork and $25.48 with pork. In these two lots the difiference in pork production made a material difiference in the relative standing in the lots. 14 PART II A LIMITED FEED OF CORN AS COMPARED WITH A FULL FEED OF CORN FOR FATTENING CATTLE The high price of corn and the possibility of utilizing large quan- tities of roughage in the form of ensilage with cattle have aroused feeders to a realization of the desirability of feeding as much rough- age as possible to fattening cattle with the view of saving corn that might be used for other purposes. It was for the purpose of secur- ing data on the amounts of corn that could be most profitably used in the rations for fattening cattle that this trial with four lots of cattle was undertaken. The feeds used in all lots were the same, with the exception that one lot received no corn, viz. shelled corn, corn silage, cottonseed meal, clover hay. Different amounts of corn were fed those receiving corn, and the amounts of the other feeds consumed varied in the different lots. The cattle in Lot 4 were fed a ration of cottonseed meal, clover hay, corn silage, and as much shelled corn as they would consume twice daily. Lot 6 was fed one-half as much corn as the cattle in Lot 4, and all the roughage they would consume. The cattle in Lot 5 were fed no corn but all the silage and hay they would eat. The cattle in Lot i were fed no corn during the first month and a gradually increasing amount of corn thereafter. The follow- ing amounts of corn were fed after the first month; second month, 5 pounds daily per steer ; third month, 7 pounds daily per steer ; fourth month, 9 pounds daily per steer; last 20 days, ii pounds daily per steer. All lots of cattle received cottonseed meal at the rate of 2.5 pounds daily per 1000 pounds of live weight. Daily Ration. — The average daily feed consumed per head is shown in Table V. 15 Table V. — Showing Average Amount of Feed Consumed Daily per Head by Fattening Steers, December 13, 1916 to May 2, 1917 (140 days) ■ Lot 4 ' Lot 1 Lot 6 Lot 5 Shelled corn,i Shelled corn, 2 One-half feed No corn. cottonseed cottonseed corn, cottonseed RATION meal, meal. cottonseed meal. corn silage, corn silage. meal, corn silage. clover hay clover hay corn silage. ! clover hay clover hay First month shelled corn 8.12 lbs. 4.73 lbs. cottonseed meal ‘ 2.36 “ 2.36 lbs. 2.36 “ 2.36 lbs. corn silage 45.^0 “ 47.47 “ 46.17 “ 47.47 “ clover hay 2.07 “ 4.97 “ 4.17 “ 5.09 “ Second month shelled corn 12.40 “ 5.00 “ 6.20 “ cottonseed meal 2.90 “ 2.83 “ 2.83 “ 2.83 “ corn silage 39.63 “ 48.20 “ 45.00 “ 52.13 “ clover hay 2.12 “ 1 4.27 “ 3.18 “ 3.35 Third month 1 I shelled corn 14.67 “ 7.00 “ 7.33 “ cottonseed meal 3.12 “ 3.00 “ 2.97 “ 2.97 “ corn silage 30.88 “ 42.02 “ i 42.87 “ 55.38 “ clover hay 2.08 “ 4.02 “ 2.08 “ 2.08 “ Fourth month 1 shelled corn 16.00 “ 9.00 “ 8.00 “ cottonseed meal 3.28 “ 3.15 “ 3.07 “ 3.10 “ corn silage 25.00 “ • 41.30 “ 39.00 “ 56.00 “ clover hay 1.93 “ 3.45 “ 2.00 “ 2.00 “ Last 20 days 1 i shelled corn 16.00 “ 11.00 “ 8.00 “ cottonseed meal 3.43 “ 3.28 “ 3.15 “ i 3.18 “ corn silage 25.00 “ 39.70 “ 39.00 “ 56.00 “ clover hay 2.00 “ 3.03 “ 2.00 “ 1.60 “ Average daily feed i for entire period shelled corn i 13.25 lbs. 6.07 lbs. 6.77 lbs. cottonseed meal ! 2.99 “ 2.90 “ 2.86 “ 2.87 “ corn silage 33.88 “ 44.03 “ 1 42.65 “ 53.21 “ clover hay ! 2.04 “ 4.01 “ 1 2.74 “ 2.91 “ 1 1 Fed full feed of corn - Fed no corn first month and gradually increasing amount of corn thereafter It will be noted that during the first month there was little difiference in the silage consumption in the four lots. After the first month, as the amounts of corn consumed increased, the amount of silage consumed decreased, until during the last 20 days the cattle receiving no corn ate 56 pounds of silage daily per head ; those receiving one-half feed of corn consumed 39 pounds per head ; those i6 receiving a gradually increasing amount of corn consumed 39.70 pounds per head ; while the cattle receiving a full feed of corn con- sumed only 25 pounds of silage per head. The average of the en- tire period shows tliat the cattle not receiving corn consumed 53.21 pounds of silage and 2.91 pounds of hay daily per head; those re- ceiving one-half feed of corn consumed 42.65 pounds of silage, 2.74 pounds of hay and 6.77 pounds of corn, daily per head. The cattle receiving a gradually increasing amount of corn after the first month consumed 44.03 pounds of silage, 4.01 pounds of hay and 6.07 pounds of shelled corn. The cattle receiving a full feed of corn consumed 33.88 pounds of silage, 2.04 pounds of hay and 13.25 pounds of corn. Gains. — The influence of the limited amount of corn on the rate of gain made by the cattle is shown in Table VI. Table: VI. — Showing Average Daily Gain ,per Steer by Months, December 13, 1916 to May 2, 1917 (140 days) Lot 4 Lot 1 Lot 6 1 Lot 5 Shelled corn.i Shelled corn, 2 One-half feed No corn. cottonseed cottonseed • corn. cottonseed RATION meal, meal. cottonseed meal. corn silage. corn silage. meal. corn silage, clover hay clover hay corn silage. clover hay clover hay First month 2.74 lbs. 1.63 lbs. 2.07 lbs. 1.93 lbs. Second month 2.10 “ 1.43 “ 1.57 “ 1.53 “ Third month 3.48 “ 3.15 “ 1.78 “ 2.05 “ Fourth month 2.23 “ 1.92 “ 1.50 “ 1.90 ” Last 20 days 1.67 “ 1.17 “ .94 “ .26 “ Total gain per steer Average daily gain 350.0 lbs. 267.1 lbs. 226.5 lbs. 227.5 lbs. for entire period 2.50 “ 1.91 “ 1.62 “ 1.63 “ 1 Full feed ~ No corn first month, gradually increasing amount of corn thereafter It will be noted that the most rapid gains were made by the full- fed cattle. Each steer made an average total gain of 350.0 pounds, an average of 2.5 pounds daily per head. When a gradually increasing amount of corn was fed, each steer gained on an average 267.1 pounds per head or 1.91 pounds daily. Where one-half feed of corn was fed, the rate of gain was 1.62 pounds daily per head. When no corn was fed, there was an average daily gain of 1.63 pounds ; thus showing that the cattle receiving no corn made more rapid gains than those having one-half feed of corn. However, the shrink of the cattle in shipment and the dressing percentage show that Lot 6 taken on the basis of market weights should have weighed out of the experiment with practically the same gains as the cattle in Lot I. 17 Cost of Gains. — The influence of limiting the feed of corn on cost of gains is shown in Table VII. Table VIL — Showing Average Amount of Feed Consumed per Pound Gain and Cost per Hundred Pounds Gain Lot 4 "Loti Lot 6 Lot 5 RATION Shelled corn,i cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay Shelled corn,^ cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay One-half feed corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay No corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay Feed per pound gain shelled corn cottonseed meal corn silage clover hay 5.30 lbs. 1.20 “ 13.55 “ .82 “ 3.18 lbs. 1.52 “ 23.08 “ 2.10 “ 4.19 lbs. 1.77 “ 26.36 “ 1.69 “ 1.76 lbs. 32.75 “ 1.79 “ Cost per cwt. gain $17.51 $18.12 $20.97 $14.87 1 Full feed of corn 2 Fed a limited grain ration Table VII shows that the ration containing no corn made the most economical gain of the four lots. The next lot in point of economy, was the one receiving a full feed of corn. The cost of gains where a limited amount of corn was fed, was greater than when a full allowance of corn was given. Eliminating corn from the ration reduced the cost $2.64 on each hundred pounds of gain, while feeding the half feed of corn increased the cost of gain $3.46 per hundred pounds above the cost of the gain on cattle receiv- ing a full feed of corn. Feeding a gradually increasing amount of corn after the first month increased the cost of gain 61 cents per hundred pounds over a full feed of corn. Summary. — Table VIII shows a summary of the results ob- tained with four different amounts of corn in the rations. The prices of the feeds are given on page 7. It will be noted that the cattle receiving a full feed of corn, made more rapid gains and more economical gains than any of the lots, except the one receiving no corn. It would have been necessary for the cattle receiving a full feed of corn to sell at $10.50 per hundred in order to equalize cost of production. The actual selling price was $12.00 per hundred, thus leaving a profit of $1.50 per hundred weight on the final weights of the cattle. In the lot receiving a gradually increasing amount of corn, the necessary sell- ing price was $to.i8 per hundred weight and the actual selling price was $10.85, thus leaving a profit of 67 cents per hundred weight. The cattle receiving one-half feed of corn would have had to sell at $10.43 hundred weight and actually sold at $10.85. The cattle receiving no corn could have sold for $9.35 per hundred weight; the actual selling price was $10.75 hundred, and the i8 TarlE VIII. — Summary of Part II RATION Lot 4 Lot 1 Lot 6 Lot 0 Shelled corn.i cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay Shelled corn,^ cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay One-half feed corn. cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay No corn, cottonseed i meal, j corn silage, clover hay i Initial value $8.15 $8.15 ■ee po 1—1 Ot ' $8.15 Initial weight 10443 lbs. 10472 lbs. 10448 lbs. 1 10452 lbs. Final weight 13943 113143 12713 112727 Total gain 3500 i 2671 2265 2275 Average daily gain 2.50 “ i 1.91 “ 1.62 “ 1 1.63 “ Total feed consumed 1 shelled corn 18555 8500 9480 cottonseed meal 4184 ! 4059 3999 I 4014 corn silage 47425 !61635 59710 74495 clover hay 2860 1 5615 3830 1 4076 Daily feed per steer shelled corn 13.25 “ 6.07 “ 6.77 “ 1 cottonseed meal 1 2.99 ” 2.90 “ 2.86 “ 2.87 “ corn silage ! 33.88 “ ! 44.03 “ 42.65 “ 53.21 “ clover hay 2.04 “ 4.01 “ 2.74 “ 2.91 “ Feed per pound gain , shelled corn 5.30 “ 3.18 “ 4.19 “ cottonseed meal 1.20 “ 1.52 “ 1.77 “ 1.76 “ corn silage 13.55 “ 23.08 “ 26.36 “ 32.75 “ clover hay .82 “ 2.10 “ 1.69 “ 1.79 “ Cost of gain per cwt. $17.51 ! $18.12 $20.97 $14.87 Necessary selling price 10.50 ! 10.18 i 10.43 1 9.35 j Actual selling price in i 1 1 lots without shrink 1 12.00 1 10.85 10.85 10.75 Profit per steer not . including pork 20.93 8.86 5.30 j 17.80 Pork produced 1275 lbs. 1143 lbs. 1035 lbs. 748 lbs. Corn fed to hogs 1996 3198 3374 4324 Shorts fed to hogs 210 1 Tankage fed to hogs 210 Profit per steer including pork $35.65 $20.53 $14.95 1 $21.21 1 Pull feed of corn 2 Fed limited grain ration 19 profit $1.40 on each hundred pounds of weight. It will be noted that the margin between necessary selling price and the estimated selling price by commission men was greater in Lot 4 receiving a full feed of corn. Without pork this lot of cattle returned the greatest profit ; with pork considered there was a greater difference in favor of the full-fed cattle. This summary is based on the valuation of the cattle at the end of the experiment. When the cattle were sold in Chicago, there was a slightly greater increase in the price of Lots I and 6 in proportion to the other two lots. This was enough to amount to ^2.35 per steer in Lot i and $1.47 in Lot 6. Since the cost of feed has a very marked influence on the profits to be derived from the use of different amounts of corn in the ration, the following table is presented for the purpose of showing the necessary selling price of cattle with corn at different prices. In making comparisons in this table, it is essential to remember that the cattle in Lot 4 were valued $1.25 per hundred more than those in Lot 5, and $1.15 per hundred more than those in Lots- i and 6. The shrinkage and dressing percentage of the different lots showed that Lots i and 6 were valued low in comparison with the other lots. This would have made considerable difference in rela- tive financial results, but would not have changed the relative finan- cial standing of the four lots. Table IX shows the necessary selling prices of the cattle with corn at different prices. Table IX. — Showing Necessary Selling Price with Corn at Vary- ing Prices and Corn Silage at Corresponding Prices. Pork Not Included Price corn per bushel Price silage lier ton Lot 5 Lot 6 Lot 1 Lot 4 No corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay One-half feed corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay Shelled corn,i cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay $ .50 $ 3.50 $ 8.62 $ 9.07 $ 8.84 $ 8.69 .75 4.75 8.98 9.70 9.42 9.49 1.00 6.00 9.35 10.33 10.01 10.30 1.25 7.25 9.72 10.95 10.59 11.10 1.50 8.50 10.08 11.58 11.16 11.91 1.75 9.75 10.45 12.21 11.75 12.71 2.00 11.00 10.81 12.83 12.33 13.52 1 Lot 1 fed no corn first month and a g-radually increasing- amount thereafter. Hay was valued at $12.00 per ton and cottonseed meal at $45.00 per ton With corn at $1.06 per bushel the pork produced, reduced the necessary selling price as follows: Lot 1 — 89 cents per hundred pounds Lot 4 — $1.06 per hundred pounds Lot 5 — 27 cents per hundred pounds Lot 6 — 76 cents per hundred pounds 20 PART III CLOVER HAY vs. ALFALFA HAY AS ROUGHAGE FOR FATTENING STEERS Part III of this bulletin is a report of trials to determine the comparative value of clover hay and alfalfa hay as roughage for fattening steers. Three previous trials have shown that on an average there has been practically no difference between these two hays for fattening cattle. The results of the fourth trial of this series are reported in this bulletin. Daily Ration. — The average daily feed per steer by 30-day periods is shown in Table X. It will be noted in Table X, that for all practical purposes there was no difference in the grain consumption of the cattle re- ceiving clover hay and those receiving alfalfa hay. During one month when adjustment was being made for a sick steer in Lot 3, there was a slight difference in grain consumption ; also during the last month, in Lot 7, when the cattle were off feed slightly for a few days. However, it can be considered that the appetites of the cattle were equal in the two lots in which clover was compared with alfalfa. 21 TablK X. — Showing Average Amount of Feed Consumed Daily per Head by Fattening Steers, December 13, 1916 , to May 2, 1917 (140 days) RATION Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 7 Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, alfalfa hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, ' corn silage, clover hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage, alfalfa hay First month shelled corn 8.12 lbs. 8.12 lbs. 8.12 lbs. 8.12 lbs. cottonseed meal 2.36 “ 2.36 “ 2.36 “ 2.36 “ corn silage 45.90 “ 45.80 “ clover hay 17.53 “ 2.07 “ alfalfa hay 17.87 - “ 2.46 “ Second month shelled corn 14.40 “ 14.89 “ 12.40 (( 12.40 “ cottonseed meal 2.83 “ 2.93 “ 2.90 (( 2.85 “ corn silage 39.63 (( 40.10 “ clover hay 16.00 “ 2.12 alfalfa hay 17.85 “ 1.65 “ Third month shelled corn 17.10 “ 17.13 “ 14.67 “ 14.67 “ cottonseed meal 2.98 “ ■ 2.98 “ 3.12 “ 2.98 “ corn silage 30.88 “ 32.07 “ clover hay 14.28 “ 2.08 (( alfalfa hay 15.00 “ 1.20 “ Fourth month shelled corn 20.57 “ 20.57 “ 16.00 “ 16.00 “ cottonseed meal 3.13 “ 3.17 “ 3.28 “ 3.13 “ corn silage 25.00 “ 25.00 “ clover hay 9.18 “ 1.93 “ alfalfa hay 11.33 “ 1.35 “ Last 20 days shelled corn 22.00 “ 22.00 “ 16.00 it 14.85 “ cottonseed meal 3.33 “ 3.36 “ 3.43 (( 3.25 “ corn silage 25.00 “ 25.00 “ clover hay 9.00 “ 2.00 “ alfalfa hay 9.11 “ 1.20 “ Average daily feed for entire period shelled corn 16.04 lbs. 16.15 lbs. 13.25 lbs. 13.09 lbs. cottonseed meal 2.90 “ 2.93 “ 2.*99 2.89 “ corn silage 33.88 34.21 “ clover hay 13.50 “ 2.04 alfalfa hay 14.60 “ 1.60 “ 22 Gains. — The gains made by each lot of steers are shown in Table XL TablK XL— Showing Average Daily Gain per Steer by Months, December 13, 1916 to May 2, 1917 (140 days) Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 1 Lot 7 RATION Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, alfalfa hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silag:e, clover hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silagre, alfalfa hay First month 1.92 lbs. 2.01 lbs. 2.74 lbs. 2.39 lbs. Second month 1.95 “ 1.17 “ 2.10 “ 1.72 “ Third month 2.62 “ ! 2.74 “ 3.48 “ 2.12 “ Fourth month 2.45 “ 2.98 “ 2.23 “ 2.07 ” Last 20 days 2.74 “ I 1.78 “ 1.67 “ 1.64 “ Total gain per steer 322.9 lbs. 302.4 lbs. 350.0 lbs. 281.6 lbs. Average daily gain for entire period 2.31 “ i 2.16 “ 2.50 2.01 “ It will be noted that there was a slight increase in rate of gain when clover hay was compared with alfalfa hay with no other roughage available to the cattle. There was an additional gain of 20.5 pounds per steer during the feeding period in favor of the clover hay. When clover hay was compared with alfalfa hay with corn silage in both lots, the rate of gain was much more rapid with clover hay than with alfalfa hay. This is in part accounted for by the fact that one steer in Lot 7 was not as thrifty as he should have been. Cost of Gains. — Table XII shows the average amount of feed per pound of gain and the cost of a hundred pounds of gain. Table XII. — Showing Average Amount of Feed Consumed per Pound Gain and Cost per Hundred Pounds Gain RATION Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 7 Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, alfalfa hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage, clover hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage, alfalfa hay Feed per pound gain shelled corn 6.95 lbs. 7.48 lbs. 5.30 lbs. 6.51 lbs. cottonseed meal 1.26 “ 1.36 “ 1.20 “ 1.44 “ corn silage 13.55 “ 17.01 “ clover hay 5.85 “ .82 “ alfalfa hay 6.76 “ .79 “ Cost per cwt. gain $19.99 $21.77 $17.51 $21.36 It will be noted that in both instances the clover hay produced gains at less expenditure of feed and at a lower cost than where alfalfa was fed. This is slightly contrary to the average of previous trials which have shown that for all practical purposes cost of gains is the same with the two classes of hay of equal quality. 23 Table: XIII. — Summary of Part III RATION Lot 2 Lot 3 ^ L Lot 4 Lot 7 Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, clover hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, alfalfa hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, com silage, clover hay Shelled corn, cottonseed meal, corn silage, alfalfa hay Initial value $8.15 $8.15 $8.15 $8.15 Initial weight 10408 lbs. 9513 lbs. 10443 lbs. 10442 lbs. Final weight 13637 (( 12235 44 13943 “ 13258 “ Total gain 3229 (( 2722 3500 “ 2816 “ Average daily gain 2.31 2.16 44 2.50 “ 2.01 44 Total feed consumed shelled corn 22455 20350 18555 44 18325 44 cottonseed meal 4059 3693 44 4184 44 4049 corn silage 47425 44 47891 44 clover hay 18900 2860 alfalfa hay 18394 44 2237 Daily feed per steer shelled corn 16.04 (( 16.15 13.25 13.09 cottonseed meal 2.90 2.93 44 2.99 2.89 44 corn silage 33.88 34.21 clover hay 13.50 2.04 44 alfalfa hay 14.60 1.60 Feed per pound gain shelled corn 6.95 7.48 5.30 6.51 44 cottonseed meal 1.26 1.36 44 1.20 44 1.44 corn silage 13.55 44 17.01 44 clover hay 5.85 .82 44 alfalfa hay 6.76 44 .79 Cost of gain per cwt. $19.99 $21.77 $17.51 $21.36 Necessary selling price 10.95 11.18 10.50 10.96 Actual selling price in lots without shrink 11.75 11.75 12.00 12.00 Proht per steer not including pork 10.85 7.74 20.93 13.84 Pork produced 1479 lbs. 1586 lbs. 1275 lbs. 990 lbs. Corn fed to hogs 2594 (4 2594 44 1996 “ 1959 44 Shorts fed to hogs 210 210 44 210 44 Tankage fed to hogs 210 <4 210 210 44 Profit per steer including pork $27.60 $28.20 $35.65 $25.48 1 Nine steers in Lot 3 24 Summary. — Table XIII shows a summary of the feeding op- erations as relating to the four lots comparing clover and alfalfa hay. The prices of feeds are given on page 7. It will be noted that practically all factors in this trial are in favor of clover hay. The rate of gain is more rapid and the cost of gain is less in both instances. However, the selling value of the cattle is the same for the clover and the alfalfa hay in both cases. Without including the pork, there was a larger profit when clover hay was fed than when alfalfa hay was fed, but with the pork included, there was a greater profit with alfalfa hay when corn silage was not fed in combination with the two than there was with clover hay. An average of the two tests in this experiment shows that the clover was more profitable than the alfalfa. FINANCIAL STATEMENT Lot I. — Ten Steers Fed Shelled Corn (limited). Cottonseed Meal, Clover Hay and Corn Silage, 1916-17 Dec. 13, To 10 steers, weight 10472 lbs*. @ $8.15 per cwt $ 853.47 Jan. 12-Feb. 11, To 1500 lbs. shelled corn @ 93.9 cts. per bu. 25.15 Feb. 11-Mar. 13, To 2100 lbs. shelled corn @ $1,007 per bu. 37.76 Mar. 13-Apr. 12, To 2700 lbs. shelled corn @ $1,138 per bu. 54.87 Apr. 12-May 2, To 2200 lbs. shelled corn @ $1,431 per bu. 56.22 Dec. 13-May 2, To 4059 lbs. cottonseed meal @ $45.00 per ton 91.33 Dec. 13-'May 2, To 61635 lbs. silage @ $6.00 per ton... 184.91 Dec. 13-May 2, To 5615 lbs. clover hay @ $12.00 per ton.. 33.69 Total expenditures $1337.40 May 2, By 10 steers, weight 13143 lbs. @ $10.85 per cwt 1426.02 Total profit without pork 88.62 Profit per steer without pork 8.86 Dec. 13^May 2, To 3198 lbs. shelled corn fed hogs @ $1.06 per bu $ 60.53 Dec. 13-May 2, By 1143 lbs. pork @ $15.50 per cwt 177.17 Value of pork produced from droppings $ 116.64 Total receipts including pork 1542.66 Total profits including pork 205.26 Profit per steer including pork 20.53 Price received per bushel of corn fed cattle 2.499 Lot 2. — Ten Steers Fed Shelled Corn, Cottonseed Meal and Clover Hay, 1916-17 Dec. 13, To 10 steers, weight 10408 lbs. @ $8.15 per cwt $ 848.25 Dec. 13-Jan. 12, To 2435 lbs. shelled corn @ 88.3 cts. per bu. 38.39 Jan. 12-Feb. 11, To 4320 lbs. shelled corn @ 93.9 cts. per bu. 72.44 Feb. 11-Mar. 13, To 5130 lbs. shelled corn @ $1,007 per bu. 92.25 Mar. 13-Apr. 12, To 6170 lbs. shelled corn @ $1,138 per bu. 125.38 Apr. 12-May 2, To 4400 lbs. shelled corn @ $1,431 per bu. 112.44 Dec. 13-'May 2, To 4059 lbs. cottonseed meal @ $45.00 per ton 91.33 Dec. 13-May 2, To 18900 lbs. clover hay @ $12.00 per ton 113.40 Total expenditures .$1493.88 25 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS— Continued May 2, By 10 steers, weight 13637 lbs. @ $11.75 per cwt 1602.35 Total profit without pork 108.47 Profit per steer without pork 10.85 Dec. 13-May 2, To 2594 lbs. shelled corn fed hogs @ $1.06 per bu $49.10 Dec. 13-May 2, To 210 lbs. tankage fed hogs @ $70.00 per ton 7.35 Dec. 13-May 2, To 210 lbs. shorts fed hogs @ $50.00 per ton 5.25 Total cost of extra feed for hogs ...$61.70 May 2, By 1479 lbs. pork @ $15.50 per cwt 229.25 • Value of pork produced from droppings $ 167.55 Total receipts including pork 1769.90 Total profit including pork 276.02 Profit per steer including pork 27.60-^ Price received per bushel of corn fed cattle 1.788 Lot 3- — Nine Steers Fed Shelled Corn Cottonseed Meal and Alfalfa Hay, 1916-17 Dec. 13, To 9 steers, weight 9513 lbs. @ $8.15 per cwt... $ 775.31 Dec. 13-Jan. 12, To 2191 lbs. shelled corn @ 88.3 cts. per bu. 34.55 Jan. 12-Feb. 11, To 4020 lbs. shelled corn @ 93.9 cts. per bu. 67.41 Feb. 11-Mar. 13, To 4626 lbs. shelled corn @ $1,007 per bu. 83.19 Mar. 13-Apr. 12, To 5553 lbs. shelled corn @ $1,138 per bu. 112.85 Apr. 12-May 2, To 3960 lbs. shelled corn @ $1,431 per bu. 101.19 Dec. 13-May 2, To 3693 lbs. cottonseed meal @ $45.00 per ton 83.09 Dec. 13-May 2, To 18394 lbs. alfalfa hay @ $12.00 per ton 110.36 Total expenditures $1367.95 May 2, By 9 steers, weight 12235 lbs. @ $11.75 per cwt 1437.61 Total profit without pork $ 69.66 Profit per steer without pork 7.74 Dec. 13-May 2, To 2594 lbs. shelled corn fed hogs @ $1.06 per bu $ 49.10 Dec. 13-May 2, To 210 lbs. tankage fed hogs @ $70.00 per ton 7.35 Dec. 13-May 2, To 210 ibs. shorts fed hogs @ $50.00 per ton 5.25 Total cost of extra feed for hogs 61.70 May 2, By 1586 lbs. pork @ $15.50 per cwt 245.83 Value of pork produced from droppings $ 184.13 Total receipts including pork 1621.74 Total profit including pork 253.79 Profit per steer including pork , 28.20 Price received per bushel of corn fed cattle 1.797 26 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS— Continued Lot 4. — Ten Steers Fed Shelled Corn, Cottonseed Meal, Corn Silage and Clover Hay, 1916-17 Dec. 13, To 10 steers, weight 10443 lbs. @ $8.15 per cwt $ 851.10 Dec. 13-Jaii. 12, To 2435 lbs. shelled corn @ 88.3 cts. per bu. 38.39 Jan. 12-Feb. 11, To 3720 lbs. shelled corn @ 93.9 cts. per bu. 62.38 Feb. ll'Mar. 13, To 4400 lbs. shelled corn @ $1,007 per bu. 79.12 Mar. 13-Apr. 12, To 4800 lbs. shelled corn @ $1,138 per bu. 97.54 Apr. 12-May 2, To 3200 lbs. shelled corn @ $1,431 per bu. 81.77 Dec. 13-May 2, To 4184 lbs. cottonseed meal @ $45.00 per ton 94.14 Dec. 13-May 2, To 47425 lbs. corn silage @ $6.00 per ton 142.28 Dec. 13-May 2, To 2860 lbs. clover hay @ $12.00 per ton 17.16 Total expenditures $1463.88 May 2, By 10 steers, weight 13943 lbs. @ $12.00 per cwt 1673.16 Total profit without pork $ 209.28 Profit per steer without pork 20.93 Dec. 13-May 2, To 1996 lbs. shelled corn fed hogs @ $1.06 per bu $ 37.78 Dec. 13-May 2, To 210 lbs. tankage fed. hogs @ $70.00 per ton 7.35 Dec. 13-May 2, To 210 lbs. shorts fed hogs @ $50.00 per ton 5.25 Total cost of extra feed for hogs $ 50.38 May 2, By 1275 lbs. pork @ $15.50 per cwt 197.63 Value of pork produced from droppings Total receipts including pork Total profit including pork Profit per steer including pork Price received per bushel of corn fed cattle .$ 147.25 . 1820.41 . 356.53 . 35.65 2.16 Lot 5. — Ten Steers Fed No Corn, Cottonseed Meal, Corn Silage and Clover Hay, 1916-17 Dec. 13, To 10 steers, weight 10452 lbs. @ $8.15 per cwt $ 851.84 Dec. 13-May 2, To 4014 lbs. cottonseed meal @ $45.00 per ton 90.32 Dec. 13-May 2, •To 74495 lbs. corn silage @ $6.00 per ton 223.49 Dec. 13-May 2, To 4076 lbs. clover hay @ $12.00 per ton 24.46 Total expenditures $1190.11 May 2, By 10 steers, weight 12727 Ihs. @ $10.75 per cwt 1368.15 Total profit without pork 178.04 Total profit per steer without pork 17.80 Dec. 13-May 2, To 4324 lbs. shelled corn fed hogs @ $1.06 per bu $ 81.85 May 2, By 748 lbs. pork @ $15.50 per cwt 115.94 Value of pork produced from droppings $ 34.09 Total receipts including pork 1402.24 Total profit including pork 212.13 Profit per steer including pork 21.21 2 ? FINANCiAL ST ATEM ENTS— Continued Lot 6. — Ten Steers Fed One-half Feed Corn, Cottonseed Meal, Corn Silage, and Clover Hay, 1916-17 Dec. 13, To lO steers, weight 10448 lbs. @ $8.15 per cwt $ 851.51 Dec. 13-Jan. 12, To 1420 lbs. shelled corn (g) 88.3 cts. per bu 22.39 Jan. 12-Peb. 11, To 1860 lbs. shelled corn (g) 93.9 cts. per bu. 31.19 Feb. 11-Mar. 13, To 2200 lbs. shelled corn (g) $1,007 per bu. 39.56 Mar. 13-Apr. 12, To 2400 lbs. shelled corn @ $1,138 per bu. 48.77 Apr. 12-May 2, To 1600 lbs. shelled corn @ $1,431 per bu. 40.89 Dec. 13-May 2, To 3999 lbs. cottonseed meal @ $45.00 per ton 89.98 Dec. 13-May 2, To 59710 lbs. corn silage (g) $6.00 per ton 179.13 Dec. 13-May 2, To 3830 lbs. clover hay @ $12.00 per ton 22.98 Total expenditures $1326.40 May 2, By 10 steers, weight 12713 lbs. (g) $10.85 per cwt 1379.36 Total profit without pork 52.96 Profit per steer without pork 5.30 Dec. 13-May 2, To 3374 lbs. shelled corn fed hogs (g) $1.06 per bu $ 63.87 May 2, By 1035 lbs. pork (g) $15.50 per cwt 160.43 Value of pork produced from droppings $ 96.56 Total receipts including pork 1475.92 Total profit including pork 149.52 Profit per steer including pork 14.95 Price received per bushel of corn fed cattle 1.963 Lot 7. — Ten Steers Fed Shelled Corn, Cottonseed Meal, Corn Silage, and Alfalfa Hay, 1916-17 Dec. 13, To 10 steers, weight 10442 lbs. @ $8.15 per cwt $ 851.02 Dec. 13-Jan. 12, To 2435 lbs. shelled corn (g) 88.3 cts. per bu. 38.39 Jan. 12-Feb. 11, To 3720 lbs. shelled corn @ 93.9 cts. per bu. 62.38 Feb. 11-Mar. 13, To 4400 lbs. shelled corn @ $1,007 per bu. 79 12 Mar. 13-Apr. 12, To 4800 lbs. shelled corn @ $1,138 per bu. 97.54 Apr. 12-May 2, To 2970 lbs. shelled corn at $1,431 per bu. 75.89 Dec. 13-May 2, To 4049 lbs. cottonseed meal (g) $45.00 per ton 91.10 Dec. 13-May 2, To 47891 lbs. corn silage @ $6.00 per ton 143.67 Dec. 13-May 2, To 2237 lbs. clover hay (g) $12.00 per ton 13.42 Total expenditures $1452 53 May 2, By 10 steers, weight 13258 lbs. @ $12.00 per cwt 1590.96 Total profit without pork $ 138.43 Profit per steer without pork 13.84 Dec. 13-May 2, To 1959 lbs. shelled corn fed to hogs (g) $1.06 per bu $ 37.08 May 2, By 990 lbs. pork @ $15.50 per cwt 153.45 Value of pork produced from droppings $ 116.37 Total receipts including pork 1707.33 Total profit including pork 254.80 Profit per steer including pork 25.48 Price received per bushel of corn fed cattle 1 1.858 3D, 7 1 7j- .AJ3t , PukoUE CV ILI UNIVERSITY 0EQ 1 4 Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 207, Vol. XX August, 1917 GOOSEBERRIES AND CURRANTS Published by the Station: LAFAYETTE, INDIANA U. S. A. •i ,jlS i t 191E BOARD OF CONTROL Joseph D. Oliver, President Fay S. Chandler Charles Dow^ning John A. Hillenbrand Cyrus M. Hobbs Warren T. McCray James W. Noel George W. Purcell Andrew E. Reynolds WiNTHROP E. Stone, A. M., Pli. D. South Bend, St. Joseph County Indianapolis, Marion County Greenfield, Hancock County Batesville, Ripley County Bridgeport, Marion County Kentland. Newton County Indianapolis, Marion County Vincennes, Knox County ■Crawfordsville, Montgomery County President of the University STATION STAFF HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS Arthur Goss^ M. S., A. C George I. Christie, B. S. A Robert A. Craig, D. V. M Otto F. Hunziker, M. S Herbert S. Jackson, A. B William J. Jones, Jr., M. S., A. C.^. John H. Skinner, B. S James Troop, M. S Alfred T. Wiancko, B, S. A Charles G. Woodbury, M. S Director ■Sup’t Agricultural Extension Chief Veterinarian ....Chief in Dairy Husbandry Chief in Botany State Chemist -Chief in Animal Husbandry Chief in Entomology Chief in Soils and Crops Chief in Horticulture ASSOCIATES AND ASSISTANTS JOHN M. Aldrich, Ph. D.s Entomological Assistant Evelyn Allison, B. S Assistant in Botany Sherman L. Anderson, B. S Assistant in Creamery Inspection Paul R. Bausman, B. S.^ Inspector State Chemist Department James C. Beavers, B. Agr Associate in Soils and Crops Extension Reuben O. Bitler, B. S.* Deputy State Chemist Charles S. Brewster. M. S Assistant in Poultry Husbandry Turner H. Broughton, B. S Assistant in Creamery Inspection Harry D. Burnside, B. S. A.^ Inspector State Chemist Department Ralph E. Caldwell, B. S Associate in Milk Production Glenn G. Carter. B. S.^ Inspector State Chemist Department David B. Clark, D. M. C Assistant Veterinarian Carl H. Clink, B, S Assistant in Serum Production Thomas A. Coleman Ass’t State Leader Field Studies and Demonstrations Samuel D. Conner, M. S Associate Chemist in Soils and Crops Clinton O. Cromer, B, S Associate in Crops Carleton Cutler, B. S.* First Deputy State Chemist and Microscopist (Feeds) JOHN J. Davis, B, S.^ Entomological Assistant in Charge Ralph B. Deemer, B. S.^ Deputy State Chemist Leo P. Doyle, B. S Assistant in Animal Pathology William F. Epple, Ph. G Assistant in Dairy Chemistry Martin L. Fisher, M. S Assistant Chief in Soils and Crops Omar W. Ford, A. B.* Deputy State Chemist George M. Frier, B. S. A Associate iu Charge of Short Courses and Exhibits Leslie R, George, B. S Assistant in Animal Pathology Mabel L. Harlan Assistant in Agricultural Extension Cora A. Jacobs, A. M.^ Seed Analyst Sadocib C. Jones, M. S Assistant in Soils Lawrence C. Kigin, D. V. M Assistant Veterinarian Franklin G. King, B. S Associate in Animal Husbandry Walter H. Larrimer, B. S.* Scientific Assistant Herbert E. McCartney, B. S. A Assistant in Animal Husbandry Extension Edwin B. Mains, Ph. D Assistant in Botany Preston W. Mason, B. S Assistant in Entomology Shirley L. Mason, A. B.* Scientific Assistant Horace C. Mills, B. S Associate in Dairy Manufactures Herman J. Nimitz, B. S.* Deputy State Chemist Harry A. Noyes, M. S. ..Research Assistant in Horticultural Chemistry and Bacteriology Joseph Oskamp, B. S Research Assistant in Pomology George A. Osner, Ph. D Associate in Botany Harry C. Paine, D. V. M Associate Veterinarian Allen G. Philips, B. S. A Associate in Poultry Husbandry Edward G. Proulx, M. S.* First Deputy State Chemist (Fertilizers) Harry J. Reed Associate in Horticulture Charles C Rees, M. A Assistant in Botany Dean A. Ricker, B. S.s Scientific Assistant Otis S. Roberts, B. S.* Chief Inspector State Chemist Department J. Howard Roop, B. S.* Deputy State Chemist Harry R. Rosen, M. S Assistant in Rust Work George Spitzer, Ph. G.. B. S Associate in Dairy Chemistry Chester G. Starr, B. S. A Assistant in Swine Production and Management Herbert B. Switzer, B. S. A Assistant in Dairy Bacteriology Samuel F. Thornton, B. S.* Deputy State Chemist Chester F. Turner, B. S.» Scientific Assistant Gilbert P. Walker, B. S Assistant in Soils and Crops Fred L. Walkey, D. V. M Assistant Veterinarian Rex a. Whiting, D. V. M Associate in Animal Pathology Nellie Tracy Secretary to the Director and Librarian Mary K. B loom Bookkeeper 1 In charge of Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control 2 Detailed by U. S. Department of Agriculture — Seed Testing « Detailed by U. S. Department of Agriculture — Cereal and Forage Crop In- sect Investigations * Connected with Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control ADVISORY COMMITTEE (UNDER LEGISLATIVE ACT OF 1909) J. P. Prigg, Daleville State Live Stock Association U. R. Fishel, Hope State Poultry Fanciers’ Association H. H, SwAiM, South Bend State Horticultural Society D. B, Johnson, Mooresville State Dairy Association D. F. Maish, Frankfort State Corn Growers’ Association GOOSEBERRIES AND CURRANTS Prepared under the direction of C. G. Woodbury By JOSKPH OSKAMP Gooseberries and currants are the least important commercially of the small fruits in Indiana. They are quite common in the home gardens of the State where they are usually grown under continual neglect. Considering the many culinary uses to which they can be put, it is surprising they are not more extensively grown. These fruits, however, seem to have been more popular with our for- bears than with this generation. Currants have long been prized by the housewife and are the standard par excellence in jellies. Goose- berries make a very fine jelly, preserve, or when canned ripe and made into a sauce, serve as an excellent tart to eat with meat or fowl. LOCATION Both of these crops require similar climatic and soil con- ditions. They do best in a cool climate and rich soil, but have a sufficiently wide range of adaptation to thrive in all parts of the State. They will stand excessively low temperatures without winter-killing in either bud or wood, which adds to their reliability as croppers. While the climatic conditions in southern Indiana are not as congenial as might be wished, the clayey character of the soil of much of that region is a distinct advantage. Gooseberries and currants will thrive but indifferently where the summers are very hot and the soil is light and sandy. In the southern part of the State more spraying will be necessary to maintain a healthy foliage. A northern exposure is desirable when possible, or plant- ing in the orchard where the plants will be shaded a portion of the day, is practical with these crops. In the home garden, planting on the north side of a fence or building is permissible. PLANTING It is essential that the soil be suitably prepared to receive the plants, by deep plowing, thorough disking, dragging and harrowing, or in the small garden by a deep spading and raking. These fruits should be set in ground that has previously been in a cultivated crop. They should not follow sod. The distance of planting will-vary with the richness of the soil and the habits of the variety chosen. The comnaon spacing is five by five feet or rows six feet apart and plants four feet apart in the row. Five by five feet does very nicely for many of the less vigorous European sorts or with a trim bush like Oregon Champion, but scarcely suffices for a variety like Houghton when the plants have reached an age of six or seven years. Four by six feet or six by six feet is preferable to a less distance for planting gooseberries or currants. Both spring and fall planting are practiced successfully. Fall planting may often be a distinct advantage because the plants natur- 4 ally lose their leaves early in the fall and are soon ready to set, whereas they leaf out very early in the spring. In fall planting, it is well to protect the plants with straw or leaves. Planting in the spring, if done early is safe and the uncertain effects of the winter are avoided. Having the land properly prepared, it may be laid off by run- ning a marker in one direction and plowing deep furrows in the other. The plants are set in the furrows by drawing the earth about their roots and firming it well. In the home garden, the spade is generally used but whatever the method of setting, it is highly im- portant to have the soil pressed tightly about the roots of the plants. CULTURE Some means must be taken to conserve the soil moisture and keep down weeds. In plantings of any size, cultivation is generally the most feasible. way to accomplish this end. The surface of the Fig-. 1. A well cultivated field of currants. Good cultivation means increased production ground should be kept pulverized until the bushes have made their growth, when a cover crop may be sown. Millet is quite satisfactory for this purpose. Shallow cultivation is the best, so as to avoid dis- turbing the feeding roots which are near the surface. In the home garden if cultivation is inconvenient, instead of allowing a sod to form about the plants, give them a heavy mulch of straw, cuttings from the lawn, etc. This will keep the soil moist and cool and it will be found that the bushes will do much better than where left to compete with grass and weeds. In cases where it is practicable, mulch could take the place of cultivation even on a large scale. 5 While the bushes may survive under almost complete neglect, there is no profit in this way of growing them. They will be found to respond bountifully to the best attentions of the grower. It is especially beneficial if the plants can be heavily manured each fall. No fear of applying too much manure need be entertained. PRUNING The principle which should govern the pruning of goose- berries and currants is the fact that the finer fruit and the most fruit is borne on the younger wood, — two year old wood is in its prime and four year old wood is much deteriorated. Pruning then, consists in cutting off the oldest canes each year at the surface of the ground and thinning out the weakest of the young growth, leaving the stouter shoots for renewal. Eight to 12 canes make a bush of ample proportions. While clipping back the annual growth is sometimes practiced, this but serves to increase the denseness of the bushes which are sufficiently crowded and difficult to pick at best. Such a procedure will succeed in keeping young wood coming on but renewal is better accomplished by saving a certain number of new sprouts which spring up from the roots each year. INSECTS There are four types of insects which are more or less common on gooseberry and currant plants in the State; scale, leaf eating worms, borers and plant lice. The scale which infests the stems of the plant can be controlled by giving a winter spray of concentrated lime-sulfur, — 5 degrees Baume, or approximately one gallon to eight gallons of water. Leaf eating worms can be poisoned by spraying as soon as they appear, with arsenate of lead, two pounds of the paste or one pound of the powder and two pounds of lime to 50 gallons of water. The borers are difficult to control, as the grub-like worms bur- row in the pith of the canes where they are beyond the reach of sprays. About the only remedy is to cut out all infested canes in the spring before the borers emerge, and burn them. Occasionally small, green or yellow bugs will be found on the under sides of currant leaves, causing the foliage to curl. These are plant lice or aphids which suck the sap of the foliage to the great detriment of the plants. They can be killed if spraying is done early, before the leaves curl and protect the lice from the spray solution. Use nicotine-sulfate, one fluid ounce^ to eight gal- lons of water, and add four ounces of laundry soap. Use an angle nozzle, so the under sides of the leaves can be sprayed thoroughly, for each louse must be hit with the solution to kill it. DISEASES Diseases probably do more damage to gooseberries and currants than insects, because the cause of the trouble is often less apparent. 1 This recommendation is based on nicotine-sulfate containing 40 per cent, nico- tine. For nicotine-sulfate of less strength, use proportionately more material 6 The mildew is a very common disease affecting especially the European varieties of gooseberries. The native sorts are almost immune. It appears on the young, growing parts of the plants pro- ducing a white, powdery, thread-like effect. The disease may be con- trolled by spraying the bushes either with potassium sulfide one ounce to two gallons of water, or concentrated lime-sulfur one part to forty parts of water. The first application should be made as the buds are opening and every two weeks thereafter if the dis- ease is serious. Leaf spot is one of the most serious diseases of gooseberries and currants in the State and one generally ignored by the grower. It is responsible for the defoliating of the bushes early in the sea- son, often before the fruit is picked and the bushes become weaker and weaker each year. Spraying with concentrated lime-sulfur^ when the buds open in the spring and at intervals of three weeks or as often thereafter as seems necessary, will keep the foliage healthy. PICKING AND MARKETING Currants must be picked with care if they are to hold up under shipment and present a fresh and attractive appearance in the pack- age. Each cluster should be handled by the stem so as not to crush the fruit. For distant shipment, pick while the fruit is yet firm. The i6-quart hallock case is generally preferred to larger containers for shipping currants. Gooseberries are practically always marketed in the green state, making them one of the easiest fruits to handle after they are once off the bushes. Picking is a tedious task especially with the more thorny varieties. On a commercial scale, the .fruit is often stripped from the bushes, leaves and all, by pickers wearing heavy gloves. This makes a quick job of picking, after which the fruit is passed through an ordinary grain fanning mill to rid it of leaves. Sixteen and twenty-four-quart cases are in common use for this fruit, although in special cases grape baskets or even barrels are used. PROPAGATION The currant and gooseberry may be propagated from eight or ten-inch cuttings taken from one year old wood. If taken in the fall, they can be kept in damp sand or sawdust in the cellar or buried butt ends up, in a well drained spot out-of-doors and planted in the spring. The cuttings may also be made early in the spring before the bushes leaf out and planted directly in the field. As many varieties of gooseberries do not root readily from cuttings, they are often mound-layered. This practice consists in cutting back the bushes very severely and the following summer when the shoots have about made their growth, the bushes are mounded up with earth to within a few inches of the ends of these young shoots, each of which will make a plant. The American 1 For the preparation and dilution of concentrated lime-sulfur see Purdue Uni- versity Extension Leaflet No. 48 7 varieties will produce a satisfactory root system the same season and are ready for transplanting in the fall, while European varie- ties are left two seasons before separating. VARIETIES Varieties oe Gooseberries. — The descriptions of the follow- ing varieties are the results of five years’ notes and observations at this station on 25 plants of each variety set in 1910. Those varie- ties that can be particularly recommended are indicated by an asterisk. The European gooseberries are not to be generally advocated for Indiana planting, except possibly as a novelty in the home garden where their large size and attractiveness make them desirable to eat out of hand when ripe. This is a favorite way to utilize the fruit in England, but as Americans use gooseberries ex- clusively for culinary purposes and have become accustomed to using them green, there is little demand for the ripe fruit. The chief virtue of the European varieties is their large size. They can not be said to be superior in quality when ripe to our best native sorts and they are much inferior in yield. Carman. — ^Fruit oval, medium to large, green- ish yellow; skin covered with hairy spines, medium to thin, slightly transparent, veins distinct; pulp medium firm, subacid, fair. Bush low, spreading, medium to below in vigor, thorns many, long; foli- age medium small, dark, glossy. Very unproductive. Plants begin to fail at six to eight years old. Chautauqua. — Fruit round, medium size, pale green; skin moderately thick, smooth, transparent, veins inconspicuous; pulp moderately firm, juicy, fine grained, subacid, tart, attractive, very good. Fruit resembles Downing in appearance. Bush tall, upright, vigorous; thorns many, moderately long; foliage medium, slightly glossy; suckers many. Fairly productive. European-American. Columbus. — ^^Fruit round to oblong, large, light green; skin smooth, thick, veins distinct; pulp medium, subacid to sweet, good. Bush moderately tall, upright, vigorous; foliage medium in size and color, glossy, leathery; suckers few. Fairly pro- ductive. One of the healthiest of the European varieties. European. Crown Bob. — Fruit round to oval, large, medium green turning to reddish purple; skin hairy, mod- erately thick, not transparent, veins distinct; pulp medium firm, subacid to almost sweet, good. Bush low, small, moderately upright; foliage small, dark, factory European glossy, leathery; suckers few. Very unproductive, varieties. B^ause of Plants begin to fail at six to eight years old. pi*® j* i’® o .7 planted m the home European. garden as a novelty Fig. 2. Columbus — one of the most satis- 8 Downing*. — ^Fruit round, medium size, light green; skin moderately thick, smooth, not transparent, veins distinct; pulp moderately firm, juicy, sub-acid, tart, at- tractive, very good. Bush moderately tall, somewhat spreading, very vigorous; thorns many, medium length; foliage medium; suckers many, stocky. Productive. One of the most popular and reliable varieties, American- European. Houghton*. — Fruit round, small, light green, turn- ing reddish purple when ripe; skin medium thick, trans- parent, smooth, veins prominent; pulp moderately firm, fine grained, subacid, tart, “spicy,” attractive, very good. Bush quite tall, gradually spreading, ends of branches slender, very vigorous; foliage medium, thorns medium; suckers many, rather slender. Very productive. A standard American variety, but the fruit is quite small. American. Industry. — Fruit round, oval, large, green turning to reddish purple, skin moderately thick, covered with a few hairy spines, not transparent, veins distinct; pulp medi- um firm, subacid, quality fair. Bush moderately tall, generally upright, moderately vigorous; thorns many, long; foliage medium small, dark, glossy, leathery; suckers few. Fair- W ly productive. Plants begin to fail at six to eight years old. European. j Josselyn* (American Red Jacket.) — Fruit generally round, medium large, light green shading to red when ripe; — skin medium smooth, veins distinct; pulp medium firm, subacid, lively, good. Bush medium height, spreading, very vigorous; thorns many, quite long; foliage medium in color, glossy; suckers numerous, stocky. Productive. A dependable variety, slightly larger than Downing. American-European. Keepsake. — Fruit oval to round, large, light green; skin almost smooth, moderately thick, not transparent, veins distinct; pulp moderately firm, subacid, suitable for home sharp, fair to good. Bush moderately Upright to spreading, vigorous; thorns medium number, long; foliage medium size, dark, glossy, leathery; suckers medium number, stocky. Unproductive. Plants begin to fail at six to eight years old. European. Lancashire Lad. — ^Fruit round to oval, large, green shaded with purplish red when ripe; skin slightly hairy, rather thin, dense, veins moderately distinct; pulp some- what soft, juicy, almost sweet, good. Bush low, moder- ately upright, rather weak; foliage medium size, dark, glossy; thorns many, long; suckers few. Very unproduc- tive. Plants fail at an early age. European. Mountain. — Fruit round, occasionally oval, medium 4 Hough- to small, green changing to brownish purple; skin trans- ton— very produc Fig. 3. Down- ing — long a favo- rite variety ; larger than Houghton and tive, small, but has an excellent j flavor when ripe, to very good. Bush low, vigorous, very thorny, slender Fine for home use parent, smooth, veins prominent, thread-like; pulp mod- erately firm, subacid, sweetish, “snappy,” quality good 9 drooping branches, a tangled mass very difficult to pick; foliage medium. Unproductive. American-European. Oregon Champion*. — Fruit round, light green becom- ing yellow when ripe; skin thin, transparent, smooth, veins distinct; pulp soft when ripe, subacid, somewhat flat, fair to good. Bush tall, upright, very vigorous; foliage small, dark, glossy, leathery; thorns medium; suckers medium to few, stocky. Immensely productive. A very heavy cropper and desirable commercial sort, but should be picked quite green, for if allowed to hang, it sunburns and becomes soft and worthless for market. EuropeannAmerican. Pearl*. — Fruit round, medium size, light green, skin moderately thick, smooth, dense, veins distinct; pulp moderately firm, juicy, subacid, tart, attractive, very good. Bush medium tall, upright to moderately spreading, very vigorous; foliage medium; thorns numerous, medium long; suckers many, stocky. Produc- tive. Similar to Downing and can be reconimended for planting. American- European. Portage. — Fruit round to oval, large, light green; skin thick, hairy, veins distinct; pulp moderately firm, coarse, subacid, fair to good. Bush low, moderately upright, below medi- um in vigor; foliage medium small, dark, glossy, leathery; thorns many, long; suckers few, stocky. Very un- productive. Plants fail at an early age. European. Smith (Smith Improved). — Fruit roundish, oval, large, grass green; Fig. 5. Oregon Skin thin, practically smooth, trans- champion — the parent, veins distinct; pulp soft, sub- ^rvar^eS^test- sweetish, quality good. Bush ed at this sta- low and flat, vigorous; foliage medi- tion. An excel- um; thoms many, long; suckers sort medium. Very unproductive. Euro- peamAmerican. Whitesmith. — Fruit practically round, large, pale green, skin thick, dense, veins distinct; pulp moder- ately firm, subacid, tart, good. Bush medium tall, upright, vigorous; foliage medium small, dark, glossy, leathery; thorns medium, many, very long; suckers very few. Unproductive. European. Varieties of Currants. — Seventeen vari- eties of currants were planted at this station at the same time the gooseberries were set out. Three of these varieties were black currants, — Lee Black, Black Champion and Black Victoria. They Fig. 6. White- smith is quite repre- sentative of other European varieties. Its chief merit is its are very unproductive, have a peculiarly disagree- large size, it is not recommended f — Indiana planting able odor and the black fruit is not generally 10 saleable except in cities having a large foreign population. There is not much choice between the varieties of red currants, except in produc- tiveness and size. Red Cross is one of the best commercial sorts and equally good for home use, being very productive and of medium size. North Star is also a very productive variety. Wilder is a larger currant, but somewhat less productive than Red Cross. Red Dutch is very productive, but small. Cherry. — Cluster short, berries medium to large, bright red, good flavor. Bush medium height, moderately spreading, fairly vigorous; foliage medium to large, light green. Unpro- ductive. Diploma. — Cluster short, round to oblong, berries large, medium to light red, mild flavor. Bush tall, upright, very -vigorous; large dark green foliage. Fairly productive. Fays. — Cluster short, berries medium to large, bright red, juicy, good quality. Bush medium to short, spreading, fairly vigorous. Fig. 7. Diploma— one of large, dark green foliage. Unproductive, the largrest currants in size, London Market. — ^^Cluster medium length, man productive as slightly tapering, berries medium in size, dark red, quality good. Bush tall, slightly spreading, very vigorous, foliage medium size and color. Very productive. North Star. — Cluster medium length, berries medium size, bright red, moderately juicy, acid, good. Bush tall, upright, very vigorous; foliage medium size, dark green. Very productive. Perfection. — Cluster medium, berries large bright red, juicy, very good. Bush medium size, spreading, vigorous; foliage medium. Productive. Pomona. — ^Cluster medium length, slightly taper- ing, berries medium red, flavor sprightly, good. Bush low, moderately spreading, fairly vigorous; foliage dark green, medium to small. Productive. Red Cross. — ^^Cluster medium length, rectagular, berries medium size, bright red, juicy, quality good. Bush tall, upright, very vigorous; foliage medium to small, dark green. Very productive. Red Dutch. — ^Cluster medium length, slightly tapering, berries medium to small, dark red, flavor acid, good. Bush tall, slightly spreading, very vigor- ous; foliage medium size, dark green. Very produc- tive. Versailles. — ^Cluster medium length, berries medi- um to large, bright red, juicy, acid, good. Bush medium to tall, upright, vigorous; foliage medium size, dark green. Unproductive. Fig. 8. Red Cross — a good commer- cial variety ; very productive rig. 9. Wilder — ^larger than Red Cross but not so productive, although still a good market sort Victoria. — Cluster medium length, ber- ries small, deep red, acid, quality medium to good. Bush rather small, upright, fairly vigorous; foliage medium. Productive. White Grape. — Cluster medium long, tapering, berries medium size, white, sub- acid, good. Bush medium height, slightly spreading, vigorous; foliage medium. Fair- ly productive. White Imperial. — Cluster rather long, very little taper, berries medium size, white, subacid, good. Bush medium height, spread- ing, vigorous; foliage medium. Fairly pro- ductive. Wilder.—Cluster medium to short, ber- ries large, light red, thin skin, juicy, mild, subacid, very good. Bush medium to tall, upright, very vigorous; foliage small, dark. Productive. Fig. 10. The tools necessary for effective cultivation in the berry field. Note especially the home-made, one-horse drag for crushing clods ✓ A. j!.. U ■ / / ' / PURDUE UNIVERSITY DEC Agricultural Experiment Station BULtETIN No. 208, VOL. XX September, 1917 THE PASTEURIZATION OF SOUR FARM- SKIMMED CREAM FOR BUTTERMAKING Published by the'Station: LAFAYETTE, INDIANA U. S. A. PURDUE UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BOARD OF CONTROL Joseph D. Oliver^ President, South Bend Pay S. Chandler Indianapolis Warren T. McCray Kentland Charles Downing Greenfield James W. Noel Indianapolis John A. Hillenbrand Batesville George W. Purcell Vincennes CYRUS M. Hobbs Bridgeport Andrew E. Reynolds Crawfordsville WiNTHROP E. Stone, A. M., Ph. D President of the University ADVISORY COMMITTEE (Under Legislative Act of 1909) U. R. Fishel, Hope D. F. Maish, Frankfort State Poultry Fanciers^ Association State Corn Growers^ Association D. B. Johnson, Mooresville J. P. Prigg, Daleville State Dairy Association State Live Stock 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 -4nimal 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 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 Sherman L. Anderson, B. S Assistant in Creamery Inspection 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 POULTRY HUSBANDRY Allen G. Philips, B. S. A., Chief Charles S. Brewster, M. 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.^ State Chemist Edward G. Proulx, M. S.^.. Acting State Chemist Reuben O. Bitler, B. S. 2 .. ..Deputy State Chemist Carleton Cutler, B. S.^ First Deputy State Chemist and Microscopist (Feeds) Ralph B. Deemer, B. S. 2 .. Deputy State Chemist Omar W. Ford, A. B.^ Deputy State Chemist Herman J. Nimitz, B. S. 2 . .Deputy State Chemist J. Howard Roop, B. S.2....Deputy State Chemist Samuel P. Thornton, B. S.^ Deputy State Chemist Otis S. Roberts, B. S.^ Chief Inspector State Chemist’s Department Paul R. Bausman, B. S.^ Inspector State Chemist’s Department Harry D. Burnside, B. S. A .2 Inspector State Chemist’s Department Glenn G. Carter, B. S.^ Inspector State Chemist’s Department VETERINARY SCIENCE Robert A. Cr-4.ig, 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 Shirley L. Mason, A. B 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 » In charge of Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control * Connected with Fertilizer and Feeding Stuff Control 8 Died August 31, 1917 THE PASTEURIZATION OF SOUR, FARM- SKIMMED CREAM FOR BUTTERMAKING' O. F. Hunziker Ge:orge: Spitzkr H. C. Mirrs H. B. Switzrr SUMMARY 1. Fresh butter made from sour cream pasteurized at 145 de- grees F. and held for 20 minutes, scored 2.9 points higher than fresh butter made from raw sour cream. Fresh butter made from sour cream pasteurized at 165 degrees F. flash and at 185 degrees F. flash respectively, scored practically the same as fresh butter made from raw sour cream. 2. After 30 days cold storage, the butter made from sour cream pasteurized at 145 degrees F. holding, and 165 degrees F. and 185 degrees F. flash process, scored 3.9 points, 2.0 points and 2.4 points higher, respectively, than the butter made from raw sour cream. 3. After 90 days storage, the pasteurized cream butter scored 4.5 points, 2.9 points and 3.2 points, respectively, higher than butter made from raw cream. 4. On the basis of a difference of two cents between extras and firsts, and two cents between firsts and seconds, and assuming that extras are worth 30 cents, the holding process butter would sell at 1.6 cents, 1.7 cents, 1.7 cents and 2.0 cents higher when fresh and when 30, 60 and 90 days old, respectively, than the raw cream butter. On the same basis, butter from the flash process at 185 degrees F. would sell at -.2 cent, .9 cent, i.i cents and 1.3 cents higher when fresh and when 30, 60 and 90 days old, respectively, than raw cream butter. 5. The holding process at 145 degrees F. for 20 minutes proved more efficient in its germ killing effect than either of the two flash processes, averaging a germ killing efficiency of over 99.9 per cent. The flash process at 185 degrees F. showed a slightly lower germ killing efficiency than the holding process and the 165 degrees F. flash process had a germ killing efficiency of not to exceed 90 per cent. 6. The minimum temperature and time at which the holding process insures maximum germ killing efficiency and keeping qual- ity is 145 degrees F. for 20 minutes. Nothing is gained by longer exposure to 145 degrees F. ; in fact, excessive exposure is undesir- able, because it tends to give the butter a mealy body. 7. The butter made from cream pasteurized at 185 degrees F. flash showed the best keeping quality. This is probably due to its power not only to destroy germs but also to inhibit the action of enzymes. 1 Acknowledgment is due Mr. M. S. Libbert, Assistant in Dairy Bacteriology, for assistance in baoterioiogical work, and Mr. W. P. Epple, Assistant in Dairy Chemistry for valuable assistance in chemical analyses 4 8. " The 185 degrees F. flash process proved unsuitable for pasteurization of sour cream, causing the butter to have a distinct oily flavor. This appears to be due to the combined action of high heat and high acid. In the case of sweet cream or sour cream in which the acid has been properly reduced by neutralization before pasteurization this oily flavor is much less pronounced. 9. The germ killing efficiency of pasteurization in summer is greater and the keeping quality of such butter is better than that of winter cream and butter, showing that winter cream contains more resistant and undesirable ferments than summer cream. 10. The quality and sweetness of cream affect both raw and pasteurized cream butter in the same direction, but proper pasteur- ization is capable of producing marked improvement in the quality of butter even from inferior cream. 11. In order to reap the full benefit of pasteurization, cream and butter must be guarded against recontamination after pasteur- ization. An unclean vat may reduce the efficiency of pasteurization 50 per cent. Pure air, sanitary condition of sewers, freedom of the factory from flies, cleanliness of vats, pipes, conduits, coolers and churns, purity of starter and wash water, and the sanitary condition of the packing equipment are all essential in safeguarding the bene- fits of pasteurization. 12. When cream is put in proper condition for pasteurization, and other conditions are as they should be, there is no danger of excessive loss of fat in the buttermilk from pasteurized cream. Pasteurization of mixed sweet and sour cream without giving the acid in the sour cream time to act normally on the curd in the sweet cream, pasteurization of excessively thin sour cream, the churning at too high temperatures or not holding the cream long enough at the churning temperature, and the overcrowding of the churn, are bound to reduce the exhaustiveness of the churning and to cause heavy loss of fat in the buttermilk. 13. Pasteurization does not materially affect the chemical com- position of butter. It has a tendency, however, to slightly lower the per cent, moisture, curd and acid in butter. 14. In storage, the per cent, lactose in butter decreases and • the acidity increases. These changes are greater in raw cream butter than in pasteurized cream butter. The increase in acidity is not proportionate to the decrease in lactose. 15. The fat constants in butter in storage undergo but very slight changes. These changes average somewhat greater in raw cream butter than in pasteurized cream butter, but they are too far within the limits of the experimental error to permit of serious com- parison. The fat constants in butter fat held at room temperature for II months showed slightly greater changes, but even these changes were in no way commensurate with the intense deterioration of the flavor of the fat. 5 1 6. These results suggest the probability that some of the flavor defects in storage butter may be due, at least in part, to hydrolysis or oxidation of some of the fats and that very slight changes in the fat constants may create most intense depreciation in the flavor of butter fat and butter. 17. All butter held in cold storage showed an increase of cleavage products of the proteins as determined by proteins not precipitated by bromine, copper sulphate, phosphotungstic and tan- nic acid. This increase in protein decomposition was much more rapid after butter had been transferred from cold storage to room temperature. 18. The protein decomposition was greatest in the raw cream butter and least in the butter made from cream pasteurized at 185 degrees F. flash process, showing that this process proved most ef- ficient in retarding protein hydrolysis, probably due to its power to destroy the activity of enzymes contained in cream. 19. Protein hydrolysis in butter may be brought about by such agents as ferments, both microorganisms and enzymes, acids, salts and metals through catalytic action. Cream of poor quality and old cream furnish favorable conditions for rapid protein hy- drolysis in butter. 20. Protein hydrolysis plays a prominent role in the deteriora- tion of butter in storage. It can be minimized by improving the quality of the cream, proper pasteurization, reduction of acidity, dis- carding of rusty cans, protection of cream and butter against con- tamination with metals and metallic salts, sanitary equipment such as cans, forewarmers, vats, conduits, pipes, pumps and churns, thor- ough washing of the butter, proper treatment of liners and wrap- pers, cleanliness of packing and printing equipment and guarding butter against exposure to high temperatures in storage and in transit. PURPOSE The purpose of the experiments recorded in this bulletin was : 1. To determine the effect of pasteurization of sour, farm sep- arator cream on the flavor, keeping quality and market value of butter. 2. To study the effect of different processes of pasteurization on the bacterial count of cream and butter and on the flavor and keeping quality of butter. 3. To study the effect of pasteurization on the chemical prop- erties of fresh and stored butter. 4. To determine the causes underlying the changes of the flavor of raw and pasteurized cream butter in storage. 6 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE EXPERIMENT In order to render the results of this investigation conclusive, every reasonable effort was made to eliminate from the experiment, as far as possible, all factors interfering with uniformity and com- parableness of operation and results, and to study this complex problem from all apparent angles. Approximately 1600 pounds of cream were used for each set of experiments. After grading and testing for fat and acid, this cream was poured into a 300-gallon vat, where it was mixed thoroughly. This mixed cream was then divided into four equal portions, or churnings, which were used as follows: Churning i — churned raw. Churning 2 — pasteurized at 145 degrees F. holding for 20 minutes. Churning 3 — pasteurized at 165 degrees F. flash process. Churning 4 — pasteurized at 185 degrees F. flash process. The cream was of average quality such as is received from routes, stations and direct shippers, testing between 30 and 40 per cent, fat and having an acidity of .3 to .7 per cent. None of the cream was neutralized and to each of the four churnings of cream of one and the same experiment, 10 per cent, lactic acid starter, taken from the same lot of starter milk for each set of experiments, was added. The cream of each churning was held at the churning temperature over night ; was then churned, salted and worked in the usual manner. The cream pasteurized with the holding process was heated in a coil ripening vat to 145 degrees F. and held at that temperature for 20 minutes. It was then cooled rapidly to the churning tempera- ture. The cream pasteurized at 165 degrees F. flash process was run through a Jensen No. 4 pasteurizer at 165 degrees F. and then over a surface cooler into a ripening vat. The cream pasteurized at 185 degrees F. flash process was heated and cooled in the same manner as that pasteurized at 165 degrees F., except that the temperature was raised to 185 degrees F. All cream was held over night and churned the following morn- ing. All churnings were made in the Simplex Churn No. 3. All churnings of cream were sampled and tested for total bac- terial count, acid bacteria, liquefying bacteria, yeasts and molds, be- fore and after pasteurization. Six five-pound fibre boxes were filled with the butter from each ’ churning and the butter was scored by two judges while fresh, and when 30, 60 and 90 days old. These five-pound boxes of butter were held in storage at o degrees F. to 20 degrees F. 7 Bacterial and chemical analyses were also made of the butter. The chemical analyses of this portion of the experiment were con- fined to determinations of the per cent, moisture, salt, curd and acid in butter. In another and separate experiment conducted in a similar manner, the butter fat constants and protein cleavage products in the fresh and stored butter were determined. In this case, the butter was not scored regularly as it was held in storage in Chicago, and no scores are herein inserted of the butter which was used for the determination of the fat constants and protein cleavage products. EFFECT OF PASTEURIZATION OF SOUR CREAM ON THE SCORE OF BUTTER WHEN FRESH AND WHEN 30, 60 AND 90 DAYS OLD The detailed scores of the fresh and stored butter are recorded in Tables XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX and XXX, herein appended. The average scores of 132 churnings of fresh butter and butter 30 and 60 days old made from raw cream and from cream pas- teurized at 145 degrees F. and held for 20 minutes, at 165 degrees F. flash process, and at 185 degrees F. flash process, are shown in Table I. Tabli^ I. — Showing Average Scores of 132 Churnings of Butter when Fresh and when 30 and 60 Days Old, Respectively Raw and pasteurized cream butter Scores of butter fresh 30 days 60 days Raw cream butter 88.48 86.03 85.23 Pasteurized at 145 degrees P. and held for 20 minutes 91.02 89.82 88.97 Pasteurized at 165 degrees P. flash 89.45 88.25 87.93 Pasteurized at 185 degrees P. flash 87.78 88.18 88.03 Similar results were obtained in 72 churnings which were scored when fresh and when 30, 60 and 90 days old as shown in Table II. TablK II. — Showing Scores of 72 Churnings of Butter when Fresh, and after Storage for 30, 60 and 90 Days, Respectively Raw and pasteurized cream butter Scores of butter fresh 30 days 60 days 90 days Raw cream butter 87.63 85.46 85.56 84.75 Pasteurized at 145 degrees P. and held for 20 minutes 90.66 89.44 89.37 89.26 Pasteurized at 165 degrees P. flash 87.96 87.48 88.13 87.94 Pasteurized at 185 degrees P. flash 87.12 87.78 88.16 87.97 8 There is a striking similarity in the results presented in both Table I and Table 11 . In each case, the raw cream butter showed the poorest keeping quality and tlie butter made from cream which was pasteurized by use of the holding process, heating in vat to 145 degrees F. and holding at that temperature for 20 minutes, scored highest when fresh and after storage. When fresh, it scored 3.03 points higher, and when 90 days old it scored 4.51 points higher than the raw cream butter. The butter from the 165 degrees F. and 185 degrees F. flash process scored relatively low when fresh. This low score was largely due to a pronounced oily flavor. With age, this oily flavor became less marked and in some cases disap- peared entirely. This improvement in flavor resulting from the re- moval of the oiliness was ofTset, however, by the natural disappear- ance of the flavor characteristic of fresh butter and the development of flavors characteristic of storage butter. The butter made from the cream pasteurized with the holding process scored appreciably higher, both when fresh and after stor- age, than that made from cream with the flash process, but it suffered a greater drop in score while in storage than the butter of the 185 degrees F. flash process. This would indicate that, while heating sour cream to 145 de- grees F. and holding for 20 minutes, does not seriously injure the flavor of butter ; it does not produce an oily flavor ; the keeping quality of the butter so made, is inferior to that of the butter in the manufacture of which the flash process at 185 degrees F. is used. As shown in subsequent parts, the germ killing efficiency of the 145 degree F. holding process is very great, averaging a re- duction in germ content of 99.9 per cent. Bacteriologically, there- fore, the holding process should produce butter with superior keep- ing quality. That this butter did not keep as well as the butter pasteurized with the 185 degrees F. flash process, must be attributed to the fact that the enzymes present in the cream are not seriously disturbed and their activity is not checked at 145 degrees F., while at 185 degrees F. the great majority of enzymes are rendered inactive. Comparatively little is definitely known as yet concerning the relation of enzymes in butter to keeping quality; but it is reason- able to assume, on the basis of our general knowledge of enzyme action, that these ferments, most of which are the by-products of bacteria and other microorganisms, are quite as harmful to the keeping quality of butter, as the microorganisms themselves. Therefore, a process of pasteurization, while efficient in de- stroying the germ life of the cream but inadequate to destroy also the action of enzymes may, after all, not be capable of greatly im- proving the keeping quality of the butter. 9 Furthermore, it has been quite conclusively demonstrated by experiments conducted by the United States Dairy Division under the immediate direction of L. A. Rogers, and also by practical ex- perience in the manufacture of butter, that butter made from sour cream does not keep as well as butter made from sweet cream, and that in the deterioration of butter in storage, the acidity of the cream from which the butter is made, plays an important role. The development of acid in cream is usually accompanied by certain other fermentations or decompositions leaving the products so attacked in a condition in which they more readily yield to fur- ther decomposition as the result of the acid present. It is obvious, therefore, that butter made from sweet cream or from sour cream in which the acid was neutralized before pas- teurization, will have a better keeping quality than butter made from sour cream, especially when the acidity of this sour cream was de- veloped before, and is present at the time the cream is pasteurized. Butter made from sweet cream and butter made from sour cream in which the acid was reduced before pasteurization, not only will have improved keeping quality but it will also have a better flavor when fresh. This is the case particularly with butter made from cream that is pasteurized with the flash process at 185 degrees F. which is prone to show a distinctly oily flavor unless made from sweet cream or from sour cream in which the acid is reduced to about .3 per cent, or lower before pasteurization. EFFECT OF PASTEURIZATION OF SOUR CREAM ON THE MARKET VALUE OF BUTTER Inasmuch as there is still considerable doubt in the mind of the average buttermaker concerning the economic value of pasteur- ization of cream for buttermaking, it was deemed desirable to cal- culate the market value of the butter made in these experiments as based on its score. Table III was therefore assembled showing the value of each lot of butter made according to Chicago and New York market quotations on the respective grades, which prevailed on the dates when the butter was scored. The prices shown in Table III were arrived at in the following manner. The scores of the several established market grades of butter were as follows : extras 92, firsts 88, seconds 83, thirds 76. The prices for the different grades were taken from market quotations at the time the freshly made butter was scored. In order to determine the price of butter which scored between the nearest low and high grade indicated above, the difference in the price of the next highest and next lowest market grade was divided by the difference between these respective scores, thus establishing a price value for each score point. This value was then multiplied by the difference between the score of the butter and the nearest market 10 grade score below the butter score and the amount thus obtained was added to the price of the market grade used in the calculation. For example: Butter from churning No. 21 scored 89.8 points. Firsts on the Chicago market on that date, September 23, 1915, were quoted at 24 cents. Extras were worth 25.5 cents, a difference in price between extras and firsts of 1.5 cents. The difference in score between extras and firsts (92 - 88) ^•5 was 4 points. = .375 cent, which is the price value of one 4 score point between extras and firsts. The difference between the score of the butter of churning No. 21 and Chicago firsts was (89.8 - 88) 1.8 points. The value of one point was .375 cent. The value of 1.8 points was (1.8 X -375) -675 cent. The price of Chicago firsts being 24 cents, the value of butter of churning No. 21 was (24 -f .675) 24.7 cents. It is fully realized by the writers that butter on the market is not sold and paid for on this mathematically accurate basis, but since the relatively small churnings did not permit the placing of this experimental butter on the open market, the above valuation of butter on the basis of its scores appears logical and for all prac- tical purposes correct. II O) (U u (U > bx) C o w a cq < 185 degrees F. flash cents cn'rMi>.t^i>.TdHcoi:ooq(>:iaiGqcoi>;CiC^cD05aioa5COCTicoorjHT}^c^^'^o:)'^i-H ior^oot:^ooh~aiocdco»ocooio4o^c£5i-OPDi:rj)0(>cic^o6ciCTio:5C^crjododc^cx5od C^^(NC^^C^C<^(^^C^COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOOOCOCOOOCOCOOO(^^(^^<^^C^I(^^(^J(^^(^^C^IC^^(^^ 31.07 i ^ 1 ^ la 165 degrees F. flash cents oiooa2oas^oc^cqt^'^r-joi>;CO'rHi:oc^i>;':oTj^a2Cx5cit^OCvi'^'^iOT:t^coc6CTit^i:£5CDi^':dr3ioic^a:;aiaiaio6a2aiodt^odod C^(^^C^IC^^C^CS^COCOCOCOCOCOCOCO(^^COCOCOOOCOOOCOCO(^^C^^(^^C^^C^lC^^t^^C^^(^^(^^C^^ 31.43 145 igrees F. minutes cents oo CO THioaiTHcn'?i^GqT^^asciT-jLqo^t>.i>.oqooio^^ooooooo(MO'i— (rH^ot^criT— 1 i>^t^QdCT5odo:joT-HTjHcopd'^cvio4oPDt>^i^r-'^t^iocvio4(3:ioooo:jcicrio:jcxDodod C^^C^C^C^C^q(^^OOCOCOCOCOCOCOOOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO(^^COCOCO(:^^(^^^C^^(^^<^^(^^ 31.73 1 ^ <=> 'O (N raw cents PD »;Oi>;Oocr5t^O'PHt^a5T-jt^'TjHioc-co'^cooooocoapooc^fo-^oo cDt^oooooooocpO^cotOTrt^c^oioir^pdpDc^t^idcviocTicriodCTicPioo'odaiooodt^ Dq(Dl(D^(DlD^C^C^.COCOOT>COCOCOCOOOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO(NCNlD;Oi:DT--jT-Ho<:Dcx^oqioco-'^aioococo»oc^Tti'rfioocx)PD coioion:5t^KDQdodoocsioc\iaiod^iOTt^coc6c^T-HQdpDt^i>^t^t^t>Ipo':D>oiopo C^^C^(^^C^^(^^^(^^(^^(^^COCOCC)COCO(^^C^^COCOCOCQCOCOCOC^JD^Da(^^(^^(^^(^^C^^(^aCS^(^^(^^ 28.85 ^ 'S I 165 degrees F. flash cents oqc^»^oaiot>.coioajoPDooiO^THcr5t>-Tfcoa2Tji-rH,— (ioi:^cai>-xooorHoooi— 1 i>I CD* o6 lo o o r-H CO T-? 05 cvi o pd' pd’ CO* 'PiH co’ r-I cri od od pd pd i6 O5DQ(05D5O5^r^t^i>^odT-HOP050505oicdcdt^>oiidLondri^cdC'i3PodGdododGdododr^PDt'^PD 050505050505C005COCOCOCOCOD5C5COCOCOCOCOCOC0 05D5050505050505D505tOICS| 30.05 I raw cents 1 t^ooq»oa^'phTHOT-HPD05x)HnoT3H-cqpqaD05^ooo5i— icootiooPDi— 10500 rji».oiondioi'-Ia5odo5'-HoiT-H050Pi>^>d^c'd^'pj^cdododt^t^i''^odi'^pDPDi>IpDPDio 0505050505CM05C5COCOCOCOC00505COCOCOCOCOC00505D505{0505(05 05 05 05 05 05 05 29.07 1 11 O) -o ;S!^23^22322?^?SSl^?S^PSSl°0‘^'^'=>'^0005PDO'^00 05PDO'Pf0005PD) D505COCO'^'^'Prin:»^POPDPDI>-l'^CX)OOoOCPCiOOCD’— lT-H05 05 05C0C0'^'^'^iOn0 1 II |j 1 a p Pi bo a ‘a 05C05C0C0C0'^'rril0n010p0CD^-l>.|:^Q0CX)0PiaiaPOOT— I t— tT-(05 05COCOCO'^'Pt-l>-C^OOOOOOOPOOT— ( tHt— ( 05 05COCOCO'^'PfiOlO rH rH tH tH t-H t-H t-H t-H t-H t-H t— i rH t-H 1 il t 6 S 2^J>"'^ndocoi>^T-^'nocd'cot^rHioocdi>^T--?'ndaicd D5C5D5COCO'Pf'Pf'PCinDnOPDPDPDl>-l'-OOOOOOaoOP)OOOT— I t— IO 505O5C0C0'Pf'Pf'rf'^ t-H t-H t-H t-H t-H t-H t-H t-H t-H t-H t-H t-H t-H t-H ! h Date nonou:)nonoioiout)ioroiout)nopDPOOc£;iX>popopDppiopopopoooocDco(o;oiPO oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo t-Ht— 11— (T-lT-tT— I tHt— (t-Ht— 11— il— I t— It— It— 11— 1,-Ht— I rHi— ( tHt-Ht— ItHt— It-It—It— It-HtHt— It— ItHt— ( D5D5 T-I05 T-H t-H i— 1 05 CO 05 CO i— i ,— | i_i o5 05 i— 1 rH 05 05 05 CO o bx] 1 a 1 fH ! 1 a 4H+ij>>^000« ^ ^ aa « « ggg§§§g§g > < 12 The figures contained in Table III show that on the Chicago market, the average price for all butter pasteurized at 145 degrees F. (20 minutes) was .98 cent higher than the average price of all the raw cream butter, while the butter from the flash process at 165 degrees F. gained .44 cent and that from the flash process at 185 degrees F. lost .22 cent. In interpreting these figures, it should be borne in mind that the high temperature flash process affects the flavor of the butter made from high acid cream very unfavorably, causing it to be dis- agreeably oily and this oiliness greatly depressed the score of this butter. Again it should be remembered that in 1915 and 1916, market quotations of butter made unusually slight distinctions in price be- tween different grades. The large export trade in butter, owing to the European war, augmented the demand for and decreased the supply of butter on the market, causing the trade to be butter hungry. This briskness of the market always increases the demand and raises the price of the lower grades. The consumer will have but- ter and he is willing to put up, temporarily, at least, with butter of lesser quality, rather than to go without butter at all. During times of normal market conditions, the difference in price between extras and firsts, etc., is considerably greater than that shown in the quotations in 1915 and 1916. This would show the advantage of pasteurization more conspicuously. Finally, the fundamental purpose and effect of pasteurization is not so much to improve the flavor of the fresh butter, as it is to prevent its deterioration with age. On the basis of a difference in price of the market grades of two cents between extras and firsts, and two cents between firsts and seconds, which is very conserva- tive, the average market value of the butter made in this experiment as based on its score when fresh and when 30, 60 and 90 days old would be as follows: Table IV. — Showing Average Score and Value of Butter made from Raw and Pasteurized Cream. It is Assumed that Extras are Worth 30 Cents Age of butter Scores and market value of butter raw cream 1 pasteurized cream 1 145 degrees F. 20 minutes 1 165 degrees F. 1 flash 185 degrees F. flash score price 1 score price score price score 1 price cents 1 cents 1 ' cents 1 ' cents Fresh 87.8 27.8 90.7 29.4 88.0 28.0 87.1 27.6 30 days 85.5 27.0 89.4 28.7 87.5 27.8 87.8 27.9 60 days 85.6 27.0 89.4 28.7 88.1 28.0 88.2 28.1 90 days 84.8 26.7 89.3 28.7 87.9 28.0 88.0 28.0 13 Table V. — Showing Increase in Value of Butter made from Pas- teurized Cream over the Value of Raw Cream Butter Age of butter Increase in value due to pasteurization 145 degrees F. 20 minutes cents 165 degrees F. j flash 1 cents ! 185 degrees F. flash cents Fresh 1.6 .2 -.2 30 days 1.7 .8 .9 60 days 1.7 1.0 1.1 90 days 2.0 1.3 1.3 The figures in Tables IV and V leave no doubt as to the ad- vantages to the creamery operator of pasteurization. Butter which reaches the open market is often practically 30 days old before it is disposed of. At 30 days, the butter made from the pasteurized cream averaged from .8 to .9 cent in the case of the flash process to 1.7 cents in the case of the holding process higher than the but- ter made from raw cream. EFFECT OF PASTEURIZATION ON BACTERIAL CONTENT OF CREAM AND BUTTER Obviously the fundamental purpose of pasteurization of cream for butter making is to destroy germ life and other ferments present in the cream. Cream, when it arrives at the creamery, contains a great multitude of bacteria, yeasts and molds,’ many of which are capable of forming decomposition products injurious to the flavor and keeping quality of butter. Their destruction, therefore, elim- inates some of the most common channels through which flavor de- fects and early deterioration of butter may and usually do occur. Proper pasteurization of cream also frees butter and buttermilk of germs of the most infectious human and animal diseases which may be present in the cream. It therefore makes butter safe for human consumption and protects the live stock interests against the dangers of spreading disease among young stock and pigs through the feeding of buttermilk. Table VI shows the averages of the total count of bacteria, number of acidifiers, number of liquefiers and number of yeasts and molds found in cream of 136 consecutive churnings before and after pasteurization with the holding process at 145 degrees F. (20 minutes), and the flash process at 165 degrees F., and 185 de- grees F., respectively. Table VII gives the average percentage de- crease of bacteria in cream, as the result of pasteurization by the above methods. 14 Table: VI. — Showing Average Number of Microorganisms Present in Raw Cream and in Cream Pasteurized at 145 Degrees F. Holding Method, and 165 Degrees F. and 185 Degrees Types of germs Raw cream germs per c.c. j Pasteurized cream 145 degrees P. 20 minutes germs per c.c. 165 degrees P. flash germs per c.c. 185 degrees P. ! flash ! germs per c.c. Total count Acidiflers Liqueflers Yeasts and molds 209,714,285 123,985,714 16,182,854 4,032,000 113,574 42,928 3,035 2,201 14,768,000 8.415.000 1.295.000 197,911 1,416,029 837,352 81,429 16,782 Table: VII. — Showing Average Per Cent. Decrease of Microorgan- isms in Cream of 136 Consecutive Churnings, Due to Pasteurization Per cent, decrease of germs in cream due to pasteurization i Method of pasteurization total counts per cent. acidiflers i per cent. [ 1 liqueflers per cent. yeasts and molds per cent. score of butter 145 degrees F. holding 99.85 99.95 99.98 99.88 91.01 165 degrees F. flash 89.82 89.77 90.19 86.18 89.44 185 degrees F. flash 98.97 96.07 99.63 98.90 87.51 1 These figures represent averages calculated from the per cent, decrease of each individual lot of cream. They were not derived from the average counts as shown in Table VI, and vary therefore slightly from calculations of those averages Tables VI and VII show that the holding process of pasteuri- zation, heating the cream to 145 degrees F. and holding it there for 20 minutes was most efficient in its germ killing effect on all types of microorganisms. Its efficiency is further emphasized by the rela- tively high score of the butter (91.01 points), made from the cream so pasteurized as shown in the previous part. The 185 degrees F. flash process, while reasonably efficient in destroying germs, yielded butter that averaged very low in quality, 87.51 points. As explained elsewhere in this bulletin the low score of butter made from sour cream pasteurized at 185 degrees F. flash, is due to the development in the butter of a distinct and disagreeable oily flavor, which was attributed to the probable unfavorable effect of the combination of high acid and high temperature on the butter fat. It is also noteworthy that the germ killing efficiency of the flash process at 185 degrees F. lacks uniformity. This is largely due to the difficulty of maintaining a uniform temperature in a steam heated pasteurizer, such as was used. Owing to the limited size of the batches of cream and the rather poor and irregular 15 mechanical condition of the cream, the flow of cream through the pasteurizer varied, causing considerable fluctuations in the tempera- ture to which dififerent portions of one and the same batch of cream were subjected. This naturally permits some of the cream to pass on the cooler without having been heated to the desired temperature. This dififlculty occurs wherever the flash or continuous method of pasteurization is employed with this type of pasteurizer. It may be minimized to some extent by the use of a forewarmer or by a double flash process where the cream passes through two flash heaters. In flash machines heated with hot water, the temperature is also more easily controlled than in steam heated flash pasteurizers. The flash process at 165 degrees F. is obviously deficient in germ killing efficiency. As shown in Table VII it failed to destroy more than 90 per cent, of the microorganisms originally present in the cream, and it was especially inadequate in destroying yeasts and molds, the per cent, decrease being only 86.18. The butter made from cream pasteurized at 165 degrees F. flash scored over one and one-half points lower than that from the holding process, but its score was two points higher than that of the flash process at 185 degrees F. This phenomenon may be ex- plained by the fact that at 165 degrees F., the butter did not be- come oily to the same degree as at 185 degrees F. The lower heat of 165 degrees F. did not have as injurious an effect on the fat in the sour cream as was the case at 185 degrees F. Owing to the in- complete destruction of germs at 165 degrees F., the butter made from this cream was of inferior keeping quality. EFFECT OF SEASON ON FLAVOR AND KEEPING QUALITY OF BUT- TER MADE FROM PASTEURIZED SOUR, FARM-SKIMMED CREAM In Table VIII the scores of all fresh and stored butter are averaged by seasons. Table VIII. — Showing Effect of Season on Average Score of Fresh and Stored Butter made from Raw Cream and from Cream Pasteurized at 145 degrees F., 20 minutes, at 165 degrees F. flash and at 185 degrees F. flash Season Age of butter Average butter scores raw cream pasteurized cream 145 degrees F. i 105 degrees F. 185 degrees F. 20 minutes i flash 1 flash f fresh 86.97 90.44 88.43 86.65 Summer ^ 30 days 85.95 89.25 87.39 87.14 1 60 days 85.68 88.87 87.73 87.59 r fresh 89.49 91.44 90.20 88.78 Winter ■{ 30 days 86.03 90.53 88.85 88.95 1 60 days 84.90 89.05 88.07 88.35 i6 Table VIII brings out some interesting facts corroborating many of the conclusions drawn in previous parts. The summer butter, both that made from raw cream and that made from cream pasteurized by the holding process and by each of the two flash processes scored lower, when fresh, than the winter butter. This may be logically attributed to the high acid cream received during the summer months. On the other hand, the summer butter held up in storage better than the winter butter. Thus in 6o days, the raw cream summer butter depreciated 1.29 points while the raw cream winter butter depreciated 4.59 points. The summer butter made from cream pasteurized by the hold- ing process depreciated in storage 1.57 points while the winter but- ter made by the same process depreciated 2.39 points. The summer butter made from cream pasteurized at 165 de- grees F., flash process, depreciated in storage .70 point while the winter butter made by the same process depreciated 2.13 points. The summer butter made from cream pasteurized at 185 de- grees F. flash process, gained in storage .94 point, while the winter butter made by the same process depreciated .43 point. The more rapid deterioration of the winter butter may be ex- plained by the fact that the winter cream contains a larger pro- portion of resistant microorganisms and enzymes most harmful to keeping quality of the butter, the liquefiers, yeasts and molds, as al- ready stated and shown by the bacteriological results in the part on “The Efifect of Season on the Germ Killing Efficiency of Pas- teurization of Cream.” The exceedingly rapid deterioration of winter butter made from raw cream is a striking example of this fact. The very considera- ble deterioration of winter butter made from cream pasteurized by the holding process, and of winter butter made by flash process at 165 degrees F., indicates that these processes of pasteurization fail to destroy the activity of the enzymes. The very slight deteriora- tion of winter butter made from cream pasteurized by the flash process at 185 degrees F. suggests that at this high temperature the action of the enzymes is largely destroyed. These facts fully cor- respond with our knowledge of the effect of heat on enzyme action. The fact that the summer butter made from cream pasteurized by the flash process at 185 degrees F., improved in storage must be attributed to the strong oily flavor of this butter when fresh. As already stated in previous parts, high temperature pasteurization of sour cream, .such as was used in this experiment in summer, al- most invariably yields butter with a marked disagreeable, oily flavor. This oily flavor has been found to “wear off” or disappear to some extent in storage, so that this butter came out of storage with a somewhat improved flavor. While all the scores, even those of the fresh butter, were con- demningly low, there can be no question as to the improvement of quality and keeping quality, which proper pasteurization of the cream is capable of making possible. The very low scores of butter made from cream pasteurized with the flash process, is due in a large measure to the high acidity of the cream and its tendency, in com- bination with high temperature pasteurization, to give the butter an oily flavor. Had the acidity in this cream been reduced by neutral- ization, the oily flavor would have been less pronounced and the butter made from the flash pasteurized cream might have scored several points higher. EFFECT OF SEASON OF YEAR ON GERM KILLING EFFICIENCY OF PASTEURIZATION It is a well known fact that the bacterial flora of milk and cream varies with the season of the year, and the resistance to heat of different types of microorganisms that predominate at different seasons fluctuates to a considerable extent. In order to demonstrate this fact, the average per cent, decrease of bacteria in cream due to pasteurization was studied by seasons as shown in Table IX. Table IX. — Showing Effect of Season on Per Cent. Decrease of Bacteria in Cream Pasteurized by the Holding Process at 145 degrees F. and the Flash Process at 165 degrees F. and 185 degrees F., Respectively Method of Total eount per cent, decrease Acidifiers per cent, decrease Liquefiers per cent, decrease Teasts and molds per cent, decrease pasteuriza- tion 1 summer months fall and winter months summer months fall and winter months summer months [ fall and winter months summer months fall and winter months 145 degrees P. 99.72 99.91 99.97 99.96 99.98 99.97 99.78 99.96 165 degrees P. 93.73 88.25 94.32 86.42 94.61 86.29 92.02 76.63 185 degrees P. 99.82 98.15 99.76 97.97 99.94 99.29 99.16 97.17 The figures in Table IX are grouped according to summer months and fall and winter months. In the columns specified as summer months the average per cent, decrease of germs in cream pasteurized from April to July inclusive, is shown. The columns specified as fall and winter months refer to the months of Septem- ber to March inclusive. The table shows conspicuously that the per cent, decrease of bac- teria pasteurized at 145 degrees F., holding for 20 minutes, was uniform throughout the year. This suggests very forcibly that this process is adequate to destroy over 99 per cent, of the germ content i8 of cream, regardless of season of year and variations in the resist- ance of different types of germs. It can be depended upon at all seasons of the year. The 185 degrees F. flash process was slightly less efficient in win- ter than in summer, its germ killing efficiency being from one to two per cent, lower. The 165 degrees F. flash process showed a marked preference for summer cream. In winter, its power to destroy germs v/as relatively low, especially in the case of the germs most harmful to the quality of the butter, the liquefying bacteria and the yeasts and molds, which were destroyed on an average of 86.29 per cent, and 76.63 per cent, respectively only during the winter months. This demonstrates anew the inadequacy of the flash process at 165 degrees F., as a means to free the cream and butter from un- desirable germs. It further emphasizes the need of using either the holding process or a high temperature flash process during the winter months, in order to insure the desired germ killing efficiency. The chief reason why fall and winter cream is freed from its germ content less readily than summer cream, lies in the fact that in fall the crops are harvested and are brought into the barn. These crops, especially silage and grain crops, are loaded with various types of resistant microorganisms, and when handled in the barn, the dust incident to unloading, etc., is teeming with these germs, causing the milk and cream to become contaminated with them through diverse channels, such as the air, the coating of the cows, the bedding, the utensils, and the milker. The cows being stabled during the winter months, continue to serve as ample sources of contamination throughout the stabling season, although toward spring the danger of contamination of the cream with these germs is somewhat minimized. Fortunately for the butter industry, fall and winter butter us- ually moves rapidly on the market. Under normal conditions it is not necessary to store butter manufactured at this time of the year any great length of time and it is consumed before much damage can be done to the butter froin contamination with these germs. Nevertheless, the creamery operator should be alert to the fact, that fall and winter cream does contain large numbers of undesir- able germs and that inefficient pasteurization during the winter sea- son invites fermentations that may lead to very serious butter de- fects. 19 EFFECT OF TIME OF HOLDING CREAM AT 145 DEGREES F. ON SCORE OF FRESH AND STORED BUTTER In these experiments, butter was made from cream that was held at the pasteurizing temperature of 145 degrees F. for 10, 15, 20, 30 and 40 minutes, in order to determine the shortest time of holding at 145 degrees F. that can be depended upon to produce maximum keeping quality of the resulting butter. These results are averaged in Table X. Tabli; X. — Showing Average Scores of Butter when Fresh and after Storage at o. degrees to 20 degrees F. for 30 and 60 Days, Made from Cream Held at 145 degrees F. for 10, 15, 20, 30 and 40 Minutes Respectively Date Churning- numbers Time held at 145 degrees F, minutes Scores of butter -when fresh and after storage fresh after 30 days ; after 60 days 159, 162 10 90.25 88.38 85.00 July 15 158, 161 15 90.50 88.38 88.63 157, 160 20 90.38 88.63 89.25 163, 166, 169, 172, 175 20 89.50 89.50 87.80 July 24, 29 164, 167, 170, 173, 176 30 89.55 89.45 87.50 165, 168, 171, 174, 177 40 89.85 89.95 87.75 Table X shows that there was very little difference in the average score of the fresh butter made from cream which was held at 145 degrees F. for from 10 to 40 minutes. When stored, how- ever, 20 minutes was the minimum length of time at which to hold the cream at 145 degrees F., that would yield maximum keeping quality. When held at 145 degrees F. for 15 minutes the score of the butter stored for 60 days was .62 point lower, and when held at 145 degrees F. only 10 minutes the score of the butter stored for 60 days was 4.25 points lower than the score of the butter made from cream that was held at 145 degrees F. for 20 minutes. These results are borne out by the bacteriological analysis of the cream, which shows that when the cream was held at 145 degrees F. for 20 minutes, the germ killing efficiency of the liquefying bacteria was 99.95 per cent, and that of the yeasts and molds was 99.93 per cent, while when held for 15 minutes the germ killing efficiency was 99.72 per cent, and 99.18 per cent., respectively, and when held for only 10 minutes, the germ killing efficiency was 98.79 per cent, and 87.50 per cent, respectively, for the liquefiers and for the yeasts and molds. These results clearly suggest that the lower germ killing effi- ciency in the case of the liquefying bacteria and the yeasts and molds was largely responsible for the inferior keeping quality of butter 20 made from cream held at 145 degrees F. for less than 20 minutes. Table X further shows that when the cream was held at 145 degrees F. for more than 20 minutes, there was no material im- provement in the keeping quality of the butter. In fact, after stor- age for 60 days, the butter made from cream that was held at 145 degrees F. for 20 minutes, scored quite as high as the butter made from cream held at 145 degrees F. for 30 and 40 minutes respect- ively. On the basis of these data, it appears reasonable to conclude that nothing is gained by prolonging the holding process of pasteur- ization at 145 degrees F. beyond 20 minutes and the factor of economy of time and labor suggests that the preference for 20 min- utes holding rather than holding longer. Excessive holding of the cream at the pasteurizing temperature has the further disadvantage that it tends to yield butter with a mealy body. This is caused by the undue contraction, hardening and drying of the particles of curd in cream under certain condi- tions, this curd lending the butter, when tasted, a coarse and mealy effect. In the experiments above recorded, however, this mealiness could not be detected in the butter of the longer holding process. EFFECT OF TIME OF HOLDING CREAM AT 145 DEGREES F. ON GERM KILLING EFFICIENCY The effect of the length of time the cream is held at 145 de- grees F. on the germ killing efficiency and score of butter was studied with 21 churnings. The cream was heated to 145 degrees F. in the coil ripening vat and held at that temperature for 10 , 15 , 20 , 30 and 40 minutes. Table XI. — Average Per Cent. Microorganisms Destroyed When Held at 145 Degrees F. for 10 , 15 , 20 , 30 and 40 Minutes, Respectively Per cent, decrease of germs due to pasteurization Time held at 145 degrees P. total count acidifiers liqueflers yeasts and molds 10 minutes 99.39 99.29 98.79 87.50 15 minutes 99.89 99.94 99.72 99.18 20 minutes 99.98 99.98 99.95 99.93 30 minutes 99.99 99.999 99.98 99.94 40 minutes 99.995 99.999 99.99 99.98 Table XI shows that the highest per cent, reduction of the microorganisms present in the cream was secured when the cream was held at 145 degrees F. for 40 minutes, while holding at 145 degrees F. for 10 minutes produced the lowest germ killing efficiency. 21 The shorter exposure to the pasteurizing heat showed its inefficiency especially in the case of the liquefying bacteria and the yeasts and molds. These are the organisms which are most prone to cause fermentations injurious to the quality of the butter. These results further demonstrate that 20 minutes is the minimum length of exposure at which reasonably high germ killing efficiency may be expected. They are further substantiated by bacterial counts of the butter at the churn as shown in Table XII. Tabi,k XII. — Showing Average Number of Bacteria in Butter Made from Cream Pasteurized at 145 Degrees F. and Held For 10, 15, 20, 30 and 40 Minutes, Respectively Date Churning numbers Time held at 145 degrees F. minutes Bad I figure tho or total count teria in (asteuriz s represt usand oi le gram acidi- fiers butter f ed crean int numl E bacteri of butt lique- fiers rom 1 Der of a in er yeasts and molds 159, 162 10 1865 300 213 3.0 July 12, 14 158, 161 15 760 385 135 3.5 157, 160 20 440 165 105 0.4 July 19, 20, 163, 166, 169, 172, 175 20 352 149 34 0.2 26, 28 164, 167, 170, 173, 176 30 220 117 70 2.5 165, 168, 171, 174, 177 40 177 97 55 0.4 The above table shows that especially the liquefiers and the yeasts and molds required exposure of the cream to 145 degrees F. for at least 20 minutes for effective destruction. When the time of exposure is shortened to 15 and 10 minutes respectively, the germ killing efficiency is greatly diminished. It also demonstrates that butter made from cream held at 145 degrees F. for more than 20 minutes, contains quite as large a number of liquefiers, yeasts and molds as when held for 20 minutes only. Both the germ killing efficiency in the cream and the number of germs found in the butter at the churn, suggest therefore, that in order to secure the best results from the bacteriological point of view, with the holding process at 145 degrees F., the cream must be held at this temperature for at least 20 minutes and that holding longer than 20 minutes does not materially increase the germ kill- ing efficiency of the holding process. Since, under certain condi- tions of the cream, prolonged holding at the pasteurizing tempera- ture tends to give the resulting butter a disagreeable mealy body, it appears advisable to confine the time of holding at 145 degrees F. to 20 minutes. 22 EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION BETWEEN PASTEURIZER AND CHURN In a previous part an effort was made to show the per cent, bacteria removed from cream by pasteurization. The figures in- dicated that with efficient pasteurization, over 99.9 per cent, of the bacteria originally present may be destroyed. If the creamery is to hold the full benefit of pasteurization, it is essential that all channels through which the cream may become recontaminated after pasteurization be as completely eliminated as possible. Bacterial analysis made of the butter at the churn shows the following decline of the germ killing efficiency of pasteurization due to recontamination of the cream and butter after pasteurization. Tabi,i: XIII. — Average Per Cent. Decrease of Bacteria in Cream and Butter Due to Pasteurization Liqnefiers Yeasts and molds cream 1 butter cream butter 145 degrees F. holding 20 minutes 165 degrees F. flash 185 degrees F. flash 99.98 90.19 99.63 99.05 86.21 95.75 99.88 86.18 98.90 97.16 87.14 95.77 The figures in Table XIII are the result of operation under good sanitary conditions of factory and equipment. Under more nearly commercial conditions and less scrupulous precautions, the decrease in the per cent, reduction of bacteria of butter made from the pasteurized cream would naturally be much greater. Experi- ence has shown that the running of the pasteurized cream into a non-sterile vat reduced the germ killing efficiency of pasteurization 50 per cent. The purity of the air, the sanitary condition of the sewers, the freedom from flies, the cleanliness of pipes, conveyers, pumps, coolers, vats and churns, the purity of the starter, the purity of the wash water and later the sanitary condition of the packing equip- ment, all these factors determine the efficiency of pasteurization and the relative freedom of butter from undesirable germ life, such as liquefying bacteria and yeasts and molds. There are those who claim that the number of yeasts and molds present in the butter is a reliable index to the efficiency of pasteur- ization. If butter contains over a certain number of these micro- organisms they conclude that such butter was made either from cream that was not pasteurized at all or that was pasteurized im- properly. This conclusion may or may not be correct. The proba- bility is that in a great many cases the excessive number of yeasts and molds is the result of recontamination of the cream and butter after pasteurization, although the process of pasteurization may have been applied properly and may have produced a high germ killing effect. 23 EFFECT OF PASTEURIZING TEMPERATURE ON FLAVOR OF BUTTER MADE FROM HIGH ACID CREAM The results of this investigation showed that the exposure of high acid cream to high pasteurizing temperature, almost in- variably produced a butter with a pronounced oily flavor. This was true with remarkable regularity of the butter made from sour cream, pasteurized at 185 degrees F. flash process. The oily flavor also appeared in several instances in butter made from sour cream pas- teurized at 165 degrees F., but a great many lots of this butter were free from oiliness. In the case of butter made from sour cream pas- teurized at 145 degrees F., and held for 20 minutes, there was no trace of oiliness. Since experience has shown that sweet cream may be heated to any temperature, even to sterilizing heat, without yielding butter that has pronounced oily flavor, and since butter made from .un- pasteurized sour cream and from cream pasteurized at a low tem- perature is also free from oiliness, it appears reasonable to assume that the oily flavor so persistently and pronouncedly found in but- ter made from sour cream pasteurized at a high temperature, with the flash process used, is caused by the effect of the combination of high acid and high heat on the butter fat. The heat intensified the physical and chemical action of the acid. It is well known that the proteins of sour milk and cream pre- cipitate when the milk or cream is heated. The higher the tem- perature, the more complete is this precipitation, the more the curd contracts, the firmer it gets and the more completely it expels its water. When the highly acid cream is pasteurized at a high tem- perature, such as is employed in the flash process, the nitrogenous and mucilaginous film that envelops the fat globules con- tracts ; it is ruptured and partly destroyed, robbing the individual fat globules of their natural protection and exposing the fat in these globules to the many agents which invite oxidation of the fat, such as air, light and heat. It is not improbable that the fat so exposed is more readily subjected to oxidation, which action may be re- sponsible for the oily flavor. This oxidizing action may be directly brought about or at least hastened by the combined action of acid and heat itself. Again it is possible that the oiliness is wholly or in part a physical impression conveyed to the sense of touch and taste. The fat globules having lost their protecting film have thus changed the fat from the globular condition to one similar to oil, and giving the senses the impression of oiliness in flavor and consistency. This assumption is further supported by the fact that the butter made from sour cream pasteurized at a high temperature, while very oily when fresh, was much less oily after one or more months of cold storage. The partial disappearance of the oily flavor of stored butter in all probability was partly due to a readjustment of the 24 physical and mechanical makeup of the fat, returning the latter to a more granular condition which minimizes the impression of oili- ness conveyed to the palate. The lesser oiliness in the stored but- ter, however, also may have been largely due to the development during storage, of other flavors which tended to cover up the oily flavor. The fact remains that the pronounced oily flavor of the butter made from sour cream pasteurized at a high temperature (flash process 185 degrees F.) caused this butter to score very low when fresh. During storage for 30, 60 and 90 days, the oily flavor be- came less pronounced but the butter did not improve in flavor to raise its average score more than one-fourth of a point. These results can leave no doubt that flash pasteurization at 185 degrees F. of sour cream, while quite effective in its germ kill- ing .efficiency and in destroying the activity of enzymes, has a very unfavorable effect on the flavor of the butter and is unsuitable as a means to improve the quality of butter made from sour cream. If the flash process of pasteurization is to be used, therefore, the cream should be sweet or nearly so, or if sour, its acidity should be reduced by neutralization to a point where it is no longer able, in combination with the high pasteurizing temperature, to seriously affect the flavor of butter. It is advisable to reduce the acidity to about .25 per cent. When sour cream is pasteurized by the holding process, heat- ing to 145 degrees F. and holding for 20 minutes, the butter does not show an oily flavor. This would indicate that this temperature is not high enough to injure the fat globules in sour cream. The non-appearance of oily flavor in butter made from sour cream with the holding process of pasteurization, may be explained by the fact that up to a temperature of 145 degrees F., the albumin- ous parts of the cream are not materially affected by the heat, the mucilaginous film surrounding the fat globules therefore is not disturbed ; the fat globules remain intact ; they do not surrender their protecting envelope, the fat in them is not abnormally exposed to oxidizing agents nor does it convey to the palate the impression of oiliness. If sour cream must be pasteurized without first reducing the acid by neutralization, the holding process, heating to 145 degrees F. and holding for 20 minutes, will give by far a better flavored butter than the flash process at 185 degrees F. But experience in commercial butter making has demonstrated that even with the holding process, a better keeping quality is se- cured when the acid in the sour cream is reduced by neutralization before pasteurization. 25 RELATION OF QUALITY OF CREAM TO FLAVOR AND KEEPING QUALITY OF BUTTER MADE FROM RAW AND PASTEURIZED CREAM Tables XIV and XV show the effect of flavor and acidity of cream on the score of fresh and storage butter made from raw and pasteurized cream. In assembling Table XIV, the scores of all churnings made from reasonably clean-flavored cream, and of all churnings made from cream that was found fair to poor in flavor, respectively, were averaged. In assembling Table XV, the scores of all churnings made from cream containing less than .5 per cent, acid, and those of all churnings made from cream containing .5 per cent, acid and over, respectively, were averaged. Table XIV. — Effect of Flavor of Cream on Score of Butter Made from Raw Cream and from Pasteurized Cream Raw cream butter Pasteurized at Flavor of cream 145 degrees F. 20 minutes 165 degrees F. flash 1 185 , degrees F. flash score score score score fresh butter Good 90.1 91.0 91.5 89.3 Fair to poor 84.4 91.0 88.9 87.3 30 days old Good 88.3 90.9 90.4 89.5 Fair to poor 85.5 89.7 87.7 87.8 60 days old Good 86.1 89.9 89.3 88.6 Fair to poor 85.0 88.7 87.5 87.9 Table XV. — Relation of Acidity of Cream to Score of Butter Made from Raw and from Pasteurized Cream Acidity of cream Raw cream butter 145 degrees F. 20 minutes Pasteurized at 165 degrees F. flash 1 185 degrees F. 1 flash score score score score fresh butter Acidity below .5 per cent. 1 89.5 1 91.2 1 90.2 89.3 Acidity above .5 per cent. 1 88.0 1 90.9 1 89.1 87.1 30 days old Acidity below .5 per cent. 86.5 90.4 1 89.2 89.6 Acidity above .5 per cent. 85.9 89.8 1 87.8 87.6 60 days old Acidity below .5 per cent. 85.9 89.4 88.8 88.9 Acidity above .5 per cent. 85.0 88.9 87.5 87.6 26 The figures in Tables XIV and XV are remarkable for the dif- ferences they show in favor of pasteurization in the case of the fresh butter when made from poor cream and from high acid cream. The difterence in quality between the cream designated as “good” and the cream marked “fair to poor” was not very great, and the range of acid in all cream (Table XV) was only from .37 to .62 per cent. Had the experiment covered churnings with cream of excellent quality and cream of very poor quality, respectively, and cream that arrived in sweet condition as well as cream with excessive acid, respectively, the contrasts between the raw and pasteurized cream butter might indeed have been a revelation. But even these comparatively slight dif¥erences in the quality and acidity of the cream show unmistakably the advantage of pasteurization. This is especially pronounced in the case of heat- ing to 145 degrees F. and holding for 20 minutes, when the but- ter made from the fair to poor cream averaged 6.6 points higher than the butter made from the raw cream of the same quality. In the case of the butter made from the cream pasteurized with the flash process, the difference in favor of pasteurization was not so pronounced. This was due largely to the oily flavor which much of this butter had and which is assumed to be due to the injurious ef- fect of the combination of high heat and high acid on the flavor of the butter fat. The superiority of the flavor of butter made from pasteurized cream of poor quality is in all probability due to expulsion of a large portion of volatile flavor defects and precipitations and expul- sion of other decomposition products as the result of pasteurization. In the stored butter, the butter made from the “good” pasteur- ized cream held up appreciably better than that made from the cream marked “fair to poor.” At 185 degrees F., flash process, however, there was very little change in the flavor of the butter due to storage. This is probably due to the partial disappearance of the oily flavor, offsetting the development of storage flavor and also to the fact that at 185 degrees F. most of the milk enzymes are rendered inactive, so that they were largely eliminated from the agencies which are prone to cause deterioration in storage. In the raw cream butter made from the “good” cream, the score dropped four points in 60 days, showing very marked deterior- ation. In the raw cream butter made from the poorer grade of cream there was no further drop in the score. The flavor of this butter when fresh was so poor, it seems, that it was difficult for it to get any worse in cold storage. In the case of the acid content of the cream (Table XV), it may be seen that the butter made from the cream with the higher per cent, acid scored uniformly lower than that made from the cream containing less than .5 per cent. acid. Owing to the fact that the difference in acidity between the two sets of churnings was very 27 small, not averaging more than .2 per cent., the scores in favor of the lower acid cream are but slightly higher than those of the more sour cream. This is especially true with reference to the fresh butter made from cream pasteurized with the 145 degrees F. hold- ing process, and the 165 degrees F. flash process. At 185 degrees F. flash, the high acid cream butter scored 2.2 points less than the low acid cream butter, showing that even a slight increase in acid has a very unfavorable effect on the flavor of the butter when the cream is exposed to high pasteurizing temperatures. In this table again -the butter pasteurized at 185 degrees F. showed the best keeping quality, regardless of quality or acidity of cream, while the raw cream butter deteriorated the most. These comparisons emphasize the fact that the better the flavor and the lower the acidity of the cream at the time of pasteurization, the better will be the flavor of the butter when fresh and when it comes out of storage. The butter from both good and poor cream is of better quality and keeps better when made from properly pasteurized cream than from raw cream. EFFECT OF PASTEURIZATION ON PER CENT. FAT LOST IN BUTTERMILK It is the general opinion of the buttermaker that sour pasteur- ized cream does not churn out as exhaustively as raw cream and that buttermilk from sour pasteurized cream churnings tends to show a relatively high butter fat test. The average per cent, fat in the buttermilk from raw and pas- teurized cream covered in this investigation is shown below. Table XVI. — Showing Per Cent. Fat in Buttermilk from Raw Cream and from Pasteurized Cream Churnings Per cent, fat in buttermilk Number of churnings from raw j from pasteurized cream cream 145 degrees P. 1 20 minutes 1 165 degrees P. 1 flash 185 degrees P. flash 104 .101 .137 .120 .120 The above figures do not show an appreciable difference in the exhaustiveness of churning between raw and pasteurized cream. While the raw cream buttermilk contained the least amount of fat, the pasteurized cream buttermilk contained but very little more fat. The difference in the fat content of the buttermilk between the three different processes of pasteurization used, also is very slight. In order to more readily detect the effect of acidity of the cream on the per cent, fat in the buttermilk, the 104 churnings were 28 grouped into churnings which at the time of pasteurization con- tained .5 per cent, acid and above, and churnings which at the time of pasteurization contained less than .5 per cent. acid. These re- sults are averaged in the following table. Table XVII. — Showing Effect of Acid in Cream before Pasteur- ization on Per Cent. Fat in Buttermilk ' Per cent, fat in buttermilk Number Per cent, acid in cream from pasteurized cream churnings before pasteurization from raw 1 145 1 165 185 cream i degrees P. degrees F. degrees F. 20 minutes flash flash 44 less than .5 per cent. .100 .123 .116 .104 60 .5 per cent, or above .093 .160 .127 .136 The figures in Table XVII show that the high acid cream pro- duced a somewhat larger loss of fat in the buttermilk from the pas- teurized cream than the low acid cream. The difference might have been considerably greater had the range of acidity in the different lots of cream been wider. As it was, the cream with the least acid tested .376 per cent, acid and the sourest cream tested .621 per cent, acid. The pasteurization of sour cream has a tendency to produce a firm, contracted and dry curd. The particles of curd lock up a small amount of fat. In this contracted condition, they fail to surrender the imprisoned fat and carry it into the buttermilk. This auto- matically results in a slightly increased fat content of the butter- milk. Under normal conditions of properly mixed cream of uni- form acidity, the extra loss of fat due to pasteurization is small. However, if sweet and sour cream are pasteurized together and without proper mixing and holding before pasteurization, the loss of fat may be very great. In this case, the acid in the sour cream acts intensely on the curd in the sweet cream, in the presence of the pasteurizing heat. This causes the formation of large lumps of a tough, rubbery and sticky curd. This curd locks up relatively large amounts of fat, and since the curd passes into the buttermilk, the loss of fat in the buttermilk is excessive. This loss can best be avoided by pasteurizing sweet and sour cream separately. If sweet cream and sour cream must be pasteur- ized together, they should be thoroughly mixed and the mixed cream should be given some time before heating to pasteurizing temperature. The heating should be done slowly up to about 120 degrees F. and from there on rapidly. This gives the curd in the sweet cream an opportunity to be acted upon in a normal way by the acid of the sour cream, so that the effect of the subsequent high heat is minimized. 29 The pasteurization of very thin, sour cream usually causes ex- cessive loss of fat, unless such cream is churned at extremely low temperatures. Not infrequently, excessive losses of fat in buttermilk from pasteurized cream, while attributed to pasteurization, are due largely to churning the pasteurized cream at too high a temperature, or to not holding the cream at the churning temperature long enough. For most exhaustive churning, the cream should be held at the churning temperature not less than two hours and preferably three hours. Attempts to crowd the churns with too large churnings, which are prone to occur during the flush of the season in summer, are a further common cause of excessive loss of fat in the butter- milk. CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF BUTTER MADE FROM RAW AND FROM PASTEURIZED CREAM The following table contains averages of the per cent, moisture, salt, curd and acid in 76 churnings of fresh butter. Table XVIII. — Showing Averages of Composition of 76 Churnings of Butter Made from Raw and Pasteurized Cream Composition per cent. Raw cream butter ^ Butter made from pasteurized cream 145 degrees F. 20 minutes 165 degrees F. 1 flash 185 degrees F. flash Moisture 14.57 14.14 14.19 13.76 Salt 2.05 2.42 2.40 2.24 Curd .51 .50 .48 .45 Acid .11 .09 .08 .08 These figures show very little difiference in composition be- tween butter made from raw and from pasteurized cream. The slight differences agree, in direction, with previous experiments and with the general conception of the effect of pasteurization on the composition of butter. Thus the moisture, curd and acid are some- what lower in the pasteurized cream butter than in the raw cream butter and the highest temperature used for pasteurization shows the greatest difference. The decrease in moisture is in all probability due to the more contracted and dry condition of the particles of curd, which in this condition tend to diminish their power to hold water. The difference in curd content between the raw cream and the pasteurized cream butter, as shown in Table XVIII, is very slight. The curd content of butter made from sour pasteurized cream is usually from .1 to .5 per cent, lower than in raw cream butter. The very slight difference shown in the table is in all 30 probability due to the fact that all the butter was washed thorough- ly with two washings of water and that the removal of the butter- milk was facilitated by the relatively small churnings. The acid content of this butter is unusually low and this again suggests that the butter was washed thoroughly. Generally butter contains from about .i to .3 per cent. acid. The acid content of butter resulting from experiments described in succeeding parts was very materially higher, averaging from .2 to .3 per cent. RELATION OF LACTOSE TO ACIDITY OF RAW AND PASTEURIZED CREAM BUTTER WHEN FRESH AND AFTER STORAGE The following table shows the decrease of sugar of milk and increase of acidity in raw and pasteurized cream butter during three months storage. Table XIX. — Showing Relation of Per Cent. Lactose and Per Cent. Acid in Fresh and Stored Butter Made from Raw and Pasteurized Cream — Averages of 44 Churnings Raw and pasteurized cream Age of butter months Lactose Acidity per cent. decrease in 3 months per 1 cent. ' increase in 3 months Raw fresh .399 .3073 Raw 1 month .367 .3613 Raw 3 months .336 .063 .4073 .1000 145 degrees F. 20 minutes fresh .398 .2565 145 degrees F. 20 minutes 1 month .360 .2745 145 degrees F. 20 minutes 3 months .353 .045 .2835 .027 165 degrees F. flash fresh .388 .2295 165 degrees F. flash 1 month .343 .2543 165 degrees F. flash 3 months .315 .073 .2655 .036 185 degrees F. flash fresh .389 .2093 185 degrees F. flash 1 month .360 .2295 185 degrees F. flash 3 months .350 .039 .2655 .056 The above figures show that there was a gradual decrease in lactose and increase in acidity during the three months storage. The increase of acidity is not proportionate to the decrease of the lac- tose. The estimation of lactose of such small amounts is attended by considerable difficulty and it is quite probable that the recorded decreases in the lactose do not necessarily represent the actual de- crease, but being the average of 44 lots of butter, they do give some indication as to the rate of decrease of the lactose that may be ex- pected in butter in storage. X 31 The acidity in the raw cream butter increased by far the most rapidly and considerably faster than in the butter made from the pasteurized cream. Since there are factors other than the lactose which influence the acidity of butter, such as the hydrolysis of the salts in butter and changes in proteids, due to bacterial or enzyme action, it is not surprising that the increase in acidity is not proportionate to the decrease of lactose ; nor is there any conclusive evidence that all the lactose, not estimated as such, is converted into an acid. Additional figures showing the changes in the acidity of 48 separate lots of butter are presented in Table XX. Table XX. — Showing Per Cent. Acid in Butter Made from Raw Cream and Pasteurized Cream, When Fresh and After Three Months Storage — Averages of 36 Churnings Age of butter Per cent, acid in butter raw cream butter pasteurized cream 1 ^ 165 degrees P. degrees F. 20 minutes | flash butter r 185 i degrees F. ^ flash Fresh .3260 .2448 .2250 .2034 5 months old .4122 .2970 .3006 .2700 Increase in 5 months .1062 .0522 .0756 .0666 This table shows a similar increase in acidity to Table XIX. The raw cream butter again increased in acidity more than any of the butter made from pasteurized cream, and again the 145 de- grees F. holding process was most efficient in preventing formation of acid. Aside from the fact that the acidity increased less during stor- age in the case of the pasteurized cream butter, the figures in both of the preceding tables show a decrease in the acidity of the butter when fresh, due to pasteurization. The fresh butter made from cream pasteurized at 145 degrees F. (20 minutes) showed approx- imately .05 per cent, less acid and the butter made from cream pasteurized at 185 degrees F. flash process, showed approximately .1 per cent, less acid than the butter made from the raw cream. This is in all probability due to the expulsion of carbon dioxide and other volatile acids due to pasteurization, and the higher the temperature of pasteurization, the more complete this expulsion and therefore the greater the decrease in the per cent, acid of the pasteurized cream butter. 32 EFFECT OF PASTEURIZATION ON BUTTER FAT CONSTANTS IN RAW AND PASTEURIZED CREAM BUTTER WHEN FRESH AND AFTER STORAGE OF ONE, THREE AND FIVE MONTHS The butter fat constants were determined in butter of 54 separate churnings sampled when fresh and again when one, three and five months old. This butter was kept in the Chicago Cold Storage at -6 degrees F. The results of these analyses are sum- marized in Table XLV in the appendix and the changes in the con- stants between the fresh butter and the butter five months old are averaged in Table XXI. Tabi^e: XXL — Showing Average Changes in the Butter Fat Con- stants of 54 Churnings of Butter During Five Months of Storage at -6 Degrees F. Raw and pasteurized cream butter Reich- ert Meissl num- ber Iodine num- ber Sapon ifica- tion num- ber Melt- ing point degrees 0. Refrac- tive index Acid value Solu- ble acids per cent. Insol- uble acids per cent. Raw -f.184 +.487 +.358 +.181 -.146 +1.293 +.057 +.291 145 degrees F. 20 minutes 4-.116 +.803 +.303 +.023 +.036 + .512 +.109 +.327 165 degrees F. flash -f-.160 +.148 - .119 +.150 -.213 + .375 +.061 +.272 185 degrees F. flash +.090 +.092 +.607 +.225 -.096 + .387 +.035 +.382 The above table clearly indicates that the changes in the but- ter, as determined by the fat constants, are very slight. RkichKRT-MeissIv Number. — A considerable increase in the Reichert-Meissl number would suggest an increase in the volatile fatty acids. This might 'be caused by the breaking down of the fatty acids into acids of lower molecular weight or to oxidation of the glycerol. The figures in Table XXI show a slight increase in the Reichert-Meissl number. This increase is so small that it may be due to experimental error. However, these figures represent, in each case, an average of the difference between nine samples of fresh butter and nine samples of butter five months old, so that they would indicate the possibility of some change in the butter fat due to storage. This difference is greatest in the raw cream butter and least in the butter made from cream which was pasteurized at 185 degrees F. flash, suggesting action of enzymes or bacteria or both in the raw cream butter which was absent in the pasteurized butter. It is noteworthy that the butter made from cream pasteur- ized at 165 degrees F. flash, showed practically the same increase in the Reichert-Meissl number as the raw cream butter, again empha- sizing the inefficiency of this process. Even considering that small differences may be due to experi- mental error, it must nevertheless be admitted that slight changes 33 in the Reichert-Meissl number may and often do produce decided deterioration in the flavor of butter. This statement is further substantiated by a subsequent experiment in which pure butter fat was stored and which became intensely rancid without materially affecting the butter fat constants. Iodine: Number. — A decrease in the iodine number would in- dicate oxidation of the unsaturated fatty acids, primarily the oleic acid accompanied by tallowiness or other off-flavors. The figures in Table XXI show no such decrease; the slight increase shown may reasonably be attributed to experimental error. SaponiEication VaeuE."^ — The saponification value indicates the number of milligrams of potassium hydroxide required to neutralize the total fatty acids in one gram of fats and thereby to completely saponify the fat. An increase in the saponification value would necessarily indicate an increase in the total fatty acids as explained for the Reichert-Meissl number. Meeting Point. — An increase in the melting point would in- dicate that fatty acids of a higher melting point have been formed. This may be due to the formation of hydroxy stearic acids whose melting point is 81.5 degrees C., due to the oxidation of the oleic acid. Under certain conditions, oleic acid may be oxidized to form fatty acids of a lower melting point, in which case there might be a decrease in the melting point depending on the extent of each of the above two reactions. The increase of the melting point at 185 degrees F. flash might indicate the influence of high temperature favoring the oxidation process. This might very possibly be hastened by the high acidity of the cream, pasteurized at that temperature, causing the mucil- aginous substances protecting the fat globules to be removed and thus subjecting the fat more readily to the oxidizing influences. Retractive Index. — Changes of the refractive index would suggest deterioration of the fat, but would not furnish any indication as to the character of the deterioration. These would have to be considerable to deserve consideration. The changes shown in Table XXI are very slight. Acid Vaeue. — This constant shows the greatest change between raw and pasteurized cream butter, indicating a greater reduction of the butter fat into fatty acids in the case of raw cream butter than in the case of pasteurized cream butter. The acid value may also be slightly influenced, i. e., increased by the acidity of the butter. SoeubeE Acids. — The soluble acids increased slightly in all but- ter during storage, which, owing to the very slight change, may be attributed to the experimental error, or to the acidity of the butter, or to both. 1 Saponification value or number 34 Insoluble: Acids. — An increase in the insoluble acids would indicate oxidation of some of the fats, primarily the olein. These figures show the greatest increase in the case of 185 degrees F. flash and therefore corroborate the statement made concerning the melting point and with reference to the effect of high temperature on the fat in sour cream. EFFECT OF STORAGE OF BUTTER FAT ON FAT CONSTANTS The very slight differences in the fat constants of fresh butter and of stored butter, as shown in the part on the “Effect of Pasteur- ization on Butter Fat Constants in Raw and Pasteurized Cream But- ter when Fresh and after Storage,” made it uncertain as to whether the fat took part in the deterioration of the butter flavor at all, and suggested that defects in flavor may be entirely due to the non- fatty ingredients of butter. An effort was therefore made to study the effect of storing pure butter fat on the fat constants. For this purpose the following experiment was conducted : Samples of butter were taken from the Purdue University Creamery each month for 12 consecutive months. The butter was warmed to 55 degrees to 60 degrees C. in a beaker, and this melted butter was allowed to separate by gravity, causing the water, curd and other non-fatty ingredients to settle and the butter fat to form a clear layer on top. After six to eight hours, this clarified fat was filtered and filled into four-ounce, wide-mouthed, glass-stoppered bottles, which had previously been thoroughly cleansed, dried and sterilized. The filled bottles were stoppered, and sealed hermetical- ly by dipping into paraffin. Twelve bottles were prepared in this way from one churning each month, and each set was held for ii months at room temperature, and each month one sample from each set was analysed for fat constants. Analyse:s of Samples of Butter Fat. — These samples were numbered from i to 12, No. i representing the butter while fresh and the remainder of the numbers representing the ii months of storage in consecutive order. These samples were analysed for but- ter fat constants while fresh and again at intervals of one month for II months. They were also examined for flavor. During the first two months of storage, no appreciable change to6k place, neither in color nor taste of these samples. By the third and fourth months, rancidity began developing and some samples became bleached, the whitening starting on the surface and proceeding downward. After five months storage, the rancidity had become very intense and the bleaching continued. In order to economize space the detailed analyses are here omitted. Table XLVI in the appendix shows the average fat con- stants of the 12 samples for each separate month. Below are as- sembled the averages of the first two analyses of all the samples, 35 and the averages of the last two analyses of all the samples, show- ing the difference between the fresh fat plus the fat one month old, and the fat after storage for lo and ii months. Tabi,k XXII. — Showing Average Butter Fat Constants in Butter Fat from 12 Separate Churnings. (The fat was separated from the butter while fresh arid the fat only was stored. These figures show the averages of the constants in the fresh fat and in the fat after 12 months storage at room temperature) Averages of 12 samples of butter fat when fresh and after 12 months storage Age of t fat i Reichert- Meissl number Iodine number Insoluble acids per cent. Soluble t acids per cent. Saponi- , flcation ! value ! Melting I I point 1 degrees 0 . Acid j value Refrac- tive index Fresh 29.177 36.093 87.892 6.073 229.316 33.648 1.391 44.155 11 months 29.645 35.971 88.289 6.206 231.673 33.367 2.235 43.608 Difference -f.468 -.122 -i-.397 -f.l33 4-2.357 -.281 4- .844 -.547 The above table shows that the fat constants in the stored but- ter fat underwent but very slight changes ; not at all commensurate with the degree of rancidity and tallowiness developed in this but- ter fat. These figures are similar, in a general way, to those repre- senting the fat constants in the stored butter, both in extent and in direction, taking into consideration the fact that the stored fat was held over twice as long and at room temperature and showed a much more intense off-flavor, extremely rancid, than the stored butter which was held at -6 degrees F. and which showed only ordinary storage off-flavor. These results demonstrate that in this case, using only filtered butter fat, the changes in flavor must have been due to changes in the butter fat and yet these changes were accompanied by only very slight changes in the butter fat constants. This fact indicates that but slight changes in the butter fat constants may and do produce very marked deterioration of the flavor of the butter fat. It further suggests that in storage butter the changes in flavor may, in part at least, be caused by the partial breaking down of the fats. It should be understood here, however, that the flavor changes which the butter fat underwent in storage at room temperature consisted ex- clusively of the development of tallowiness and rancidity while the flavor changes which butter undergoes in cold storage are usually of a different character, such as the production of the so-called storage flavor, fishiness, etc. 36 PROTEIN DECOMPOSITION IN RAW CREAM AND PASTEURIZED CREAM BUTTER WHEN FRESH AND AFTER STORAGE The hydrolized or cleavage products of fhe proteins in butter, made from raw and pasteurized cream, when fresh and after stor- age, were determined by the addition, to measured portions of the watery extracts of the melted butter, of the precipitants bromine, copper sulphate, tannic acid and phosphotungstic acid, estimating the nitrogen in the filtrates from these reagents. A detailed de- scription of the methods employed in these protein determinations may be found in the part on “Methods Used for Analyses.” Tables XLVII to L inclusive in the appendix show the de- termination of protein cleavage products in 64 separate churnings of raw cream and pasteurized cream butter when fresh and after stor- age at -6 degrees F. for one, three and five months, respectively. These figures have been averaged and summarized in the following tables. TabIvi: XXIII. — Summary of Average Per Cent, of Nitrogen not Precipitated by Bromine, Copper Sulphate, Phosphotungstic Acid and Tannic Acid. Representing 64 Churnings when Fresh and after Five months Storage at -6 Degrees F. (Expressed in percentage of total nitrogen in butter) 1 Bromine Copper sulphate Phospho- tungstic 1 I acid Tannic acid I Average Raw cream Fresh 5 months 28.18 32.23 17.03 20.19 9.92 13.72 11.46 15.08 16.64 20.31 Difference 4.05 3.16 3.80 3.62 3.67 Pasteurized at 145 degrees F. 20 minutes holding Fresh 5 months 28.41 30.34 15.63 18.40 10.20 12.88 12.84 16.14 16.77 19.44 Difference 1.93 2.77 2.68 3.30 2.67 Pasteurized at 165 degrees F. flash Fresh 5 months 25.58 30.76 16.12 18.61 10.96 13.58 13.74 15.47 16.60 19.60 Difference 5.18 2.49 2.62 2.73 3.00 Pasteurized at 185 degrees F. flash Fresh 5 months 26.15 28.57 14.82 17.86 11.38 14.51 14.84 15.66 16.80 19.15 Difference 2.42 3.04 3.13 .82 2.35 37 Table XXIV. — Comparison of the Average Increase of Protein (nitrogen) not Precipitated, for all Lots and Precipi- tants During Five Months Storage Raw cream 3.67 Pasteurized 145 degrees P. 20 minutes • 2.67 Pasteurized 165 degrees F. flash 3.00 Pasteurized 185 degrees F. flash 2.35 Tables XXIII and XXIV show the rate of protein hydrolysis or protein decomposition. The nitrogen not precipitated by the reagents used, bromine, copper sulphate, phosphotungstic acid and tannic acid is a measure of the protein hydrolysis which has taken place in the butter made from raw cream and the butter made from cream pasteurized at 145 degrees F. (20 minutes), 165 degrees F. flash and 185 degrees F. flash, during storage at -6 degrees F. for five months. It is generally considered that phosphotungstic acid precipitates all proteins that are not broken down to the forms of amino acids, except the hexone bases. This is, however, not the case, either with phosphotungstic acid, or with copper sulphate, or with tannic acid, which are often considered complete precipitants of proteins not hydrolized, and in consequence of this, the nitrogen not precipitated by these acids does not represent amino acids alone, but is usually termed ‘'amid nitrogen.” The figures in the above summarized tables show that in the case of all the butter, made from raw and from pasteurized cream, the proteins not precipitated by these reagents increased during storage. This indicates that there is some protein hydrolysis or protein decomposition taking place in all butter during storage, even at a temperature below zero Fahrenheit, and it suggests that this protein decomposition may, in a large measure, be responsible for the development of ofif-flavors in butter held in storage. On the basis of this deterioration of the protein in butter and its consequent unfavorable efifect on the flavor of the butter stored, it appears obvious that, other factors being equal, the amount of protein or curd present in butter largely governs its keeping quality, or the rapidity and extent of its deterioration. The more protein butter contains, the greater the possibility for protein decomposition and the larger the amount of protein cleavage or decomposition products that may result. It is of the greatest importance, therefore, that butter that is. not consumed while fresh and butter that is intended for prolonged storage be as free as possible from curd. Such butter should be churned do small granules which yield up the buttermilk readily and it should be washed until it drains clear water. One washing is insufficient; two or three washings are necessary to remove the buttermilk and curd properly. The working of curd into butter, in 38 the form of starter, milk powder or dried curd added to the churn, is obviously objectionable from the point of view of good keeping quality. The results above tabulated further show that the protein hy- drolysis was greatest in the raw cream butter and least in the but- ter made from cream pasteurized at 185 degrees F., flash process. This fact emphasizes the correctness of the results discussed earlier in this bulletin, to the effect that the high germ killing efficiency and the power of a temperature of 185 degrees F. to destroy the activity of enzymes improves the keeping quality of butter made from cream so pasteurized. The relatively small extent of protein hydrolysis of this butter suggests that there was less bacterial or enzyme action or both, since one of the most common agencies for the cleavage of the proteins is bacteria, yeasts, molds and enzymes. CAUSES OF PROTEIN HYDROLYSIS There are several and diverse factors which are capable of bringing about protein hydrolysis. Bacteria, Yeasts, Molds and Enzymes. — The presence and activity in butter of microorganisms and enzymes represent one of the most important causes of protein decomposition. These agents are practically always present in butter, although their num- ber is greatly reduced in the case of butter made from properly pasteurized cream. In fact the protein content of butter furnishes a necessary food element for most of the germ life present and without this, bacterial action would be greatly retarded if not entirely inhibited. Bacterial analyses of butter in storage show that although the total count of bacteria in butter diminishes comparatively rapidly in storage, some species of microorganisms, especially those of the liquefying order, are able to multiply in butter in storage even be- low zero degrees Fahrenheit. While it is uncertain whether these germs enter into the decomposition of the proteins, their presence and activity suggest this possibility. Of the enzyme action in storage butter, there is but very meagre experimental knowledge, but knowing their power to cause cleavage of proteins, it is reasonable to assume that they may play a very prominent part in protein hydrolysis in butter. Acidity. — Independent of bacterial and enzyme action, the presence of acid in butter may and undoubtedly does have a decided influence in hastening protein hydrolysis. It is known that protein may hydrolize, on long standing, in the presence of water alone, without the assistance of any inter- mediary agents; and water in this sense may be considered an acid. 39 Rogers and Gray ^ and others have conclusively demonstrated that sweet cream butter has better keeping quality than ripened cream butter, even if the ripened cream is of the best quality. The practical creamery man has learned by costly experience that butter made from high acid cream does not keep well and that both the flavor and keeping quality can be materially improved by reducing the acid in the cream by neutralization. Metals and Metallic Salts. — The presence in butter of metals or metallic salts, even in very minute quantities, may further invite hydrolysis of the proteins in butter. Such metals as copper, iron, zinc, nickel, etc., may and do act catalytically, often greatly accelerating the cleavage of protein products or even directly or in- directly influencing the hydrolysis of the fats, and causing diverse and serious butter defects. The results of some of these influences are brought out prom- inently in the data obtained from the above tabulated analyses of fresh and stored butter made from raw and pasteurized cream. It is but natural, that in the presence of acids, salts, metals and pos- sibly bacteria and enzymes, there should be a continual cleavage of the proteins and that this cleavage take place in proportion to the kind and amount of hydrolizing agents present. Condition oe Cream. — It should be understood that it would be difficult to secure cream and butter made therefrom, in which hydrolysis is not already started. We cannot assume that because butter is made from so-called sweet cream, chemical and possibly biological changes, have not already begun. The character of the proteids in milk and cream is known to be affected by the health and physical and physiological condition of the cows, their feed, etc. This fact, together with the presence of the minute quantities of these cleavage products present, renders it practically impossible to detect these changes in sweet cream and butter by our ordinary method of analysis. If it is true that even sweet cream may not be free from pro- tein cleavage products, then it is natural that butter made from sour gathered cream, such as was used in the experiments herein recorded and such as is largely available in the manufacture of large quantities of commercial butter, contains a much larger per cent, of cleavage products of the proteins or products which do to a greater or less degree approach protein decomposition. When this butter then goes into storage, the hydrolysis of some of the protein is already started and its action continues in accord- ance with the stage of development, the condition of the but- ter and the temperature of storage, producing in a comparatively short time changes in flavor and market value. 1 Rogers and Gray, “The Influence of Acidity of Cream on the Flavor of Butter,” United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Animal Industry, Bulletin No. 114, 1909 40 PROTEIN DECOMPOSITION OF BUTTER HELD AT ROOM TEM- PERATURE AFTER ONE YEAR OF COLD STORAGE The previous experiment, determining the proteins in butter not precipitated by bromine, copper sulphate and phosphotungstic acid was repeated. In this case the butter was held for 12 months in cold storage, temperature o to 20 degrees F., and then was re- moved and held at room temperature (about 70 degrees F.) for an additional 12 months. The results thus secured are summarized in Table XXV. Table XXV. — Showing Per Cent. Protein Not Precipitated by Bromine, Copper Sulphate and Phosphotungstic Acid in Butter Made from Raw and Pasteurized Cream, when Fresh, After 12 Months Storage at o to 20 Degrees F. and After 12 Months Additional Storage at Room Temperature (Expressed in percentage of total nitrogen in butter) Protein not precipitated by average of total protein not pre- cipitated Age of butter bromine copper sulphate phospho- tungstie acid Raw cream Fresh After 12 months storage at 0-20 degrees F. After 12 months additional storage at room temperature Increase for first 12 months Increase at room temperature 33.62 34.56 46.22 .94 11.66 17.03 19.21 39.76 2.18 20.55 8.9 11.09 31.55 2.18 20.46 1.77 17.56 Pasteurized at 145 degrees P. 20 minutes Fresh 30.23 15.18 9.72 After 12 months storage at 0-20 degrees F. 30.82 16.56 10.12 After 12 months additional storage at room temperature ■ 45.48 32.30 27.43 Increase for first 12 months .59 1.38 .40 .79 Increase at room temperature 14.66 15.74 17.31 15.90 P asteurized at 165 degrees JF. flash Fresh After 12 months storage at 30“0l ”13(82 8.45 0-20 degrees F. After 12 months additional storage .31.35 19.51 9.61 at room temperature 47.89 39.60 29.35 Increase for first 12 months 1.34 5.69 1.16 2.73 Increase at room temperature 17.88 20.09 19.74 19.26 Pasteurized at 185 degrees P. flash Fresh After 12 months storage at 29.81 15.49 9.11 0-20 degrees F. After 12 months additional storage 31.67 16.59 10.27 at room temperature 44.35 30.16 23.11 1.37 Increase for first 12 months 1.86 1.10 1.16 Increase at room temperature 12.68 13.57 12.84 13.03 41 The figures under “raw cream” represent the averages of seven separate churnings, while the figures under “pasteurized at 145 degrees F. (20 minutes), 165 degrees F. flash and 185 degrees F. flash” respectively, represent the averages of two churnings each. The seven churnings of the raw cream butter were made from the same cream as the six churnings of the pasteurized cream butter. While the total of the six pasteurized cream churn- ings represents the same cream as the total of the seven raw cream churnings of butter, each of the three sets of two churnings of pasteurized cream butter of which the averages are given was made from the same cream as that used in two only of the raw cream churnings. It is obvious therefore that the average of the seven raw cream churnings and the averages of the two pasteurized cream churnings of each of three processes of pasteurization are not quite comparable. Nevertheless the dififerent lots of cream used in this experiment were very similar in quality so that the results should be indicative of the relative merits of different processes of pasteuriza- tion as compared with raw cream butter. The results in Table XXV are similar to those of the previous experiment. Again the total non-precipitated proteins in butter after cold storage were greater in the case of the raw cream butter than those in butter made from cream pasteurized at 145 degrees F. (20 minutes) and at 185 degrees F. flash. They further show that after butter was taken out of cold storage and kept at room temperature for 12 month's, the per cent, non-precipitated proteins multiplied approximately ten fold. This suggests the hardships which butter encounters after it leaves stor- age and that unless it is used up promptly, protein hydrolysis may set in very rapidly, causing speedy deterioration of the butter. The butter made from cream pasteurized at 185 degrees F. flash shows the smallest increase in the per cent, of non-precipitated proteins. This again emphasizes the probable relative freedom of this butter from protein-hydrolizing bacteria and enzymes. The butter made from cream pasteurized at 165 degrees F. flash process shows the greatest increase in non-precipitated proteins, suggest- ing, as in previous experiments, the inadequacy of this process to retard the breaking down of the proteins. METHODS USED IN THE ANALYSES OF CREAM AND BUTTER Factory Tests The cream, as it arrived on the receiving platform, was graded for flavor by taste and smell, and for acid with decinormal sodium hydroxide. The butter was scored independently by two judges, regularly when fresh and when 30, 60 and 90 days old. The scores of the two judges were averaged and these averages only were used in the tables. 42 Bacte:riological Analyses Sampling Cream. — The sample representing the raw cream was taken from a large vat containing the entire batch of cream used in each series of the experiments, and before the cream was divided into the four equal churnings of raw cream, and cream to be pasteurized at 145 degrees F. holding process, 165 degrees F. flash process and 185 degrees F. flash process respectively. The en- tire batch of cream was well mixed before sampling. The samples of the pasteurized cream of each of the three pro- cesses of pasteurization were taken from the ripening vats as soon as all the cream in them had been cooled to a temperature of 50 degrees F. All samples of cream were taken by dipping from the thorough- ly stirred vat with a sterile stirrer, equal portions of cream in sterile half-pint bottles with tight glass stoppers. All samples were then placed at a temperature of 35 degrees F. until plated. The plating was usually done within three hours of the sampling. Sampling Butter. — The samples of butter were taken from the tubs 24 hours after packing. Plugs, three to four inches long, were taken with sterile butter triers and placed at once into sterile petri dishes. Dilutions. — The dilutions used in making the numerical de- terminations are shown in Table XXVI. Table XXVI. — Showing Dilutions Used for the Plating of Cream and Butter for Bacterial Counts Number of plates for each dilution Cream Dilution cream pasteurized at and one part butter in raw cream 145 degrees P. i 165 degrees P. 185 degrees P. 1 20 minutes flash flash Cream 100 2 2 2 2 5,000 2 2 2 2 2 2 ' 2 10,000 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 ; 100,000 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 ' 1,000,000 2 2 2 2 2 1 10,000,000 2 2 Blitter 100 2 2 , 1 2 5,000 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 ' 2 10,000 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 i 100,000 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1,000,000 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 10,000,000 2 2 The dilutions were made in 250 c. c. glass-stoppered flasks. In the case of the cream two cubic centimeters of cream in 198 cubic centimeters of sterile water were used from the flrst dilution. In the case of butter, two grams of butter weighed into a tared 43 flask and mixed with enough sterile water at a temperature of 98 degrees F. to make up 100 cubic centimeters, constituted the first dilution. In extremely hot weather, it was found necessary to increase the dilutions of the raw cream and of the butter made therefrom to dilutions of from 1,000,000 to 10,000,000, in order to secure readable plates. Plating. — The following culture media were prepared and used for the total counts, acidifiers, liquefiers, yeasts and molds. Media for Total Counts 4 grams beef extract 10 grams peptone 30 grams lactose 4 grams sodium chloride 12 grams thread agar 1000 c. c. distilled water Acidity o.i per cent. Media for Acidifiers The same medium was used as for the total counts, but one cubic centimeter of sterile litmus solution was first added to each plate. Media for Liquefiers 4 grams beef extract 10 grams peptone 30 grams lactose 4 grams sodium chloride 150 grams gelatin 1000 c. c. distilled water Acidity o.i per cent. Media for Yeasts and Molds 4 grams beef extract 10 grams peptone 12 grams agar 1000 grams whey Acidity 0.2 per cent One cubic centimeter of sterile one per cent, tartaric acid solu- tion was added to each plate before pouring medium over dilution. Incubation. — Agar, litmus agar and whey agar plates were incubated at 35 degrees C. for four days. The plates were placed in the incubator in an inverted position to minimize the loss of mois- ture by evaporation. Gelatin plates were incubated at 21 degrees C. for five days. 44 Reading Peatks and Recording. — The culture plates were read on a Jeffers counting plate. A careful record was made of each reading together with such other data as were deemed im- portant for subsequent interpretation of results. Chemicae Anaeyses oe Butter This work comprises chemical determinations and analyses as follows : 1. Butter Salt, per cent. Moisture, per cent. Curd, per cent. Acidity, per cent. 2. Butter fat Acid value Reichert-Meissl number Saponification number Iodine number Soluble acids per cent. Refractive index 3. Protein of Butter Precipitation by bromine Precipitation by copper sulphate Precipitation by tannic acid Precipitation by phosphotungstic acid Sampling oe Butter and Preparation oe Samples. — Within 24 hours after the butter was made and packed into tubs, a quart Mason fruit jar, previously cleaned and sterilized, was filled with the butter taken from three to four different parts of the tub. This was taken to the chemical laboratory and at once warmed to about 50 degrees C. until the butter became soft enough to be thoroughly mixed by frequent shaking. After the butter became homogeneous, it was then cooled to 20 degrees to 25 degrees C. frequently shaking during this interval to prevent separation. To avoid too frequent handling a portion of about 50 grams was transferred to a wide-mouthed bottle and this was used for the estimation of salt, moisture, protein and acidity. The acidity was determined at the earliest possible moment. The remainder of the butter in the quart jar was kept air tight, in a cool, dark place until used. For subsequent analysis of the same lots of butter after being in storage for periods as outlined in the experiment, samples of these lots of butters were brought to the chemical laboratory in quart fruit jars and prepared as above described. 45 Methods Used in the ChEmicae Anaeyses I. Butter Saet. — The salt was estimated by the official method. (Journal of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, Vol. II, p. 294). Moisture. — About five grams of butter were weighed into an aluminum dish and dried to constant weight at 98 degrees to 99 degrees C. in a steam drying oven. Curd. — About 10 grams of butter were weighed into a flat bottomed porcelain, evaporating dish and dried in a steam drying oven at about 98 degrees to 99 degrees C. The fat was dissolved by means of petroleum ether and passed through a hard grade filter paper; the curd and salt remaining in the evaporating dish were completely transferred to the filter, by means of a bent glass rod and the use of petroleum ether. The filter paper and contents were transferred to a Kjeldahl flask and the nitrogen determined in the usual manner. Blanks were run on filter paper and reagents used. Acidity. — Five grams of butter were weighed into a 250 c. c. tall beaker and to this 25 cubic centimeters of distilled water free from CO2 were added ; the mixture was warmed to about 40 de- grees C., or until the butter fat was melted ; then .5 cubic centi- meter of a one per cent, solution of phenolphthalein added and the mixture was titrated to a sharp pink with N/io NaOH solution. (Phenolphthalein solution. One gram phenolphthalein and 100 cubic centimeters of 50 per cent, alcohol.) 2. Butter Fat Preparation oe the Butter Fat. — About 100 grams of but- ter were kept at a temperature of approximately 50 degrees C. until the fat separated into a layer. The clear fat was then removed with a pipette and filtered into a clean, sterile bottle ; the bottle, when full, was securely corked and stored in a cool, dark place until used. Acid VaeuE. — Ten grams of melted fat were transferred to a 200 c. c. tall beaker and 25 cubic centimeters of a mixture of equal parts of redistilled alcohol and ether added. The mixture of ether and alcohol was previously neutralized to phenolphthalein. To the mixture, fat-ether-alcohol, .5 cubic centimeter of phenolphthalein solution was added and it was then titrated with N/io NaOH to a light pink. The results were expressed in number of cubic centi- meters decinormal sodium hydroxide required to neutralize 10 grams of the fat. REichERT-Meisse Number. — In determining the Reichert- Meissl number the official method was used. (Journal of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, Vol. II, p. 307, (2) under pressure without alcohol.) 46 Saponification Number. — The official method was used in de- termining the saponification number. (Journal of the A. O. A. C., Vol. II, p. 306) Iodine Number. — The iodine absorption number was deter- mined by the Hubl method — Official. (Journal of the A. O. A. C., Vol. II, p. 304.) SoeubeE Acids. — The soluble acids were determined by the offi- cial method. (Journal of the A. O. A. C., Vol. II, p. 306.) Index of Refraction. — The refractive index was determined by the official method by means of the Zeiss-Butyro refractometer. (Journal of the A. O. A. C., Vol. II, p. 301) 3. Proteins of Butter Preparation of the SampeE. — After numerous trials in the separation of the soluble and insoluble proteins of butter, the follow- ing method was used throughout the experiment. For the separa- tion of the proteins from the butter fat, 250 grams of butter, having been well mixed and warmed to be conveniently handled, was weighed to .05 gram. The butter was transferred to a 500 c. c. separatory funnel and 100 cubic centimeters of water at a tempera- ture of 70 degrees C. added and well shaken, after standing for five to 10 minutes or until separation took place. The aqueous portion was drawn off into a 1000 c. c. flask. This washing was repeated, using 100 to 150 cubic centimeters of water at each washing at the above temperature until 1000 cubic centimeters of washing were obtained. Aliquot portions of 100 cubic centimeters of the washing were measured and transferred to beakers of 250 c. c. capacity. To these the precipitants were added. The precipitants used were bro- mine, copper sulphate, tannic acid and phosphotungstic acid. Beakers and contents were set aside and left over night, care being taken to have somewhat uniform temperature during this period. The object of leaving the beakers over night was to save time, the preparation and washing being done in the afternoon, and this procedure was carried out through the entire experiment. The precipitates obtained by all the above precipitants are more or less soluble in water, depending on the compounds formed, and the solubilities increasing with rise of temperature. Precau- tions were taken in the method of washing the precipitates and the work was done at a reasonably uniform temperature ranging from 23 degrees to 24 degrees C. Precipitation with Bromine Water. — To 100 cubic centi- meters of the washing, 15 cubic centimeters of a saturated solution of bromine water were added, stirred and set aside over night. This was filtered after the liquid had passed through the filter. The pre- cipitate was washed with bromine water until the filtrate measured 47 150 cubic centimeters; The filtrate was transferred to a Kjeldahl flask and the nitrogen determined. Precipitation with Copper Sulphate. — The method of Richmond and Boseley was used. (The Analyst, 1893, p. 172; also Allen’s Commercial Organic Analysis, Vol. IV, p. 87, sec- ond edition.) One hundred cubic centimeters of filtrate were taken and neutralized to a faint pink and five cubic centimeters of a six per cent, copper sulphate solution added. After standing over night the solution was filtered, the precipitate washed with water to 150 cubic centimeters. The nitrogen in this filtrate was determined. Precipitation with Tannic Acid. — Almen’s Tannin Reagent was used. This reagent consists of four grams of tannic acid in 150 cubic centimeters of 50 per cent, alcohol, and eight cubic centi- meters of acetic acid of 25 per cent, strength. (Allen’s Commer- cial Organic Analysis, Vol. IV, second edition). Ten cubic centi- meters of this reagent were added to 100 cubic centimeters of wash- ing, mixed and set aside over night. This was filtered and the pre- cipitate washed to 150 cubic centimeters. The nitrogen in this filtrate was determined. Precipitation with Phosphotungstic Acid. — Fifty grams of C. P. phosphotungstic acid were dissolved in 1000 cubic centimeters of 2.5 per cent, hydrochloric acid. After standing for 24 hours, this was filtered. To each 100 cubic centimeters of washing, 10 cubic centi- meters of the phosphotungstic acid solution were added and set aside over night. This was filtered and the precipitate washed with water to 150 cubic centimeters. The nitrogen in this filtrate was determined in the usual way. All determinations were made in duplicate. Duplicates varying more than .4 cubic centimeter N/20 solution were redetermined. Discussion oe Methods for Separating and Estimating the Protein Cleavage Products of Butter Preliminary trials in separating the hydrolized products were carried out as follows: 250 grams of butter were washed by means of warm water at 70 degrees C. in portions of 100 to 150 cubic centimeters until 500 cubic centimeters of washing were ob- tained. Aliquots of 100 cubic centimeters were transferred to beakers and the respective precipitants added. After standing from six to eight hours, or over night, they were then filtered and the nitrogen in the filtrate determined. The per cent, of nitrogen was expressed in terms of the nitrogen washed out of the butter. The total nitrogen in the washing was estimated and found to represent only about 70 to 80 per cent, of the total nitrogen in the butter. This would make the per cent, of nitrogen proportionately low, provided the nitrogen were not based on the total nitrogen in the butter. This could be easily calculated on the total nitrogen in the 48 butter, by knowing the per cent, of nitrogen in the washing. There was considerable variation in the per cent, of nitrogen washed out, and the low per cent, washed out introduced considerable errors. To obviate this, the butter was washed in the above manner, but washed until looo cubic centimeters were obtained. By this modi- fication it was found that 95 to 99 per cent, of the proteins was washed out. In our experience, the proteins washed out from dif- ferent lots of butter are not uniform, depending on the age and physical and chemical conditions of the butter. The age of the butter seems to have a great influence on the ease of washing out the proteins ; the older the butter, the lower the percentage of pro- teins washed out. Butter made from unpasteurized cream always yielded washings richer in proteins than pasteurized cream butter. While this was generally true, variations occurred and therefore no good reasons can be given. Assuming that the relative proportion of the proteins and cleavage products are the same in that portion not washed from the butter as that washed out, we can base the cleavage products, ex- pressed in terms of nitrogen, on the total nitrogen in butter. This assumption appears reasonable from our observation of the two methods of washing. When the nitrogen of the cleavage products was based on the total nitrogen in the butter, using both methods of washing, the difiference came within the experimental error involved in the present methods of estimating protein nitro- gen ; but the washing made up to 1000 cubic centimeters was pre- ferred, which may be seen from the following simple application. If the 500 cubic centimeters washing gave only 70 per cent, of the total nitrogen in the butter, and the washing made up to 1000 cubic centimeters gave 98 per cent, of the total nitrogen, the error would be proportionately multiplied. By using washings made up to lOOO cubic centimeters, we have been able to get reasonably good, com- parative results. The proteins and the cleavage products, in addi- tion to basing them on the total nitrogen in the butter, were calcu- lated on the basis of moisture-free butter. This method of esti- mation and calculation has caused our figures to appear somewhat high. This fact does not detract from the value of the work, pro- vided these methods are uniformly and strictly adhered to, since we are dealing only with relative changes in the proteins of butter. The amount of proteins in butter is too small and the technique too complicated and uncertain to separate the dififerent cleavage products quantitatively. For example, it would not be feasible to separate quantitatively the proteoses, peptones and amino acids. However, the results secured by these methods are comparable and show unmistakably the extent of protein decomposition of butter in storage when made from raw and pasteurized cream. (See Appendix Showing Tables of Detailed Data) 49 lO ^ C3 ’U ct3 00 Oh ^ 1— 1 c - Ph C/J ^ "i Q o S crt 8 S CO o -H X) > X X y a < bJO 00 Ph lx: lO LO cq cq lO lO oo cq lO lO iq 00 CO o xq o iq iq xo o o O o o XO 00 oq o o o o xq cri od ci oi od oi od od o od o cc o' od i>^ i>^ od <1D XO l>^ CD CD CD oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo di oo Cl Cl oo Cl oo oo oo 00 OO OO oo oo OO oo oo oo OO OO OO oo ^ TZ OJ !3 (M OOCOOOOOOOOOXOlOOOCOiOOiOOOOOOOOOCOlLOO^lOlOOOOOO^OO oo Oi Cl cjqooqcooqoqooicoqcoooqiooiooooo^^^cocxjcoiooioioooo^ o4o4rHOq-r-5T-5c^OT-5oT-HOT-Hi-Haic^C^io4T-H-rHClioOOaiOrH'i-Hi-Ho6C3T-HOd ciOTciciciciciaicicioioioioioocioiciciciaici<^oioociciaiciooaioioo oq o cq O XO oo oq o oo oq xq xq oq XO CO xq oo oo XO CD cq o cq o o CO CO o xq cq xq oo XO ci od ci od CO ci od o ci CD ci CD o l>^ o ci XO XO t>^ ci ID^ CD t>^ ci l>^ od oo 00 oo 00 00 oo GO Cl oo Cl oo Cl Cl Cl oo oo Cl oo Cl oo oo OO oo oo oo oo oo oo oo 00 oo oo oo COt^T-l)OClCOt^T— (LOOlCOt^T-HlOCOr^THlOOlCOI C^fMCOOOCO'^'^iOlOlOCCCCit^t^OOOOClOiaiO' § -9 -9 S S S s 2 S S g Qj OJ 0) O ^ 0,0.0 O 01 o oj a >4 >> u u ^ 9 9 fn 'S "S Jh *&H ^ 9 o o o o 5 ^ c CG o CJ bf) o 2 2 Ph 02 Sx3 ^ c» 6J) 83 W S in oo>o»r3ii:)ioioiocx)»oao»oeooocooq>o»oocoioooqo>oiqo»o»opcoo <:oo6a^cdi-HCOcrjotOocrjodoiT-Hido^cx5oaic>d<:otOcpc»io^oooo^oo^oot^ OO OO OO OO 05 C)0 OO 05 C50 05 OO QO 05 05 C20 OO <50 05 C50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 GO <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 0<^booio^oio0(^oeo<»<5qpppipooo5pppiop»oi0ppppop<5q rrx rn f~2 lo i— 5 tP CO <35 t— I “ GO x— I 05 iO t>» 05 t>- CO lO CO CD 05 05 <50 lO CO <50 <50 05 <50 05 <50 <50 <50 <50 05 05 05 <05 <05 <50 <50 <05 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 « O ^ G eu}'S .§s ! 2 § XOO<5000001050p<50<=><^bOO>/^»/t><50C505010p^(5q50pppp»OppP sjsssgsgsssssggssssssisssssssssssas l050<500>/t)0000<50C500>/5'050K3COOpPpppppppppppp»0 1^ X ^ X § go S SSSSS s s$s ^ ^ Ph , o pO IllliiiiS |S|| §|-a:g: 3 S>,>,^>.gg§§§§!>.!^,>. g-t^'SoooooS Soog i£ftaftap< 2222 §§ccc c c c c xrt bo 03 -O ^ oooooocoiooococou:)ooo»ooocoiooooqoooiOoq»oocoococqoo )nododt>-*':oioajo6oodoodairHCviocrjoo6r^'':j:5odt^cr5>ocpt>^oododcrja3crj ooooooooooooooGocriooasoocxjcrsooasQOcnoooooooooooooooocooooooooooocx) Ph CO u _ c; 33 Sh CO bO 03 TS ^ 00cx)i0»0i00c0 00 00 00i0c0n:»0c00t)0»37>0l00l00i0l0c0>330i0000 00 o cq oo oq o o looo oqoqocooqoquoiOiOcoooijqcqooQqioiqiLOoooqoqeq C3oda^t>^id'3di>lKO':oodoc4i-5oodoo-r-3oi-5oaiaiCTia5«3a3t^cx5a3oaixd ooc»ooooooooaocooocxj03a^oocj30oa5C^ai03crjC3oooooooooocx)cxDoocoo30ooo Lcqi3qoioo^cDooi3oijqioiiouoio»3o oooKoiqoo^oiioo^ ooiooooq o4(oi-^':£5ccicsiid'^idciO)-6i>^t^odo4csi ioiouoioiood'^<:ocoi>-‘'c35'^ t^aiodooto OOaOOOOOOOCOGOOOCOOOOOC/JOOCOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOGOOO (MC^eoco'oti'^rjHioi (Ofl 3D O 'Of oo (M CO ' CS| (M CO OO CO ^ 'f J >> >> 'gSSSSr-E>.>.>.t» 2222 a 2 l»t»!>. lE^lsassfllf a® -S®||||So«oa '^''^'3 \ Table XXX. — Scores of Butter when 90 Days Old. Storage Temperature o to 20 Degrees F. Showing ^2 to rHCM(M CO t— I CS t— I i— I CO l>^ T-H CO'i-h'cO T-i' o' • CD CD CM XO CM XO XO CO C£> XO o OO o O XO o CD o CD !>. XO o CD CM o CO xo XO t^ O CO CO CD o CM XO 'Cf XO CM xq CM CD CD. t-H r-- cq CM o O CO O CM 1— j oo xo xq xq CO CO OO CD o- oo. TT ^ s XO xd 05 xd OO CM* CM* CD CO od od l>^ O O CD HJH o’ cd 05 i>^ cd od 05 CD CD 05 O) a CO CD 05 OO 05 05 oo 05 05 05 CM CD oo CD 05 05 05 CD 05 CD 05 05 oo CD 05 05 CD 05 05 CD CD 05 00 1 ooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooo O 0 0 0 0 0^0 O CD OOi-HOO»Ot-HO »OCOLQrHr-rCDi-H"l>rLOC^JCDCdxOcdodlOT3?'T^iOOOI>ri>^cd CX) T— I CM T— I 1 — I CO T— I 1 — I 1 — I CM T— I CM I rH T— I 1 — I T— I CO OO CO CD XO t-- CM CM CO XO OO CO CM CO P 'O CD O O OO CD OO XO 05 CO CD XO CD 05 xo CD OO CO XO CD 05 CD XO 00 05 OO CD OO 05 OO Htl OJ ^ CD 05 05 05 05 05 CD oq 05 05. CM. 05 CD CD 05 05 05 CD 00 05 05 CD 05 05. 05. CD 05 05 <05 05 oq ^ fp 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 CD 05 05 <05 05* 05 05 05 05 <05 05 05 CD CD 05 05 CD CD <05* <05 05 CD 05 <05 05 a> ^ ft CD 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 CD 05 CD 05 CD CD CD 05 CD 05 CD <05 05 CD <05 CD CD <05 05 CD 05 05 CD 00000l0>00000i00'cf'0>0)0' O O O CM O OO O »0) CO ^ I CO o tH o CO CM ^ 1 — I CD O ^ Ol T— I CX) CM CO CO CO 1—1 CM CD CM O CO i— I CM O iO o o o OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 0^0 CD O O CD o O O O o o o o o O^O^O o o 0^0 o o lO O CD O o' ^ o' O <0 CO lo cT O lO o CD O O CD CD O CD O CD O O CD O O CD t^CMCOOCMCMOOCO lO O i-HCMi— li— ICMO»0)Tt^CDlOOOOCX)CX)CMOCX)iiOlOOOCMCMCM IlO O XO 1-H CM CO 1— I 1— I 1— I CM 1— I CM 1—1 CM CM CM CM 1— I CM CM 1-H CM i— i CO i— I i— I CM i— I i— I t-H i— I OOOOOOOO' 00000 > 000 ' OOOOOOOO' '^J'OOCMO'- . CMCMCO'^'^'^OXOCDCD'Ot^l .COt^i-HXOiOCOt^i— lOOCOt^^lcOOK iT:}HTfXO)XOXOCDOC^t^t^OO(X)OOiO< . 1— I lO ' > 1— I 1—1 ' "o roTcoi ^ 0( I o ■ I lO ; p< > > > « « V ^ !» w 6 O (5 Q Q Q 0 fS; S ^ S S I I? I? t? I? I? 1? “ 1 These figures represent number of thousands bacteria per cubic centimeter of cream - Per cent, increase Tabi^e: XXXII. — Showing Acid Producing Bacteria^ in Cream and Per Cent, of Germs Killed by Pasteurization 54 cd !>. CO fO Ol JO CO o lO to CO to CD TJH CO CO oo < 3 ^ CD CD to CD o CD oo OO (O oo -'^< 00'^C0Ot-IC0C0C0C^OJ0'^(MC010C^C0C0< i CO CO OO l>- CO 1 ^- J-l a O O ' o o o o o o oo S ■^oaTc^oortrc^ooc^o^aj OOOOCOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOJOOOO iJOiOCOOJOJOCOOSO o C^iO 1 — I 1—1 CO o lCOc4t^OOr cvf I T— I 1 — t CO CO lO CO 00 lO 1—1 OO JO OO OOrfi oiooTfrHiococoasoocoaciooi^ooooQOo:) ociociooo5crs<0i0ioci0CiC5OS0^0^0^OCi0^C00Ci05C5(0Si ooooasJoiooJOJOJOioiocoJOoascoooocooc^coooQJOoooJ-oio OOOCOC^I cocococo 1 — ICOlOO tH CC| 1 — ^'cfCNJlO oo ooooo ooooooo . _ _ oooooooooo OOOOOOOO' 'OOOOOOO ■ ooooooo ■ ooooooo OOOOOOOO' OOOOOOOO' 0^000^<0000' oo*GO'X)'X)iOiOOOOi-Hi— l(M(M!MCOCOTfi!d'^iOlO t"H oot:'rTHcrrcoi>^i-Hioocoi>ri-HJJd^i-H"joa5Coi>^i-Hiocjrco^THJogco^T^JO (MOicocO''cfTt(iLOJOiococoi>.ir^t^ooc«cn)'d:"OOOi— ii— Ii-H(M(MCOCOCO;^;^JO^ T~^ tH C^rH»oocor^i^>ogco »C(OOOCO-0 CO oocooo»^cooocoioooo'cooq'!-5ocoooocdo'cfioooco(oio>o^ ook:)i— i»-0(oiOT-i>oio'criiOo t— i (OIt— i t>» 1—1 r— I CO T— I OJI a o 0'^<0)OCD>-0»Q005)0)t^OOCOO'^OaCD'.— ICO>OCO tHOOOOC 50 t^l'^O'-QOGO'cfiOCOCDCOCMOOOIC^OOCOOCOOOOt^OCVJOOOOOOOl'^COO 00<0>00000000000i000000»0 00000»0)00000_ COC30C:>OOOC0000 10 010C010»0)<0>>0)'QftCMOCOlO'cri'Q}HT-l050lrHOOOO o o o 1— I o c)0 ^ oa 1— I lo oo o i— ithco i— i th co ' ~ CO o CO io oo 1— I T-l ^ OO XO 05 t^OOOOlO-^XOOOt^lOCOOOCO OOOO 1— IX-0 000505 Tfi— I 00'cn(0105 05 00r^05c0)05005000505cy5 05 05 05 05 05 00 05 05l^050505x0 050005l0 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 lO XQ XO XO (Oil— I t— lOfli— IXO t-HCOXOt-HCOi-J XO T— ICsixOOOOOT-HCOCOOT— IOC500C5000CD0001— lOXQ-i— 1X0 OCOCPOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOJCDOCDCOOOOOOOOOOOOO OC5OOOC:OOC5O0<0C:. 0x00x000ccc00:oc500 CO»OC5CDi-t^'c5d^C5XOCO— ro'x0cLcvfc0X0C0CNri'^Q0T-rc0''0ix00rC5 0i'05t^C5<:O XO XO 04 1— I T— I 1— i I— I ^ rH CO 05 04 rf 04 i— I i— I OO CM O CO CM o o M* CN 04 CO XO XO o CCJ CO r-T t-H CD CO r-" XO 05 co" CM 04 CO CO XO XO XO o CvT CD oo" of CD o' Ml od cm" 04 Ol CO CO XO XO XO ‘CC> XO ■oT r-T XO 05 co" I'-T r— 1 i CM CM CM CO XO XO (X> 1-^00000005050001— IT— i04 04 04COCO'3^'!ti^XOXO rr-T X aO 05 CO 1-H XO 05 CO 1—1 'i.) Jt>-l^l^000005050500i-HT-( I '• ) 'OP ^ ) oo 05 05 05 O O XO 05 CO 1-H XO oc" CO i-T XO GNJCMCOCOCO'^'cr'XOXO I ( i ^ (GNOICOCOCO'^'^XOXO ' XO 05 CO 1-t XO 05 CO ^ »0 C5 CO r-i" ) O oT CO 1—1 XO oT CO * CDl^l'-^000000050500 0'i-Hi-H(M04 04COCO'0''Cti^XO . . . . K • kJ A.' Pi <1^ <1^ 05 O CO ^ ^ O cj ^ c.-* ^ ^ cc Cw ^ ^ p^ 1 These figures represent number of thousands bacteria per cubic centimeter of cream - Per cent, increase 56 3 V c/} a Ph T? (U o a 2 'o a a m cS -1 bjc o CO a "a . 1 — I CSI rH 00 OOOO^OOOOOOCOCOOOi— li— ic^oqi— lO’— Ib^'^C^^O'XJT-HOTHi-HOOCr: O T— I CM 1 — I lO CO rH o T-i (M OOOOl^OOOi— I 0000 coc^> 00000 ^ 00 » 0 * 0)0 (X>Oai':£>OOCOCD-rH t-HC^CDI^ CMCMCD'TtHTTl-^tMCOOCM'^CM Ot— I CM OS T— I oootPoooooOooooooooos lO CM -I-H CO tH os cm o ^ iOOOOt-HOOCMOOCOOt-H O 0000000100010)00000000000000 0000 i 0)00 (OOOCDOOOlO)rHCOOCMOlO)OOCSOO‘OOOCDCDOCOCOOOOCOO'ct< CMOOOSO^O CMt— It— I CO CM lO O^O^O 'cf O O O O O 'CD O O O i— I lO CM t-HCO COtHCM tH t-h'cm’'^CO CMCMtHtci 5'^ t>^rHCO tH iCOO'cfOOCMtDO^OOCMCOO^OOCMCOO'^OOCMCOO'chiOOCM' ilOCOCOCOt^t^'OOOOOOCJSOSOOOT— I t— ICMCMCMCOCO'' cfl'cf''ct^Ht): TtiOOCMCOO’'C^iOOCMCOO'TtiOOCMCOO'O^OOCMCOO'TfiQOCMCOO' iLQlOCOCOt^C^t^OOOOOSOSOSOOi— I t— iTHCMCMCOCOCOTtl'^lO; 'cOI>-T— llOOSCOt^T— I^DlOSCOt^T— llOOSCOt^T— ILOOSCOt^T— l»OOS< JiOlOCOCOCOt:^l>-OOOOOOOSCrsOOOT— I t— ICMCMCMCOCOTC jTTtiTCti: a ft jOdPSO ooc 3 ^ C 3 ^o'DoOOOooo s>,t>.o>.D)OGsoa>cy, 1 These figures represent number of thousands bacteria per cubic centimeter of cream Table XXXV. — -Showing Total Count of Bacteria^ in Butter at Churn and Per Cent. Germs Killed by Pasteurization 57 • 00 0 1—1 0 10 00 95 fl 0 0 10 1—1 0 t— 0 0 0 0 0 0 ip 0 <05 CO zo <05 10 0 00 <05 0 T—i 10 10 0 05 O' 0 ? 0 0 15 - 0- 00 0 05 l>- 0 xo 0 10 <0 ; <05 cq IP 0 0. V S oq* 0 CO 10 CD od od od 05 od 0 i>^ 05 <05 <05 05 <05 <05 <05 <05 od i>^ 00 05 05 0 05 05 05 <05 05 00 0 0 05 <05 05 <05 <05 <05 05 05 <05 <05 <05 <05 00 <05 <05 c:) <05 <05 <05 <05 <05 05 ! Oob)OC^t^' o ^ CO O O O O iO O ^ O O lO lO o o o o o o o o o o ooOt^T-iooooTfco'5}<0':oc^<^OJOoo^ CP OOOiOO'^fOOOOt^OOOOOOOCOCSOiOCPOOOCPOiOOt^’— lOO <:POOoocP'^ooioo)LOcxDcr50ooa5i-jcpo'^cpoo^'^»oiPocnt>;iPO (Ni'^xdc^oododoooi>^rH^ipio<:pc^cpc^odi>^io(sjo6CTiCTicp ooOTOO'=tiooo:>C20ia2oot^t>"a5a5i>-ooa^aiooa^aia^ooooi>.a3o:)a5C^c:iaiait:^ ooooo o o o o o O CT5 C^O O 'vE th ^“cq OOOOOOCDOO' OiOOOOOOO^O' l>-oocpcDiOTfa:>'^i:^oo: t>. to OO o o < O )lO oO T— I rH 1 Tf Ol UO rf 'TjHai':z)0'=^'oqooooqor^cocric:iOOOiOn>«T— itoooT— iipo ioot^iO)0'^aii:^ait:'^ooaiiO)ooioooT— i-^osoticN 0 »OOOOOOCOt-IO<. ^ ot^iooiiOiOiiOT— i(oqioio»0) Oi cOi T— ( T— I 1 — ( 05 CO s a si oooQooos<=^'^^'=>'^<=>‘^'^'=’'^ooooooo OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO oor o' od o o" o o' 05'' t-h t-h o' o -i-T csT CO oi" i-t o' o" (Ml— I t-H .— I tH 1— I tH rH 1—1 CM CM CM 1—1 i—( 1—1 1-1 i-( 1 — I O O 00 O ( tH 1— I (M ( oq Ttioooqo'^oooqoo'!foo^i-to5cdi>^i-Hioo5cd'i>^i--rijd'o5cot^i--ripa5cd't>^i-H'ioa5cot^i-ti05'a5co''t'~’'i-H'»JO (McqcocO'^tirfiioiLOiooot^t^c^oooooooooi— ii-Hi— loqoqcococo'^rtiiouo T— t 1—1 1 — I 1 — I 1—1 1—1 1—1 1 — I 1—1 1 -H 1—1 1—1 1—1 1 — ( cqoood(^foo■TEodc^*'oo'^od'c^fooTi^od'(^qd(^q'o'o■>^od'<^q'o'orJ^' cooi— ii— ti— loqcMcococo'^'^io^ 1—1 1—1 T— I 1—1 1—1 1— I 1—1 1-H 1—1 1—1 rH i-H 1—1 1 — I i-t 10 o" !>•" I-T 10" 05" CO" I-T lid 05 CO" t>r I-H ud 05 CO rH Ifd 05 CO l>^ I-H 10 05 CO i-H 10 CtT CO (Moqoqco'^ '^'^1010 ooot^i>> 00000005050 ooi-Hi—icMoqoqcocO'^TtiTjHio 5j(yc)«o ooftO) P(.S .5.533 3333333 These figures represent number of thousands bacteria per gram of butter 58 V Vh X X w h4 « < l>- COCO 'CDCO coco CO t>- CO coc^co(McoO'jt^030coocr>oco':c>':r)oou:)ut)oooco':r>coocot^oo'^oooo cor-cot^cooiuDO'XicooococococoariGoooooooo^coooat^u :)!— iojoocjo 1 T— I CM i CO 1 -5 pH CO S3 5 a coaiodcMt^oooooooicocvioioaicoaiaiCTjaiasodooaicid'^aio^c^odcTiaiajco Qoa3o:>c~a3o:i03)a3a:)i>-Go^ooic:icnia3a5a5a:iaio^c3OTa3a^ooa30^o:>aia3C5C^ H 03 1 a> ;h bJO a> 'O bacteria per c.c. oooooooorooooo»ooooo»oi:^cproioooooooc-oo C±>OOCDOlQOt^i-HOOC?i— 1 OrflOCMi— 1 OOCOtMOOOOOCTJT-t COCO O CS 1 -H Ut) csi t-H tH OOCiOOrH '30 rH CO '!f CS 03 i-H t— 1 CO 1-H tH tH ! a 03 cjd to T— I'HfCOCOO'^t'rfl-OCOCOOOOOiXiCOCOt^nOOOnO^OCOJX'OOiMOOOOCOO T-iTrico<:oo«:>i-Hoococooooo'x>QDnocooooo(M^Dco':o)ocooanooonocoo CO 1 H N) *-' i5 ':o^’cococD'0)^r^(o4c^cocco6rt5Tfii:ooar^it>^^'L£0':£5i-HCO'rH^o4t^’r-:noa3a3i>lTjH ooa^oocr3C^t^ 13 <3^ bacteria per c.c. OOOOOCDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCPOOOOOOO OOOOC3nOCO»QCMOOOnO^OOOOCDOnO)OOOOOnO-;00COC00qCOr3HMCO0C30(3(M CO i oi a o 33 ^ 2 a> ^ ft C00303t'^o6a3<03 03 03nOC3dC73C33<03<03a303<03 03 03 03 03 a3i030303!03'r}Ha3 03 03 03 03 i03 03 03CX303C33C30303t^v03C3 03 03<03 03 03 03(03 03 03 03 03 03<0303<03<0303<03030303 CO 03 i (N 1 Ph w a> <1; a> in Tti bacteris per c.c OOOCOOOiOOfMOOnOrfiTH-f— loOO(Mt^Or^n0C0OC3OOOOOn0O O CM CO CO oo CM (M tH 1 — I no 'CO CO (M i— l CM rH I— l CM CM (M rH r^ C30 t-H CM r- i>- <30 1 S a 2l 1 “HI oooooooococoocDoooooo ooononooononooo no no co^co o o o o^o^o D^T^f't^COT}^'cOnO'TCM'' C3dcM"3C'cro'i3DT^''cOCO'COnOCOa3(MOO.cX)cx)C30<0303000 t-h.t-h cMcMCMCOco^^'^nono 1 — 1 1— ( t-H t-H t-H t-H t-H t-H t-H t-H t-H t-H t-H t-H t-H i a a CO r-TT-H 03 cot-'^T-H no <03 co t>^T— T no 03 co oT r-T no coT co r-T r-T no <03 co t— T no 03 co t>^T-H no CMCMC0C0TT'Tn0n0n0'30'30l'^t^C^C)0CX)c030303OOT-HT^T-HCMCMC0C0C0'^^n0n0 tH t— 1 "rH rH t— 1 t-H tH ^H rH t— 1 ^H rH <0 bfl CO a tuO .a S C^foOC>OC^^COO'H^'oCc4'CJ3"0'*^OC(^i'cr^O^OOC^POO'H^odc^^COOHHC/5'(^^COOT^ (MCMCOCOTT'^nOnOnO»i>-ocooooo^a:)Ooo^rHc^c^cMcoco'^’^'^^ rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH ^H rH rH rH rH t Date /-T ^ 4J K'K'T^OOCOOfOOOrtlOOCOOCDt^010^COCOlOOt^T-(J-Oair^CO rHoqocqooOt^cocoiocvjoqcnioocooqi:Di>.oqcr2CDcocot>-ot>;i>;0;a5C^co '^i>^ocoodocia5criCT5o6t>^aio6CTiCT5cqo6o6cDt^aicr5aicria^cot^Griaiodajaiod ociaiaiooacic^o^OTiacicxiaicDooOTO^cTiOTcriaciCsQiasacjaiaiaiCsCTiaio^a^cscs OlOOOOOOC^'CtiOlOOOOi— lOi— I' OO LO lO CM OO CM -T— llOt^CDCM CM i— I CO ^ tH ^ ft CO CD CD CD CD CM CD 1-H CO o o CD O o o o xo CD o o o O CD O CO o O o o CO o o XO o xo o CD CD CO XO CD CD O o xq o CD o o l>; o xo O CD XO CO CD CD o o xo o o oo xq CD 1—1 CO CD CD o' xo o6 05 x6 tH !>-■ CO o6 xo oo' CD OO CO 05 CD xo oo' CD CO o' CO 05 05 CD CD oo 05 CD rH oo 05 05 05 05 05 05 oo CD 05 oo CD 05 OO 05 05 oo 05 05 05 05 05 05 OO OOOOOOOO^OOOOOC^OCDlOLOOJOOlOOOOOOlOOlOOt^O OOOIOOIOCOt— I COCMtHCMCM-i— ICMCOIOCM,— iCMCMt^CMTH^^o CMi— ICMCMCMCM OOCO rH (V ^ ft CD CD t-- XO XO CO TtH xo o o CD O O XO O XO CD CD CD XO CD O o CO OO O o OO CO CO xo o co oo CM OO CM CO CD oq CD CD 05 l>; CD OO 05 oq CD CD CO oq CD CD CM CD CO !>• CD CM CD CD <05 Cq o6 ^ 05 05 CD XO 05 co' oo o' ; 'Cf' CO 1-; lOOl— I tHCOOIOi— liJO^-OrHTjloOOCOCOO- lO oq Di xo iOOi-HCMXOXOCOOXOi-HT— lOOO CM CM ii OOOOOOOOOOOO' OOO'OOOOCDOOO'OI CMOIOCOOOOOOOOCO' lOOOOOOOOOOOO' >OOXOCDOXOO:)OOXOIOO'I IXOCMCM O 1— I XOOCMOXO I O O CD O 0> O O I o o o o o o o xo ^ 'cri o CD o cot^T— loicot^T-ixoaicot^-i— ixocDcot^T— ixoo^cot^- CMCMCOCO ^TjilOXOXOCOCDt^C^t^OOOOOiCDCnjOO' i-HXOOiCOir^’THXOcDco CMCMCMCOCOrtiTfiTjiio 00 o o o 1^; 12; fi Q fi O 0 Ph S <; < 1 S S S 1 These figures represent number of thousands bacteria per gram of butter Table XXXV'III. — Showing Yeasts and Molds in Butter at Churn and Per Cent. Germs Killed by Pasteurization 6o a-a OJ O) V 3 COJOOOO' CO !>. O CO O ) to CO CM 00 00 to Tf <05 to 0 0 CO to 0 0 C35 0 CO CO CO CO CO ”'^1 0 . CO CO CM to CO 0 0 0 CO to 05 to tq to CO CO 05 CO 05 00 CO to CM to CO 05 CO <0 <0 cm' CO to C75 "'T 05 05 05 06 CO 05 05 <05 05 <05 <05 CO to <05 cm' <05 <05 lO 05 05 00 to CM i05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 <05 05 05 C50 05 <05 05 05 lO lO lO >0 lO xouo oqiocvjcocMC.iLOio»ot^coocx)o:. OOOOOrHOrHOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOrHTHT-it^CviT-HCOOi-H'^" oa rH CV| i-H CO a n a> a> « ^ CO CO CO oo CO oo OCOCOCOOOOOOOOOOOOt^OOOCDCOCDt^OO' OCOCOCOOOOOOOCOIOOOIOIOCOI— (COi— It^OOi CO coco Ttl-^COCO ICOCOOOt— IOOCOtHCO cDTticx)oo> 0 )a 5 o:>TtC 5 coaic:)C» T— I I>” T— I OOOOiOOOl— 1(0^1 — It— IOt— ICV|CO(M lOl0010aiOOOOt>.0' CO rHCSJCOi—li— I (Oa cq lOlMCO 1 — (■ CM o fl a o (M fl "O COCOCOOTti-^QOOCOCOCOQOOCOOOTtit^Tft^CM»OCMCO ocooiGTiOOOcocooiiLOcoT— icoocococc>cx)ooooc»o:)OOooT^oot^o:> . 2 « s « xo to O tH OOOOOOOOOO- CMCMCMt-J o' OO CM OOOOOOOOOO o' CM CM '=S^c 4 o o' o O O ' O CO < CO T— 1 ■ C 5 CM ooooocooooco'ootocMcoooootooooooTi^ooxo COOO-i— I t— 1 CM T— I QO CO 1— 1 O (O tO CO O O O- CM O (O coo CO CO TJTXO COCOCMCM-^ T— ICM *'^OOCMO'clHOOCMCOO'^OOCMCDO''^OOCMC003t?°OCM'^'^'^°®'^'^'^'^°*^'^'^ cMCMco-^'^Tjitoxococoot>.i>.QoooooociooOo ^ ^^^^^iyiy^y: ) ^'^^^y:> ^ coh^T-roccot>^T-r>ocrrcot>rT-Hxoocot>^T-ttoo^coi>^T-tiO(ocoi>^T--rtoo:rcot>^T-Hto CMCMCOCO'Tti'cfitOXOXOCOCOt^t^t^OOGOOasOOO^^H^H^MW^^^^^^ CvrcOOodcM''cOO^’‘(XrCMCOO'!lH’'odcM''cOO'^od'CMcO(0'^QdcMCOO'cl^'odCM''cOQ'^ CM CM CO CO "rfi lo to iocpcot>-i>-i>-ootx)a:)OC)y: ) T-txocEr^T— ^l 0 0 co^^T-^too:^col^T-^locr^col>^T-^'IOa^'co^>^T--^'lOa^'co^>^T-Hxoc^^co CMCMCMCO'^'cft^I>"oaC)OOOOT— I t— ICMCMCMCOCO-^TC fM^tO a-S-g-ScooSSSSS S’S « 5 aaft&&« « « 333333333 • ^ These figures represent number of thousanfis bacteria per gram of butter Tablj: XXXIX. — Showing Scores of Butter when Fresh and when 30 and 60 Days Old, Made from Cream Pasteurized at 145 Degrees F. and Held for 10, 15, 20, 30 and 40 Minutes 61 Scores of butter after 60 days average OOOiOO O OOO lOOOlOOXO lO lO lO !>. lO lO- iqxolo lO CM lO l>. oodir^ododcM ooooooeCt^oo OIOOOOOOQOOO OOCX300QOGOOO C0 00 00CX)00 00 00 00 00 rS 1 OOO o o lo lo iq lain oost^ocioco oorCcx>eCt^oo ooot^t^t^aioood OOOOOOOOOOO QOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOCXDCXDOOOOOO Hunziker O O OO O oo iq LO iq iq lo to lO ooOQOooaicM aicx5o:)t>^eCoo ooooooooooodo cnooooGOODoo oooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooo after 30 days | 1 average louoioo O 0»-0 0 »00 OOlO IlO ^ iqt^»q iqiqcM CM odoo’odoooooo CTioaiooocri (oaioocjioooo oooooooooooo oooooooooooo ooooocnoo^G0 005005005 0505CD0050000 OO OO OO OO OO OO 05 OO 05 OO 05 OO OO OO 05 05 OO 05 05 05 05 fresh j average lo m lo mmmmmio nooco oo m fq l>;t^CMCMr>;CMCM CMiqiq ^iq tq oJooJrHT— 1<0 050505odod05 000050005000 000500050505 OOOOOOOOOOOO 050505000505000500 CQ 1 o o o o o o o uo lo iq lo lo uo 050051—11—10 050505000005 i— IO tHOOi— 10005 00 0500 05 05 05 OOOOOOOOOOOO 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 0500 Hunziker j o o o - o mm in lo OOOi— It— It— 1 0050505od05 050005000500 05 05 05 05 05 05 0500 00 00 00 00 00 05 0500 05 0500 05(05 1 Time held at 145 degrees F. minutes OiOOO^O OOOOOC? OOOOOOOCDO CMi-li— 1 (NCOTfCMCO-^ CMCOi^CM(X)TriCMCOM^ 1 I Churning numbers i:^00O5Oi-HCM co-'^iocot^oo (050i— iCMC0'?ti»0>-03030303 JO lO 20 >0 JO JO JO JO JO CM CN JO T— I T— lOOO OrtioOJO OOOO tH I-H O ‘ JO JO ' ’ ‘ 'o ’ ' ' ’coco O Ttl OCOOOOOOOOOOOOCDOOOOCOOOOO CDOCD00003a3CC3t— li-HrHCMCMCMCDOOCMCMCM O O 0^03 a303COCOCOCMCMCM CO CO Cq_CM CM CM rH r-i t-H CM CM CM r— I T— I T— I t-H t— I t-H CO COICOCOCMOGJO JO 03(03201— l'rt^C0CJD03 03t30l^00J0^:0a3J0J0 03O00C03 03 03 0I03'T)^C0030303(030303030303030303030303 03 03 03 03 03 GO 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 C73 03 03 03 03 03 03 (33 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 (03 00002000 » 0 i— I 1-H <0 1— I O CD 03 t-H CO 20 20 JO ’cOCm’t— lOC-CMiOJOi— IOCM 1 -H ^ I cs cu to H T 3 a 0000<03cD300< 0 CD a 03 03 C3 G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G 2i fH ?H fH fH fH fH fH fH fH fH fn fH fH fH fH ►2 >» ►2 1 These figures represent number of thousands bacteria per cubic centimeter of Tabi^K XLI. — Showing Number of Bacteria in Butter at Churn, When Made from Cream Pasteurized at 145 Degrees F. for 10, 15, 20, 30 and 40 Minutes Respectively 63 OOOOOOCPOOCDOOOOOOOOOOO CDOOOOOOOOIOIOLQIOIOIOOOOOOCD ca O O O T-l CD O rH i-i Ot) CM (M CM CO OOOOOCDOOOOOOOOOCDOOOOO OCDOCDCPOCDCDCDCDOCDOOCDOOOOOO O O CD O O^CD CD O CD O CD O CD_^0^0 CD_^0 O CD O O CDCDCDCDCD'uDCDCDOCDCDCDCDCDiOCDCDO'cDcDrCD OUDOt— ICMCM t^COC^t^OOCOi— ICO tHi— lOCDr-lT— ICO CM CM 1 — I T— I tH OOOOOOOOOOOOOCDOOOOOOCD ocdooocdooocdcdcdoooooocdcDcd CD CD CD CD o O^CD CD O CD O CD 0^CD_^0 CD CD CD O O CD CD CD CD CD CD CdT o' CD CD o' O o' o' CD 10 O o' CD o' CD OOCDCOt^CDilOr— ICMlOlOl-^OOt^CDI^OlOCDlOlO CO tD- 10 CO 000000000000000000000 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOCDOOOOOO o o o o o o o o o o O o o o O o o O o DOOOOOOOOOCDOOOOO'_ __ do__cdcdocdcDcdocdOcdcdcDooo CD O O O O ' ‘ — ' ( — : c — > ' — ^ ' — > < — < — ' — ^ O^ I .^^^^oooocooooooooooooo OOOOOCMCOiOTfCOCDCDt^OO^lOOi-OOOO 00 »0 rH CM CM T-l 1— I CD CO 1 — I tH 1—1 t-H CM CM CM CM CO CM —1 “ 03 Xj oii h OJO' I O U} I — I h4 X mmxnvimviTnxrimxfix/immmxnifixjimvix/iifimmi/ir/ivimxix'Jiiii VI vimm cococococ^w>cocococococococococo t^ t' OOOiOOOiOiOipipOipcOLOCJOipipOOOO o >o oo^lpipooo t>^aiodt^a5cdxocoiococo)ioco'^)LOiocd»oiO'^*coco uo lO cricricMt^odooio cocococococococococococococococococococococo CO CO COCO'^COCO'rfCMCM " CO CD o iO Tti o oo 'Cf CO T— I CO CM CV| O CO O CD Ol CO CSI OO "rri 10iOiO-^iOUOiO'^TfTti'^'cf''^CO'^iO'^iOcO'rfiOU3LO lo l>.CMI>.THrttOQOO COT-Hcoioa:|0^0 XOiO»0»OiOiOtOCO >> t>> 'iS fcj iH ^3 c3 03 O tf-l 'H « •S j:; o .5:^ o o o o o oj o . TS T3 X3 K*> «2 a> ;_| J30c3c3'00PP0^0^c3c3Sc3XhSSSSSSSSS « biD'H 4-1 bJO Slfl 4>i0 bx) tuo <0 bX)4H 4-(4H4H'H a4-l4H4H4-l«H4H'H4H«H ;h ;h ^ ;-( f-i fH ?-( JH J-< U U icMcocO'^Tt<^i.oiocococot^t^oocx)ooa5aiooo COC^!— I lOi03COI>.T-HLOa5COt>- rHlOOCCOI>.TH10CTiCO t^i— liooicot^ T— llOOC)COt>-T— liO CMCMco coco'^'^ioioiococo t>-t>.i>-ooooo:icria50 ■otHi— it— icmcm cococo'^'^io^ 1— llOOiCOt^i-HlOCJCCOt^rHlOCnCOt^T-HlOOCiCOt^T— (lOOdCOt^rHlOasCOt^^^CJCO CMCMCMC 0 C 0 '^'^'^i 0 ^C 0 C 0 C 0 t>-t>. 00 CXD 000 ^a 5 OOOi— IrHCMCMCMCOCO'^'^'^iO S q; -Q c > t? ^ 03 - -M O s o s > S^O wO o X a o Q o3 a s t-5 >-5 Table; XLIII. — Showing Per Cent. Fat in Buttermilk from Ra w Cream and Pasteurized Cream Churnings Per cent, fat in buttermilk . , from pasteurized cream Churning numbers 1 from raw cream 145 degrees P. I 166 degrees P. 1 185 degrees P. 20 minutes I flash ! flash 65 O oq 00 00 1—1 CO 1—1 1— I 00 10 O CD CO CO CO 00 Oi O CO O 10 1-1 O 1-H O T-t O o O O O T-l O O O oci T— I O Ofl tH CSI ^ CO CO t>. Tf CO 1— I (M O CM 00 O 'cf xo T-< . CO CM CM Tf CO O CO O O 10 10 to CO tO O O 1— I O o O rH O O 1— I O O O 1— I 1— I CM O 1— I o o o 00 O to to O CM CM CM CO 05 CM CM 05 tH i-H I-H r— I O 1—1 1—1 to to to 1 — I 1—1 CM CO CO 05 OCM CO 00 CD O 00 O T-l O 1— I OOCMCOO'c}^OOCMCOOT^^OOCM CMCOCO'M^'^'^tOtOCOCOCOI>» t^i— itoo5Cor-THtoo5CQr~i— itoo5C^i— itoo5cot^i— itoo5Cor-pDto CMC0C0C0-^''ft0t0t0C0C0t>-tr^l>-00 05 05 O5OOi— li-Hi— ICMCM'^tO 1—1 1— I 1—1 1— ( 1—1 I-H I-H 1—1 1—1 COO-^OOCM CDOtJIOOCMCOO T}HOOCOO'!fQOCMCOO'^OOCMCDCM-^ CMCOCOCO-«Cf '^t 0 t 0 t 0 C 0 C 0 t>*t^t ^00 05 05 05 OOi— li— li— ICMCM'^tO tOCrrC0l>r,-HtOO5COt^i-HtOO5’' CMCMCOCO'^ 'i^i'-^totocococo 66 ^ g O oj o O O b/) • S o m I > I — I w K-r pq < Oi OOCTSCH) •>— I C^COt^r^ 1 1 <33 S >> t— 0:1 o ci 03 a:i oo GO Oi tio CM oo o CD o o <03 o 0 0 T— f 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 th 0 T— 1 T — 1 0 1 1 02 03 'O 1 1 10 1 CO «fH cDocx)ioi'-co(MT33u:)i-OT-i'oiHcooo(Mco)oa3oa3 ID) O Tti Ttc 10 ^ ^ ILO TJ1 T:fH 'Of CD CD CD Tti ^ 'Of CO 'cf 'Of CO s 1 rH a> L0G0)L0H0OL!0l0OOOO3iD)OOi003OOOO CD So 02 mois ure XOOOCMtM'CfcMCM'ofCiqO'Of'ofrfCDOOHOOi— J 'of»0'of'cf'cf':fCO''fCOc6cO^'cf(MD»(M'— ICO'^liO >0(M':fa3CDCMO(»CDl:^CO'ofCOCOi— ICOCDOOO CM i-H (M i-H rH CM Cvi CO (M (M* (M (M* (M (m' CM (M* 04 (M rH (M cm' 00 03 rH CX3(M rHLO'ofJ-Ot:— 0 a c3 O03CX3G0rHOt^t:^t^t^(03»-C:)HfC000(MCjD TfiOlO'cflOTf'rf'ofHfTfCDiOCD'cfCOlOCOlO'cfCO Hf CQ dj 1 CM 4^ JLQCOlOrHLOOOOUOOl-O^OOl-OOiOlOiOO 03 03 tuo CDCDOOOGOCOOrHt^i— IOOCDCD tHCDCOOOCDO rH o. 'O lOCOTf'3f»dcOCO^'cf':f'^’'cfCDCMCO'cf»0'rfrHtd lO T~^ tH rH '^H rH rH rH "rH rH rH rH rH rH tH rH tH o s ^-( 00 li^ s THt^rf(MO03CMCD'cf03'CfOCD»0t^rH03lC0 03C0 03 c3 OOCDC^CMCM'CfCOCOOOi— l00 03(MiOO-CD':f'Cf03l^ CO i-H(MrHrH(04cM‘(M(04(MC0CM’(Mo4cMC0(04(M‘rH CM CM 03 CJ3 03 »-0 ICO (M 0 >, C30300CD03(0303C000t^00CDlOr-f03O03OrHO D)CT3rHl0)C0r^OCDrHTHCD00 i <03 o (M g 00i0)Lc:)'cflO'cf'^''^^Hf':fCDiOCD'^'^'3fiOCD»O^ Hf 4^ T— |Lc:)rH»QcCDOO»0»000»OiOO>D)LOOCD»OiD) rH cDCM(MC»(M'H3'CfCDC33'3^COD]lOCXDOCD'CfOCDOq CD > 00 03 CD ref § o ^ COCDt— IC 0303C73'^CMC0rH0303t^i-0OC0(MHfOC0 rH 03 THT-HrHOOOrHrHrHTHOCDOOrHrHT— IrHrHi— 1 F! CM tH 0 ;-t KOCO'CfCDCOCD'CfrHCOCO'CflD)03COOOi—liOr^OCD t-H o; 115 'cfCO'^'CfHf'cf'OfiOCDCDiiOlOC^lOCOCD'cflOlO'Cf iO O CD c 3 OiOiOOrHlOiOrHlOO»OiOOOOiLQ>0»D)JOlO CD ?H W 0? CDCX3'Cf^_OHf0qCDCM^03CM(MCDC0CJ3rHC003CM 10 *o 3 1010lLCOTlicdldcOCD'^‘cOCM’'Cf’cOc6cO'cfCDCO(M"»D ref" c D a rH tH tH rH rH rH tH t-H tH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH 4^2 CM.GOOOOO(D3030 bi 0 02 1 S ■D a £! COr^rHLOC33Ci0t^rH'L<0iO3COt^iHl-C0C!3C0l'r^rHlOO3 bfl cd 1 a CMCMCOCOCO'cf'CfL010lOCDCDlHl''-l'^OOCX)0303<03 £ ; 3 ) a CMCDc5'';fOc5cMCDCDHfCX)CM*CDCD'CfodCMCDO'CfC!d CMCMCOCOCOr^l'ofL{0»iOiOCDCDl'-l>-l^G000030303 P < rH»COCOrCOt''^rH>OCOrcOI>rrH1003COf'^rH»Oi03COl^ CMCMCMCOCO'0fHf'CflCt)lOCDCDCDl^t>*0OCX)C!OO3O3 Tabi,!: XLV. — Showing Average Butter Fat Constants of 54 Churnings of Butter when Fresh and After Storage at -6 Degrees F. for One, Three and Five Months 67 I 1 ^ Tti 10 (M 10 COi-iTfiOCM CD 00 0 t-H 0 Tjt CO CO CD 1 iO -SrlS ‘=1 CO (M 00 LO CD 1—1 CD 0:1 00 iO CO CO 0 CD ^ Ttl t-H 00 cn 02) t-h ai 00 CD CD 1—1 CD 00 CD 0 1-H CD 0 0 l-H 0 06 t>; 06 i>5 od od 00 id od od od 06 i S"- 00 00 00 00 QO 00 00 00 00 oc 00 00 00 00 00 00 QO 00 00 QO oq T— 1 CD coco CD CO i-H CO ^ CD iO CO 1—1 CD -QTJ S rH ^ CM 0 CO 1— 1 D1 Xfi 0 00 ^ (M ^ (M QO TcfH CM 0 3'S « CJ> t-H tH t-H t-H <0 rH t-H rH 0> rH rH rH 0 0 1-H 1-H 1-H 3 ^ “ ft CO CC) CO CO CO 0 CO CO CO CO CO ^ CO CO CO CD CD CD CD CD 10 IlO T— 1 00 l>» 00 OifO 0 1— 1 CO iO iO 00 00 QO 0 CO iO ir^ 'O § 00 lo CTi (X) 10 CM 0 CD 1-H 00 CO CO iO l-H CM iO 0 iO) 1— 1 CO CD CD 1—1 CM CD iO ':d 00 00 iO CD 02 CD l>- CM CM CO CO CM 1-5 1-5 CM CM I-H 1-H 1—5 1-H t-H 1-H t-H l-H 1-H l-H 10 a:> 10 oj CM 0 1—1 T-H CD CM CO CO iO 0 CO 0 QO CO Tjl 02 QO crj 00 CO 0 CD CO 00 CO 1— 1 CD CD r- 1-0 CD iO QO CD iO QO S >2 ^ CO CO CO 'CT' ^ CO 'CP rf "2 CO CM CO ^ H i HJH *5 *-P n CO CO CO CO CO CO CO cd CO CO cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd 1 cd M - 'Cfi ^ Ttl rf iiSH HJH HJH TCfH ^ 'CtH bB 0 CM 05 T-l CO 1—1 CO 0 CO CD CO 10 OC) 0 iO iO 0 00 CO iO ! 02 a -e rry CM CM in 0 10 CD iO 1— t 00 iO CM 1-H 0 iO QO CD CM l-H CM CO CO l-H CO CO t-H CM Hti CD CD iO iO CO CO ^2 -so" CO CO CO CO CO cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd >S ft bfl (U 'O CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CM CM 0 CM 1— 1 CO 1— 1 ^ CM CD 00 00 0 CD CD TCtH Tcf CO CD 00 CO CO io CD 1-H 02) CD CO l-H CO 00 0 CO 0 HtH CD l-H CO G OJ2 CO CQ l>- 00 xfi 0 CD 00 CD !>; iO t>; iO l-H Ip §'-^ a CD 0 0 T-^ 0 CD 1-H cd' 0 CD 0 CD 0 CD CD CD CD CD 1-5 CD CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 02 « CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM tM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM 1 CO 0 'Cfi 00 0 ^ 1-H CO CO Tf l-H t-H CM CD TCfH CD 1-H 2 a 1— ( 1— ( 0 0 CO CD 00 (D 0 iO Tif CO CD 00 0 CD iO 0 0 oci 1—1 io th l>. t>. 00 iO CD CD iO !>; 00 CD 0 02 l-H CM l-H id id io id 'd ^ HtH id id H ^ H 'd -d id id id id 10 5 D 1 a 1 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO Ol 00 CO '?f Tjt 00 00 0 00 0 iO 10 0 00 l-H CD 'CfH rH 1'- Jh a; CD 00 00 Oi 1— 1 CO CD CO CD 'CT' 0 00 00 02 CD iO 0 CO p « -M -M -+-»+-» -M H-> H-J -M 4-> -|H 0 V ^ a a a . a a a . 0 G a a a CB 4J 1 -S 0 tC 0 0 0 tC 0 0 0 id 0 0 0 bB p <1,0 ft s s s ft S S S (D D ^ ft S ft d ssss i HH 1— H CO iO ] ^ 1-H CO iO HH 1-H CO iO 1-H CO iO nd 0 N m 02 F • s •S 02 g rd C3 VI M2 A 0 a C3 02 d CM cd d! 02 rH ft 0 02 02 > s ^ M2 bf) M2 bX) S ®3 02 £ S 02 03 02 C3 C3 'S <1 bfl £ So 02 !> 02 d 10 iO iO CD QO rH rH 68 O tH C^ ,— 1 05 O CO lO lO CVI C/5 bjo ■g s Sa a5CMa5co(Mc^iioa5THa5i^Ttt rHT-Hcj5C5C5a5a5oqt^coi:r:io CO CO CO o^‘ CO CO CO eo CO CO rf rt< Tf rt< Ttt rft T^i Tf Tti Ttt Ttt ■s-'^ M C ; O CO CO K5 1—1 rH lO (M CO CO tH oo CO 'o p CO tH (Ofl Ttl 05 CO (50 <50 I (U (Ca iq CO !>. !>. !>. !>. OO (05 <05 I-H OvI cu C3 ^ t- 5 r-5 1 -H 1-5 1 -H t-5 t-h 1-5 th 1-5 (oq c^i b o 03 -t-' CUC/i o a > 5-1 ’S M-h •*“* OP o ft oq ‘X>CDCO':0'X'COCO ! 1 iSm ^ 1 Crt . C ^ 1 ' 1 03 1 1 o ^ (D o <50 (35 CO (^q CO 50 (50 (35 CO CO O 5-h 3 rr^'S O o CO CO (M 50 <50 CO 1— 1 'Cfi CO (50C75(35<5q(350i-Hi-;T-l;t^t^|>:|>:C5d<5d(5o'(5<3(5-(35(35(35 03 co(y:j(:oco5oco5ocd505oco50 c3 ""' p COCOCO cococococococoeoco ^ o3 ft S:> 2 > Oh < ^ (M «w CO O bjo w ' a> 2 ^ t-t 0''!f<^q(^qt^C01C^lO<50(35CO^- .S b:*. b> ; bx) *3^ 2 ,0 1 — ITr50<50''croOrJHi— l(CqTfi(35(35 C3 ill O (^q1-^cqcqcq(^q(^qTl^5q5q5qcq u-t (V <35(3505(35(35(35i35 05 05 05<35(35 (3q (^q (^q (cq (3q (^q <^q <^q (^q (M <^q (^q i o > < Ph I 1. > ■iJ h4 CO X .p O p ^1— l(^qC0T^^50C0t>•00<35O1— 1 ® ° ft I-H 1—1 w tuo a «ft i-r < m < Table: XLVII. — Showing Per Cent. Nitrogen in Butter Which is Not Precipitated by Bromine, Copper Sulphate, Phosphotungstic Acid and Tannic Acid, and Per Cent. Total Nitrogen in Butter, when Fresh and after Storage at -6 Degrees F. for One, Three and Five Months Respectively (Butter made from raw cream) 69 1— 1 crs CM Oi 05 0 CO !>■ iO 10 CO 0 CM 50 00 10 0 rH C 50 0 CM <05 tH 00 05 05 <05 T — 1 T-H T-H CM r — 1 1—1 1—1 CM 1 — 1 1 — 1 i-H <50 <50 C 50 0!3 0000 0000 0 0 0 CO <0 <35 <0 S iO ^ 10 0 00 0 <^0 CO 10 COCO <50 50 0 0 50 50 § 1 S ! 0 »0 <0 CO 1—1 10 CM 10 CM 50 CM 50 CO CO rH rH rH CO T-H T — 1 1— ( CO 1— 1 1— 1 1— 1 CO 1 — 1 1 — 1 1 — 1 CO 1— < t-H T— 1 <05 <05 05 <05 i 0 2 0000 0000 0000 0000 1 0 0 0 0 |i ii a CO 00 00 CO <05 05 (TO 05 >0 0 50 CM 50 50 rH 0 * CO t-H <50 1— 1 CO <0 rH rH CO CO CO CO i r-l 1 — 1 0 1 — 1 t-H rH 1—1 t-H i-H 1-H CM i-H rH i-H 0000 0000 0000 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 ^ Ii — * ’S ’0 "S *15 D c; p P cl CIS C 5 '15 .2 15.2 15.2 [S. 4 J c 3 CO -M lO 05 -M ^ P •w a p p P P p 0 0 0 0 fP 0 0 0 CO rH rH rH CO rH p bn 05 P P p 15 P P p < ' 4 H 1—1 CO 5 c:) fH «HH rH CO 50 1; Tabli: XLVIII. — Showing Per Cent. Nitrogen in Butter which is not Precipitated by Bromine, Copper Sulphate, Phosphotungstic Acid and Tannic Acid, and Per Cent. Total Nitrogen in Butter, when Fresh and after Storage at -6 Degrees F. for One, Three and Five Months Respectively (Butter made from cream pasteurized at 145 Degrees F. 20 minutes) 70 CD 1-0 00 CO 00 ^ CD CD 0 CD 0 0 DO Tf 00 CD CD 0 TtH 1— 1 CD i-H Ol CD CM M rH 0 tH tH 1— ( 1—1 CM 1 — 1 T-( 1 — 1 t— M 0000 CD 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 CO 0 0 a '2 CD 0 0 0 CO 0 10 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 1 0 00 CD OD 0 1C.D CO OD T-l CD CD 0 CM 1-0 1-H (OI CO CO CO CO 00 ^ CD T— 1 CO 1—1 0 ^ CO t-H I-H I-H 1 -H 1 — 1 rH CD CD CD CD 0 0 0000 0 CD 0 0 0 CD 0 0 000 1 0 1 ■ 0 0 0 s a CD CD 0 CD oq 0 00 0 CD l-O 0 CD CO 0 CO i + CD 1 CD ^ 0 CM T-l 0 1 — 1 CM 1 -H 1 — 1 t-H ft '3 a> 0000 CD 0 0 0 0000 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 i a OD CS| 0 CD CD CD 1-H 0 0 CO CO' -rH -If 1 0 t + 0 00 CD CD 00 0 CD CO CD 1-H 10 CD CD CD 1 Ci t-H -H 0 0 I-H t-H C> 1— I 1-H CO 1-H 1 -H 0 t-H 1 d Sj 0 0000 0000 0000 000 0 0 0 0 '2 CD 00 CDD CO CD 'Hf I-H 0 00 0 1 1 CO CO I • 10 CDD 10 00 00 t-h CD CD C 10 0 10 10 10 r-l CO CD 0 t-H I-H CD 0 Ol 1 -H 0 1 -H ID^ R QJ i 0 0 0 CD 1 0 0 CD 0 0000 1 0 1 * 1 CD CD i 3 10 00 tH CO 10 CD 10 CD CM CD 1-J 10 CO i 1 CD + 1 CD IDO ^ Oi 10 00 CJI CD IlO 00 CO CD CD 0 10 CD 00 00 GO pO ■ 1 — 1 1 — 1 CD 1 — < T— < T— < T-H 1-^ 1-H 0 rH CM 1-H 1-H t-H 0000 CD 0 0 0 CD CD 0 CD 0000 1 0 0 0 0 'S "S "0 3 3 3 0.2 03.2 03.2 +H 4H> H-> 4H 3 V} 3 t/2 3 35 ^ 35 bn 35 bn ^3 -4-> O Cl CC o 03 •S "S « s ft a o ft 2 O c3 c o ^ .2 o ^ C ft.r^ p: ft ^ a o ft 2 s ^ O ^ c3 13 ^ c o C3 o ft.2 ft ^ 31 ft O iZ3 O 03 .2 03 c/2 ^ bn sgs 02 C» o 03 •2 o ft.2 2 ft 35 O ft O C5 Oft 03 PQQ^H 3 o bn 3 3 3 O O Table XLIX. — Showing Per Cent. Nitrogen in Butter Which is Not Precipitated by Bromine, Copper Sulphate, Phosphotungstic Acid and Tannic Acid, and Per Cent. Total Nitrogen in Butter, When Fresh and after Storage at -6 Degrees F. for One, Three and Five Months Respectively (Butter made from cream pasteurized at 165 degr ees F. flash) 71 to 0 1—1 10 0 0 to 0 tH 0 0 0 + 1 1 tH 0 'cf Tft Qc 0 Cl 1— 1 t-H 1-H <» (M t-H 0 i-H (M 1—1 0 1—1 (M 1—1 0 1—1 l>- 02 0000 0000 0000 C5 <0 0 .9 '5 0 ^ iO CO 00 0 CO 0 CO CO CO 0 0000 (Cl (Cl 1 + 0 0 Cl I-H 0 T— 1 Cl 1— 1 (M 1—1 Cl 1-H CO CM <0 1-H 10 iO 1— 1 0 1—1 (M t-H 0 rH CM 1-H 0 1-H CM 1-H 1-H 1-H C? 0000 0000 0000 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 CO 0 0 CO 0 CO GO 10 QO 0 0 0 CO 10 CO CX) (M to to 0 00 Cl CO 0 CO T— 1 0 0 CO 1— 1 0 tH CO 1-H 0 1— 1 (Cl (Cl (Cl 0000 0 0 <0 0 0000 (O 0 (O '3 0 CO CO 0 rf 0 0 CO 0 c 0000 0000 0000 0 0 0 0 Pk CO 00 CO to 0 (M 1— 1 0 to 0 1-H 0 CM 00 (Cl 0 1 + 1 0 Cl CCl (M CM 0 0 CO to >0 1-H CM (Cl CO -rH lit' CO CO CO CO 1— 1 0 0 t-H tH 1—1 T-H 1-H to CO to to 0000 0 0 <0 0 0000 0000 0 0 0 0 s [ft ‘0 ’S 'S CCS 03 o3 c3 : s Cl." 01 01." 01 .2 +1> •+-> H-J+k £ C3 CC o3 m o3 CO 0 m ft ft s p a O) P* .S 0 : &X3 'S O) cc 0 ft bfl ft +1 « 0 0 ft ft i5J3 ft Gr0 ft -3 ’S 01 CO 0 c3 ft -4-^ 0 <1^ ^ 0 C3 01 bjo 0 01 bJO 0 H-H 01 bi) 0 u 01 boo 0 H-l *3 0 •S 0 ^ a; Ph*>-h .2 « rj a> ft.ft •S ^ '2 01 0 01 ft— .9 fH ift 0 ^ (31 ft — "ft .’ft "ft "ft S-l A . S ft 2 :^ C ft ft 2^ ft ft ft fO 0 ft ft ft C3 0 e3 hH 0 ft 0 c 0 ft 0 fl 0 ft 0 0 0 ft 0 ft +H HH> fH 0 ^ C3 ?H 0 ^ ft fH of3 C3 0 0 0 0 WOPhH ffiOPnH H e O) CO CO CO CO =! ft ft ft ft ft ft 0 +H 4H 4H -M ft ft ft ft ft ft 0 .ft 0 0 0 ft 0 0 0 m (-3 0 0 c« 0 0 0 h /1 O) ft ft ft 31 ft ft ft ;-i U -H CO 1-H CO 10 Table) T. — Showing Per Cent. Nitrogen in Butter Which is Not Precipitated by Bromine, Copper Sulphate, Phosphotungstic Acid, and Tannic Acid, and Per Cent. Total Nitrogen in Butter When Fresh and After Storage at -6 Degrees for One, Three and Five Months Respectively (Butter made from cream pasteurized at 185 degrees F. flash) 72 00 eo CO QO Tfi CO 0 CM CM OCM 0 Cd 0 0 1 + 0 i-H 0 0 CO CO 0 CO 7—1 7—1 CM 7—10 ^ 0000 CM T-H 0 7—1 CM t-H 7—1 t-H !>. 0000 0000 0 0 0 ! .9 '3 0 0 Tf CX)CM 0 0 CM Cd CM CO CM 0 CO 0 0 CO 20 0 1 + 0 0 CO Cd CO 7—1 CO 0 CM CO 1—1 CO 00 CM 7—1 0 1—1 CM t-H 0 T-H CM 1— 1 1— 1 7— 1 CM 7—1 7—1 t-H !>• 0 4^ 0000 0000 0000 <0000 0 0 0 0 Fh C3 G 0 10 0 rft 10 0 0 0 t^OCM 0 CO CO 20 TH 0 + + + Cd 7— 1 00 Oi 00 CO 00 7—1 00 l>- CO Ttl Cd Cd 0 0 0 0 CM 7—1 0 0 CM 7—1 0 0 CM T-H 00 CM 7—1 0 0 0000 02 02 02 02 'S 0000 0 00 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 CO t-H 0 0 Cd 10 7— 1 Cd 0 7— 1 0 0 'cH 7—1 20 0 , + + ^ CO Tti Gd CO 00 20 0 Cd O* 0 00 00 00 00 C20 •4-> 7—10 0 0 ^000 ssss t-H t-H 0 0 <0000 20 20 20 20 "9 d 0000 0000 0 0 0 0 ^ 00 CO 0 0 1— 1 QO C 20 t^CM 0 0 20 Cd Cd 20 0 + 1 7— I 0 00 0 CM 0 0 Cd CM T-H 7—1 0 CM 'i— t 7— 1 0 rf CM 7—1 0 CM rft S CM T-H 0 0 CM T-H 1—1 1—1 CM t-H 7—1 7—1 *3 0000 0000 0000 0000 0 0 0 0 a CO 0 0 CO cjj 0 CO CO 00 7—1 10 0 20 0 !>• CO + , 0 1 CO 0 CO CX3 10 0 00 0 CO Cd 00 0 l>- 0 00 0 Tfl rti Tti CO r-H T — 1 0 0 0000 7—1 7—1 0 7—1 7—1 0 CO 7—1 7— ( 7—1 <0 7—1 CO CO CO 0 tn 0 0000 0000 OOOCO 0 0 0 *3 CM 0 0 0 ^ T-H 0 0 CO 0 00 OOt-iO CO 7— 1 Cd cd 7-1 OCM 0 0 + + "f UO CM Cd CO CM 0 0 0 0 0 • (>. a> a3 0000 0000 0 0 <=> 0 Ph ir^CM 0 Tti CO 7—1 0 0 CO 0 'dH 0 0 CO TfH 0 CO 7—1 CM 0 00 00 00 C20 7—1 0 0 CM CO Cd 0 CO 'cH 7—1 0 CO CO CO CO CO 'O 7—1 0 0 7—1 7— 1 0 1— 1 7-H 7—1 7—1 7— t 7—1 7—1 1—1 7—1 CO CO 8 CO CO 0000 0000 0000 0000 0 0 0 ’S ’S 'S "3 CO c3 C3 c3 a c c; 3 3 .rt 02 .« 02.2 02.2 03 02 -v* o3 CO o3 CO a to a a a a ’3 OP a ^ &X) O ^ &X) ^49 S a-i3 3 A feX) a43 3 02 fciX) 0 Vi 02 bx) 0 V 02 bx) 0 V 02 buo 0 V .9 O) cc 0 02 CO 0 03 02 c« 0 02 CO 0 c3 •rH r2 •rH O) 0 •2 « •2 f-c'S 0 0 02 ft.r-i • 2^-5 0 a 02 ft.a •2 02 a a a a a S ft a S ft c« a a ft a a ft * a "a "a "a "a HH 0 ft 2 a 0 ft 0 a 0 ft 0 a 0 ft 0 a -V -v> 4-2 -v> f-i O-ft c3 vi c3 V of3 C 3 ^ a 0 0 0 0 EH H (- a m » ! CO CO J A -a 1 a: a! •a P -v> -l-s -M -v> •v» u- 4 a a a a a a 0 fen CO a> 0 2 0 s 0 2 ^a CO 02 0 2 0 2 0 2 < Vi r — 4 CO 20 Vi CO 20 1 73 ^ C tj cu C P-i u tn c3 O ^ OJ 'S.& (1) a flj aj C (U CJ Vh O (D C bJO _ oJ C Vh (U O t: buO.05 KD 05 1-5 cd cq 1 — 1 1 — 1 1— 1 O O CO OO CD oq o CD oiodci'^ cq 1 — 1 1 — 1 1—1 CO 05 cq OO cq 1 -H «>. o cq' o' cd id CO cq rH rH O'^COTf I-H lO »0 »jO oiQcqo o lo CD O IDOOTt^CO cqo5ifti-H tH t>^ 1 -H cd cq' od cq cdoicio' CO r-l tH 1—1 CO tH 1—1 1^ C 0 1—1 th cq 050 CD • CD tH ococqi-H iq coco 05 cq CD i-H t>^ cq CDCq' CD cDcd CD id i>5 !>: CO 1—1 1—1 1—1 CO 1— 1 1— 1 T— 1 CO 1—1 1—1 1—1 CO rH rH rH O5 0ocqco o h:) oo o o cq o rH CD o ^ (M cqcqcDo locqoc-^ rH CO tH '^‘ i-H t>^ t>^ id cq . OO OO CD CD O; iq 05 CD oq o CD 05 CD O o CD cDcq cd odcq' cq' CD oq 1— ( 1— 1 1— I CO I-H 1—1 1—1 cq T—l rH 1—1 cocq ft ft "rf CO OO CO 00 o 00 o cq TJI o OO cq CD CO CO 1 — 1 lO cq t>; 05 O o cq oq o cd CD i-H ci 1-5 cd odcDcdcd o o ^ id cq 1 — 1 1 — i 1—1 cq I-H I-H 1—1 cq 1—1 1—1 rH CO cq ft ft 05 uo lO ID lO 05 CO CD OO 1— 1 l>. lO 05 CO 1-H CD 1— 1 cq CD 1-H lO CD 05 cq CD CD 1-1 CD od i>5 cd CD od od cq 05 CD id 1-5 05 cq I-H cq T-t cq 1 -H cq ft 1— 1 cq 05 o O t-H OO CO TJI |>. CD CD OO O CD O 1-H i-H CD lo o o cq CD oq CD CD oq oq iq oq cq‘ O cd CD cd cq' id o hh cd id od l>5 cd CD CD cq cq 1 — I rH cq cq 1— 1 cq cq cq 1 — 1 th cq cq 1— 1 ft s ’S 'S 05 *s C3 03 03 c3 04 T— I 1—1 T— I 04 rH t-H rH (04 rH rH rH CO rH rH rH 00 00 Tf CO CO 'CM 10 (04 l>« tH rH d 0 t-h 04 'CM 02 0 CD l''^ (04 HO (04 00 t-5 CO 04* HO 'cM LtO (02 CD CO CD d CO 1—1 rH 1—1 CO rH rH rH (04 rH rH rH Sfl >4-3 CO CD 0 CD rH HO (04 CD rH 0 HO HO 0 d 10 CD CO t'r; CD 00 rcM rH CD hM HO CO 'CM HO CC CD oi 0 CD CD (02 rH* (x5cD (D(04 CD rH* (04 03 0 CO T— 1 r— 1 CO rH rH CO rH rH rH rH rH rH <1? 1— IC0 0C04 CO rH Ttl t'- rH HO CD (04 HO 4^ rjx 04 CO 10 00 !>; CO 00 HO 04 'CM rH (04 'CM 'CM (02 T3 04 ' CD CO* 'CM 0 CD rH hM 02 rH CO 'cM 02 (04 0.9 CO 1 — 1 rH CO rH rH rH CO rH rH CO rH rH S 03 5, 0 cn 'CH 'CM ^ 0 Hf GO GO (04 HO CD 02 d " O; OJ p +-. s i— 1 04 0 CO CO CO 02 (04 CO 04 rH rH tr rM CO rH CD 02 C0‘ 'CM 'cM; t'r; 'CM 0 (04 02 (D rH (04 CD HO GO CD rH CO (04 HO GO (02 GO* CO 'CM ;h 04 1—1 (04 rH rH (04 rH rH rH (04 tH rH rH 'd 0000 'cM 0 rH 0 GO HO HO CO 0 (D 'CM ; GO 00 'CM O; 0(0 (D 'CM (04 HO 'CM a 0 04 * iO t-H 041—1 1—1 rcM HO 02 04 CD* tM CO G (04 rH rH (04 rH rH a; tuo p 0 0 »o 0 0 0 HO 0 0 0 CD CD HO HO (D 0 - Xi TM rH CD i-H CD CO rcM (02 rH CO CO 0(D CD CO HO HO rH >0 rH C72 CO CD (04 02 CO* (04 06 HO 02 CO CO 04 rH 1 — ( rH (04 rH rH rH GNI rH rH (04 (04 rH rH (04 3, 3 *s ‘3 *3 *3 M e3 q q q d C3 o S, C 2 .2 02 ." 02 -M 4H •+H HH 'Phh B c3 m q CO q cc q 02 *s G3 bJO pG t>X) pG &iO O) a fgs •t§s t§S P3 4h 0 G 4H (D G HH (12 G -|H 12 .S 02 CO 0 (D (« 0 G D 32 0 q 02 02 0 q 'S 0 *Ph 0 ft*rH .a^^o rH (12 a-r-l .a ^ *3 ^ cA) G qj .. Ji SO (V) ^ •S o;-^ C "S o m) cA) , a; S O.^ 5 - a . ^ q3 qj Sog Q OO (M qO CO 1-H CO CO 1-H lO CO CD 1-H oo C^ d LO 1— 1 CTi 1-j iq t-q CM OJ TiHiq cq CD lO Tf lO CO O CO r-l CO 1-H id gi odcM tj5 04 1-H tH 1-H cdodcdid > CSl rH -r-i r— 1 Ol 1-H 1-H 1-H CO 1-H 1-H 1-H 4^ 4^ <1 (OJ O O Ot-H coco (XD tq oq oc oo lO c^ o rt Ttl CO O OO oo oo CO lO .r-. o CO o "'q^ cd cd 1-H -ijl cq oi cm’ id CO t-H 1-H 1-H a CO rH rH rH CO 1-H 1-H 1-H S) 4^ CO CO CO O CO OO CO iO cocooo CO CO o o CD O CO O a I>; cq HtH t— Cq ^ cq Cq cq O cq Cq coco(ciio l>-‘ CM TJH cd id cm' ''3H o cd' cd 'ctl CS 4^ CSI tH r— 1 1-H CM 1-H 1-H t-H CM 1—1 1-H 1-H CO tH tH 1-H o - cq !>; CM cq 1-H cq o cq cq rH CD ^ bfi ^ I>1 CD cd CM cd t>; td ^ cd td od 1-1 o.a a> CO 1—1 CO —1 1-H CO 1-H 1-H CO — ^ , 1-H o S c3 43 +4-3 o< *3 CP O CO CO o CO CD o cq CD CO CO '0> CD o CO CO a o oo oo o CO cq o iq CO CO CO 1-H cq cq cq oq o i 44 1-1 (>: o6 id CM CD O id T-l(dcM'id CO CM 1-H t-H -H o cd id q1 CO 1—1 1— 1 CO -H T-H 1-H CO CM rH 1-H ftS 4-» o a a* CO 4-3 001^01 lO lO <0> 1C) CqCM O C^ CM ID) O 'Cl C! lo o CM CO tq t>- iq t--; oq rH iqcq cq Cq cq O' od OJ 0*4-1 s A CM CM 1-1 1—1 Ol 1-H 1—1 1-H CM tH 1-H 1-H C^l rH rH £ O -a o o O o tH 00 o O O lo o C^ lO o • O lO Cq CM ^ o oo cc lo iq oq cO C3 CO O lo O CO od id 1-H id od CD I-H CM od CD CM Hf CM 1— 1 T— 1 1— 1 CM tH ^ 1-1 CM 1-1 1-H 1-H CM ^ 1-H rH Pi *3 ;h f-) Pi O O o o OlO o o — H oq tq oq 1-H CD O O CC CM CM no % 1-H tqCM oq 1-j iq cq iq cq 1-H Cq Cq d C'J O- Tt* 1-H 1-H od -rtl O 1-H cd coed o id cd cm’ d 1-H 1-H t-H 1-H 1-H t-H 1-H CM 1-H 1-H 1-H CO tH rH tH S) o 44> ?c O lo lO o o o o o O O lO o CD lO O lO o cq lo Oi 1-0 cq qq CM oq 'cH oq rq OJ iq iq Cq cq td id Hli cc cd id cd o id cd cd CD id od cd 1-H 1-H 1-H t-H CM 1-H 1-H CM CM CM 1-H 1-H OJ CM rH CM j ■js ;c "S . "S 'S 'S w Cw c3 03 d d o .2 o> -IH* 4H -HS+S -H -mIm B c3 ai 33 CO 72 CO 03 M 1 *3 -d ts} a bD a bfi a) bJO QJ E f§s 't§s f§s ^ -4-3 H HH O .9 a ^ O O' ^ o S3 O so o sc o S« O 03 bjO o q q «< 'HH — CO ID) 1 Table LIV. — Showing Nitrogen not Precipitated, Expressed in Percentage of Total Nitrogen in Butter, 76 c o § 1 a; biO rt u O -4-» CO ^ 04* 40 04 rH i-t 1-1 >0 CO iH TJI CO D CO iH trIcDCOTji 04 rH iH iH CD rH D 40 00 40 CD 06 hJH to 04 iH tH rH 0 0 0 CD rH CD 04 0 Hft 00 40 rt n-l i-H 40 tH (DTTCiqO .-I 00 0 TiH 0 10 04 CO l>^ iP 05 CO cx5 c CO T — 1 r— t T— ( CO iH iH 1 — ( CO tH tH iH tiC l>* CD 0 04 CD CD CO 0 D CO 1—1 0 CO D D a . Oc iO CD 40 04 Tti 04 tH 00 40 0 CO CX2 00 CO i>^ 04 t-h l'^ t^oi CD D* CO CO 1 -H tJH ol a 4-i 0 04 T — 1 I — 1 04 04 1— 1 — 1 ,H 04 iH 1 — I 1 — ( CO 04 1 -H iH 0 T — 1 00 00 'cft CD ref 00 rH "Ttl 40 rH D 40 1 -H 0 40 -M 02 04 00 00 CD TJJ GO i-j 40 rH l>. 40 1 — H 40 bfl -c 04 04* 00 0 iH* Tj^* 00 i-H* !>; 40 <05 (CO 05 CD 0 0 cp 0 .9 ® s C3 CO rH T— 1 CO iH tH 04 rH 04 iH i-H iH 1 p 00 04 CD CTi 00 04 00 1 — 1 /'ij' 1 — ( ,-H CD D 00 (h £ ■.—1 04 CO 0 CDCOCO rr 04 04 40 CO 05 D CO (n « E 10 40 04 CD 04 40 CD 0 * 04 40 05 CO CD 04 T— ( T— 1 T-H 04 tH iH 1 — 1 04 rH tH iH 04 rH i—H 1 -H . t>. CD Ol 00 00 1 -H 40 04 00 04 I”! I”! 04 1 — ( rH tH CO 1 -H rH 1 -H CO rH i-H rH 00 p -o 0 0 0 0 rc^t 04 CO 0 40 04 0 ^40 00* CD 04 r-l r — 1 04 04 1-1 rH 04 rH rH tH 04 tH 1 -H 1 -H N '5 'u p< 0 0 40 0 0000 40 tH 0 0 0 40 rf 0 ; 0 D <12 P 4H <15 I .9 04 «2 0 03 a> CO 0 P <12 02 0 P 02 «2 0 P *S •M 0 •9 « P C4 A>p •2 ^ '5 Cd P D ft.P •9 ^ 'S 12 P D ft.H ^ 'S 12 ‘ P D ft.P A . S a c P ft 02 p P ft 02 p P ft w P 1 0 ft 0 a 0 ft 0 Q 0 ft 0 P 0 -ft 0 p 1 fH o-C cd fH O-P P Pi 0 -^ P Ph O'P P PPOP^^ WOPhEh 0) m w p rr X rP -M 4H -4H P P p 0 rP 0 0 ® i I? 02 H p p 1 bjo <14 P P p < f-H t+H rH CO 40 COLl-F''" - - ■■ UNiVhR'''’ '' ' I J \<Iiscellaneous DriPfJ hlnnrl 84 Flax plant hv-prorlnat anrl mnlassps 3 62.5 50.7 31.8 62,6 Molassps, hppt 7 _ 62 91 Mnlassps, panp 7 86 Molasses feed (Sucrene, Holstein, Macon) 63 "ss” ” 52 '" 00 Meat spraps 98 90 Slfim milF 2 94 90 90 Tankage 8 71 TOO TOO 1 Experiments -with Ruminants, Lindsay’s compilation. Reports Massachusetts Agricul- tural Experiment Station 2 Henry & Morrison’s Feeds and Feeding- 3 Patterson and White, Maryland Ag-ricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No, 1I6S 4 German experiments give coelficient as 2'& 3 Bulletin No. W, Office of Experiment Stations 3 Bulletin No. 168, Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station 7 Bulletin No. Iil6, Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station 8 Henry & Morrison’s Feeds and Feeding. Experiments -with swine ° Kellner’s Scientific Feeding of Farm Animals DEFINITIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS OF FEEDING STUFFS In the accepting of certificates for the registration of feeding stuffs to be sold in this state, the definitions adopted by the Association of Feed Control Officials are followed closely. The following definitions include in addition to the official, those formulated by this department from the most reliable data available. Definitions not from A. F. C. O. are marked with an asterisk (*). When the terms “mill run screenings” and “screenings not exceeding mill run” are used in connection with shorts, middlings and shipstuff, they have the same meaning as when applied to wheat bran. From Wheat Wheat bran is the coarse outer coatings of the wheat berry obtained in the usual commercial milling process from wheat that has been cleaned and scoured. Shorts or standard middlings are the fine particles of the outer and inner bran separated from bran and white middlings. Wheat white middlings or white middlings are that part of the offal of wheat intermediate between shorts or standard middlings and red dog. This term, correctly used, applies to a high grade middling, low in bran content, thus being highly digestible. An off grade fiour which con- tains 2.5 per cent, or less fat and 13 per cent, or less protein should not be confused with white middlings. Shipstuff or wheat mixed feed is a mixture of the products other than the fiour obtained from the milling of the wheat berry. Red dog is a low grade wheat fiour containing the finer particles of bran. Red dog fiour shows a variation of from 3.5-6 per cent.^crude fat and 16-20 per cent, crude protein. Like white middlings they should not be confused with off-grade fiours. Wheat bran with mill run screenings is pure wheat bran plus the screenings which were separated from the wheat used in preparing the bran. H Wheat bran with screenings not exceeding mill run is either wheat bran with the whole mill run of screenings or wheat bran with a portion of the mill run of screenings, provided that such portion is not an inferior portion thereof. When the terms “mill run screenings'' and “screenings not exceeding mill run" are used in connection with shorts, middlings or shipstuff they have the same meaning as when applied to wheat bran. From Rye* The by-products from the milling of rye correspond closely to those defined under wheat. Rye bran and rye red dog are rarely found on the market. Rye shorts or middlings contain in addition to the middling a large amount of the bran. Rye mixed feed consists chiefiy of rye bran and middlings. From Buckwheat Buckwheat shorts or middlings are that portion of the buckwheat grain immediately inside of the hull after separation from the fiour. Buckwheat mixed feed* is composed of varying proportions of the hulls and middlings obtained in the milling of the buckwheat grain. Buckwheat hulls* are the outer coverings of the buckwheat grain. They are a low grade roughage probably about equal in value to oat straw for feeding purposes. From Corn Corn distillers' dried grains are the dried residues from corn obtained in the manufacture of alcohol and distilled liquors. Corn gluten meal is that part of commercial shelled corn that remains after the separation of the larger part of the starch, the germ and the bran by the processes employed in the manufacture of corn starch and glucose. It may or may not contain corn solubles. Corn gluten feed is that portion of commercial shelled corn that re- mains after the separation of the larger part of the starch and the germ by the processes employed in the manufacture of corn starch and glucose. 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 estima- tions made from data available, about 11,375 tons of corn germ meal were sold in 1916 as against 5500 tons in 1915. It is of interest to note that there are two distinct classes of corn germ meals. One is a by-product from the germ separated mechanically in the manufacture of hominy and products demanding similar processes; and will carry from 6-8 per cent, crude fat and from 17-20 per cent, crude pro- tein. The other is a by-product from the germ separated by acid treatment in the manufacture of starch, glucose, etc., and will carry 7-12 per cent, crude fat and 18-24 per cent, crude protein. Corn feed meal is the siftings obtained in the manufacture of cracked corn and table meal made from whole grain. In view of the fact that table meal is manufactured from the whole grain by widely differing pro- cesses it will vary considerable in character. However, this department will accept the term corn feed meal to cover these varying products. Corn bran is the coarse outer coating of the corn kernel. From Flaxseed and Flax Ground flaxseed or flaxseed meal is the product obtained by grinding flaxseed which has been screened and cleaned of weed seeds and other for- eign material by the most, improved commercial processes. {Tentative definition). 15 Linseed meal is the ground product obtained after extraction of part of the oil from ground flaxseed screened and cleaned of weed seeds and other foreign materials by the most improved commercial processes. Old process linseed oil meal is the ground product obtained after ex- traction of part of the oil by crushing, cooking and hydraulic pressure from flax seeds screened and cleaned of weed seeds and other foreign materials by the most improved commercial processes. Six samples secured in 1916 were found to contain an excess of weed seeds. (See Tables IV and VI). New process linseed oil meal is the ground product obtained after extraction of part of the oil by crushing, heating and the use of solvents from flaxseed screened and cleaned of weed seeds and other foreign materials by the most improved commercial processes. Unscreened flaxseed oil feed is the ground product obtained after extraction of part of the oil from unscreened flaxseed by crushing, cook- ing and hydraulic pressure or by crushing, heating and the use of sol- vents. When sold without grinding the unground product shall be desig- nated as “unscreened flaxseed oil feed cake.” Flax plant by-product is the portion of the flax plant remaining after the separation of the seed, the bast fiber and a portion of the shives, and consists of flax shives, flax pods, broken and immature flax seeds and the cortical tissue of the straw. This material has not been offered for sale in this state except as an ingredient of proprietary feeds usually containing molasses. It serves largely as a make weight and in general may be classed with oat hulls, cottonseed hulls and similar materials carrying high percentages of fiber. From Cottonseed Cottonseed meal is a product of the cottonseed, composed principally of the kernel with such portion of the hull as is necessary in the manu- facture of oil; provided that nothing shall be recognized as cottonseed meal that does not conform to the foregoing definition and that does not- contain 36 per cent, of protein. Choice cottonseed meal must be finely ground, not necessarily bolted, perfectly sound and sweet in odor, yellow, free from excess of lint, and must contain at least 41 per cent, of protein. Prime cottonseed meal must be finely ground, not necessarily bolted, of sweet odor, reasonably bright in color, yellow, not brown or reddish, free from excess of lint, and must contain at least 38.6 per cent, protein. Good cottonseed meal must be finely ground, not necessarily bolted, of sweet odor, reasonably bright in color and must contain at least 36 per cent, of protein. Cottonseed feed is a mixture of cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls, containing less than 36 per cent, of protein. Cold pressed cottonseed is the product resulting from subjecting the whole undecorticated cottonseed to the cold pressure process for the ex- traction of oil and includes the entire cottonseed less the oil extracted. Cottonseed hulls* are the outer portion of the cottonseed. They are very high in crude fiber and only a great scarcity of home grown roughage can ever justify their purchase in Indiana. Indiana purchases of cottonseed meal should be on the basis of its protein content and undoubtedly the higher the percentage of protein the less the protein will cost per pound, even though the price per ton be con- siderably higher than that of the lower grades. These materials should be purchased on the basis of the cost of the protein and its digestibility and not on the cost per ton. From Barley Brewers’ dried grains are the properly dried residues from cereals obtained in the manufacture of beer. Samples obtained consist chiefly of barley with rice and corn grits. i6 Malt sprouts are the sprouts of the barley grain. If the sprouts are derived from any other malted cereal, the source must be designated. The samples secured were all barley sprouts. From Oats Oat groats are the kernels of the oat berry with the hulls removed. These are used principally in chicken feeds. Oat hulls are the outer chaffy coverings of the oat grain. These con- tain on the average in excess of 30 per cent, crude fiber. Oat middlings are the fioury portion of the oat groat obtained in the milling of rolled oats. Oat shorts* are the covering of the oat grain lying immediately under the hull, being a fuzzy material carrying with it portions of the tips of oat groats obtained in the hulling of the oat. Oat meal by-product as used by a large number of manufacturers of proprietary feeds is supposed to contain the three products described above. In fact oat meal by-product could more properly be designated as oat groat by-product as it seems to be obtained in the manufacture of oat groats and this department finds it consists of oat hulls and a small amount of oat shorts. Oat middlings as recognized by this department is the fioury material obtained in the manufacture of rolled oats and steel cut oats from oat groats. They will carry from 4.5-7 per cent, crude fat and 12-16.5 per cent, crude protein. Clipped oat by-product is the resultant by-product obtained in the manufacture of clipped oats. It may contain light, chaffy material broken from the ends of the hulls, empty hulls, light, immature oats and dust. It must not contain an excessive amount of oat hulls. The preceding by-product is also principally used as a constituent of proprietary molasses feeds. When any appreciable amount of oat hulls is present the latter must be given as an ingredient in this state. From Rice Rice bran is the cuticle beneath the hull. Rice hulls are the outer chaffy coverings of the rice grain. Rice polish is the finely powdered material obtained in polishing the kernel. From Alfalfa Alfalfa meal is the entire alfalfa hay ground, and does not contain an admixture of ground alfalfa straw or other foreign material. From Sugar Beets Dried sugar beet pulp* is the dried residue obtained in the manufac- ture of beet sugar, after extraction of the larger percentage of the sugar from the beet. ANIMAL BY-PRODUCTS Blood meal is ground dried blood. Cracklings are the residue after partially extracting the fats and oils from the animal tissue. If they bear a name descriptive of their kind, composition or origin, they must correspond thereto. Digester tankage* is the residue from animal tissue exclusive of hoof and horn specially prepared for feeding purposes by tanking under live steam, drying under high heat, and suitable grinding. If it contains any considerable amount of bone, it must be designated Digester meat and bone tankage. This material is often sold under the names of feeding tankage and tankage. In some cases the stomach offal is present as an ingredient. In purchasing these materials careful attention should be given to the guarantees and inspections since the record shows that some manufacturers have difficulty in maintaining guarantees. Meat scrap and meat meal* are the ground residues from animal tissue- exclusive of hoof and horn. If they contain any considerable amount of bone, they must be designated meat and bone scrap or meat and bone 17 meal. If they bear a name descriptive of their kind, composition or origin, they must correspond thereto. The presence of pulverized glass in animal by-products has been de- termined in several samples procured recently and, in the opinion of this department, when present in appreciable amounts is a serious indication, somewhere in process of compounding and building up of these products, of the addition of garbage tankage. MISCELLANEOUS Meal is the clean, sound, ground product of the entire grain, cereal or seed which it purports to represent. Chop is a ground or chopped feed composed of one or more different cereals or by-products thereof. If it bears a name descriptive of the kind of cereals, it must be made exclusively of the entire grains of those cereals. Screenings are the smaller, imperfect grains, weed seeds and other foreign material having feeding value, separated in cleaning the grain. Alfalfa meal is the entire alfalfa hay ground, and does not contain an admixture of ground alfalfa straw or other foreign materials. Tinplate by-products*. These products formerly sold under the name of refuse cleaning middlings now sold as Palmo Midds and Palmo Mixed Feed are by-products secured in the process of polishing the tinplate, the former being a mixture of wheat middlings and palm oil and the latter a mixture of wheat middlings, peanut hulls and palm oil. So-called Palmo Meal which has been shipped into this state untagged and misrepresented as to feeding value, is a tinplate by-product consisting of peanut hulls and palm oil. No appreciable amount of peanut meats are present in this product. This department cannot accept the term Palmo Meal as an ingredient of compounded feeds, but where it is used the manufacturers must state true ingredients, peanut hulls and palm oil. An analysis of two samples of so-called Palmo Meal shipped unlabeled into this state is as follows: moisture 6.9 per cent., crude fat 6.9 per cent., crude protein 7.0 per cent, and crude fiber 49.9 per cent. Manufacturers, who now have feeds registered as containing peanut meats, peanut hulls and palm oil, will be asked in the future to reregister stating ingredients as peanut hulls and palm oil unless an appreciable amount of peanut meats are actually present in their feed. Mixed feed* is a term used in Indiana to cover feeds composed of mixtures of various cereals, by-products and miscellaneous materials. If the term is qualified to indicate the origin of the materials used, they must contain such materials or their by-products only. Proprietary feeds* is a term used to designate a large number of com- pounded feeds sold under names, generally trademarked or copyrighted, which have no special relation to the materials used in their manufacture. In general this class of feeds may be subdivided into those with and without molasses, the former containing from 10 to 60 per cent, of mo- lasses being designated as molasses feeds. Calf meals* are proprietary feeds advertised and sold as being pre- pared according to special formulas for the feeding of young calves. Owing to their high cost, claims and guarantee should receive special attention when their purchase is contemplated. Poultry feeds may be divided into two classes: those containing cereals, seeds and their by-products and those containing in addition to these ingredients grit, charcoal, etc. Oyster shells are also added to poultry feeds. In the opinion of this department the addition of either grit or oyster shells in excess of 5 per cent, can only be explained on the basis of cheap- ening the selling price of the feed, or reducing the cost of manufacture so an unwarranted profit may be made. If above 6 per cent, grit, oyster i8 shells or combined grit and oyster shells is present in a feed it will be reported as an excess, and if the amounts exceed 8 per cent., the feed will be considered adulterated and will be reported as such unless the nfanu- facturer has a higher percentage guaranteed. The question of whether it would not be more profitable to purchase grit separately rather than in the form of mixtures containing it deserves the careful attention of the purchasers of chicken feeds. Condimental feeds*, Under the present rulings of the Department 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, fiaxseed 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, regu- lators, 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 mat- ter, come under the law and must be registered and labeled when offered 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 in- clude all materials used as food adjuncts for animals and the issuing of a ruling to this effect is under consideration. In general these preparatibns are composed of some ordinary feeding stuff or feeding stuff adulterant for a base or carrier together with some common cathartic generally Glaubers but 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 salt, and similar cheap materials being used in larger amounts and some of the largest sellers on the market today contain 90 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- operation with this department and for their own protection to purchase those which are registered and thus obtain the protection which the law affords. Yeast or vinegar dried grains are the properly dried residue from the mixture of cereals, malt and malt sprouts (sometimes cottonseed meal) obtained in the manufacture of yeast or vinegar, and consist of corn or corn and rye from which most of the starch has been extracted, together with malt added during the manufacturing process to change the starch to sugars, and malt sprouts (sometimes cottonseed meal) added during the manufacturing process to aid in filtering the residue from the wort and serve as a source of food supply for the yeast. Representative samples secured from various manufacturers show an average composition of: moisture, 7.1 per cent.; crude fat, 8.5 per cent.; crude protein, 20.6 per cent.; crude fiber, 16.4 per cent.; crude ash, 2.1 per cent.; nitrogen free extract, 45.4 per cent. These grains often resemble a mixture of brewers’ dried grains and distillers’ dried grains and are of the- same general character, but are of somewhat less value as a source of protein. Oil cake is the residual cake obtained after extraction of part of the oil by crushing, cooking and hydraulic pressure from seeds screened and cleaned of weed seeds and other foreign materials by the most improved commercial processes. When used alone the term “oil cake” shall be un- derstood to designate the product obtained from partially extracted, 19 screened and cleaned flexseed. When used to cover any other product, the name of the seed from which it is obtained shall be prefixd to “oil cake.” Palm kernel oil meal is the ground residue from the extraction of part of the oil by pressure or solvents from the kernel of the fruit of the Elaeis guineensis or Elaeis malanococca. This material is also especially valuable as a dairy feed but has only recently been introduced into this country. Average analysis^ shows: Moisture, 10.9 per cent.; crude fat, 1.6 per cent.; crude protein, 18.7 per cent.; crude fiber, 25.4 per cent.; crude ash, 4.3 per cent.; nitrogen free extract, 39.1 per cent. Ivory nut meal is ground ivory nuts. The material is secured as a by-product in the manufacture of buttons and is the ground trimmings, broken pieces and imperfect nuts. Analysis of a sample by this depart- ment showed: moisture, 10.2 per cent.; crude fat, 0.8 per cent.; crude pro- tein, 4.2 per cent.; crude fiber, 8.2 per cent.; crude ash, 0.9 per cent.; nitrogen free extract, 75.7 per cent. Cocoanut meal or copra oil meal is the ground product obtained after extraction of part of the oil from the fieshy portion of the cocoanut (Cocos nucifera). Average analysis" shows: moisture, 9.6 per cent.; crude fat, 8.1 per cent.; crude protein, 20.9 per cent.; crude fiber 11.2 per cent.; crude ash, 4.9 per cent.; nitrogen free extract, 45.3 per cent. This ma- terial in the past has found a ready market in Europe, but now owing to the war, large quantities are being sold in this country. Henry and Mor- rison report it as having been fed successfully to cows, horses, swine and sheep. They report it as being about equal to gluten feed for dairy cows. 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 extrac- tion of part of the oil from whole peanuts, and the ingredients shall be designated as “peanut meal and hulls.” Peanut hulls consists of the ground shell or hull of the peanut. Inasmuch as Indiana will undoubtedly furnish a market for a part of the increased crop of peanuts in the south the following contains analysis of the several peanut products used for feeding of animals. Moisture per cent. Crude fat per cent. Crude protein per cent. Crude fiber per cent. Crude ash per cent. Nitrogen free extract per cent. Peanut oil meal i 110.7 8.0 47.6 5.1 4.9 23.7 Unhulled peanut oil feed ^ 5.7 11.1 28.4 23.4 4.5 . 27.0 Peanut hulls ^ 9.1 2.6 7.3 08.6 6.5 18.9 1 Feeds & Feeding- Garbage tankage is manufactured from the kitchen refuse of cities. Generally this refuse is subjected to treatment for extraction of oils and fats, and the by-product is sold as garbage tankage; while in other cases the refuse is simply dried or charred. Thus it is highly variable in char- acter and often contains pulverized glass, crockery, and other materials that may be injurious if the material is fed to live stock. Therefore gar- bage tankage is unfit and dangerous for stock feeding purposes and the registration of any feed with garbage tankage as an ingredient will not be accepted by this department. DETAILS OF INSPECTION OF FEEDING STUFFS The official inspectors of this department visited during the year 1916, the 92 counties securing in 507 of 581 town visited, 3877 samples repre- senting 2017 brands and 851 manufacturers. Ten to 138 samples were drawn from all counties, except seven, while in only one county was there less than four samples procured. 1 Kellner, The Scientific Feeding of Farm Animals 2 Henry & Morrison’s Feeds and Feedings 20 The inspection samples were obtained in the 92 counties as follows: COUNTY No. of sam- ples COUNTY No. of sam- ples COUNTY i No. of sam- ples 1 Adams 64 33 44 ! 68 Pike 77 , 9 , Allen 68 88 76 64 Porter 52 3 Bartholomew 28 34 Howard 16 66 Posey 38 4 Benton 9 85 201 66 Pulaski 26 5 Blackford .16 36 40 ' 67 Putnam 30 e Boone 59 87 30 ‘68 Randolph 65 7 Brown 8 38 .lay 48 I 69 R.iplelv 41 8 Carroll 20 39 85 ' 70 Rush 20 0 Cass _____ 46 40 35 71 Scott 19 10 Clark 72 ! 41i Johnson 66 72 Shelby 24 111 Clay 43 42 Enn^ 75 1 78 Spencer 47 13 Clinton 30 48 Eoseinskn 34 ' 74 St. Joseph lil7 18 Crawford 17 T,aGran2-e 20 75 Starke 25 M Daviess 43 1 45 Lake _ 127 76 Stenhen 65 16 Dearborn 31 ' 46 TaPnrte 65 '77' Sullivan 41 16 Decatur 48 47 T.awrenee 40 78 Switzerland 7 17 Dekalb 24 48 Madison 60 79 Tippecanoe 60 18 Delaware 78 49 Marion 184 80 Tipton 31 19 Dubois 36 50 Marshall 55 81 Union 20 20 Elkhart 77 51 Martin 2 82 Vanderburg 185 2,1 Payette 8 50 Miami 43 88 Vermilion 29 23 Ployd 67 58 Monroe 17 84 Vigo 61 23 Pountain 25 54 Montvomery 20 85 Wabash 38 24 Pranklin .. 27 56 Morgan 22 86 Warren 3 26 Pulton _ 33 66 Newton 20 87 Warrick 15 26 Gibson 64 57 Noble 44 88 Washington 72 27 Grant . _ 71 58 Ohio 2 80 Wayne 60 28 Greene 69 69 Orange 51 90 Wells _ 57 29 Hamilton 30 60 Owen 22 01 White 28 30 Hancock 22 611 Parke 17 92 Whitley 30 31 Harrison 18 1® Perry 28 Table II, page 22, contains a summary of the results of inspection of feeding stuffs collected in 1916. For convenience of comparison the feed- ing stuffs are divided into 140 classes; and in turn class 131, Proprietary Stock and Molasses feeds, is subdivided into 66 classes according to the ingredients from which each is compounded. Similar classes of feeds inspected in 1916 compared with those of 1915 show a substantial increase in the retail prices of all feeds. The greatest increase in prices is noted in feeds with high protein content, such as aniihal by-products and cottonseed meals. It is- noted that of 3535 samples analyzed, 2581 or nearly 75 per cent, were equal to guarantee, while only 115 or 3.2 per cent, were deficient in both crude fat and crude protein. It is shown that only 81 or less than 2.3 per cent, contained adulterants. Table III, page 30, contains the complete analysis of all feeding stuffs analyzed in 1916 classified in the case of mill feeds under heading showing actual ingredients identified; while in tlie case of animal by-products, cot- tonseed products, hominy feeds and proprietary feeds they are classified according to trade name and manufacturer. That is, all mill by-products found to be composed of the same ingredients were composited making one sample, and in case of feeds reported under brand name all inspec- tion samples of same brand were composited. Thus, as will be seen by the first column of Table III, although many of the analyses are only of one sample, the majority represent composites of from two to 228 samples. This table is especially prepared for the use of the consumer in con- nection with Table I which contains Digestible Coefficients of Feeding Stuffs. The present high prices of fertilizing materials emphasizes the neces- sity for the farmer who buys commercial feeding stuffs, not only to con- 21 sider its fitness as a feed, but also its value as a source of fertilizing ma- terials. Henryk says: “The value of farm manures depends primarily and principally on the character of the food from which they originate, for the animal merely works over the food given it, appropriating for the formation of flesh or milk, more or less of the fertilizing constituents the food furnishes, and voiding the rest in the excrements.” In fact experiments show that mature animals void practically all the nitrogen and ash, containing potash and phosphoric acid, which is supplied by the food; and even growing animals excrete considerable pro- portions of the fertilizing materials contained in the food eaten. That the farmer may intelligently purchase such feeding stuffs as will furnish together with the desired food values a maximum amount of fertilizing materials, the percentages of the fertilizing constituents of different classes and brands of feeding stuffs is given in Table III. The figures are the result of actual analyses and should prove of value to farmers in their selection of classes or brands of feeding stuffs for feed- ing purposes. 1 Feeds and Feeding TABLE II — Summary 6f Results of Inspection 22 I j paiaqBi :jou s:;natn(Jiqs jequin^ C ( I* - 1 1 1 1 J 1 < 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 iSiuo uia:jojd apnja ui aa:;uBjBnS Moiaq jaquinj^ CO ci<330 r-l63mi>- C<1 co co 1— 1 I— 1 (N r-( paja^siSaj t^ou jaquinj^ r-H 1 1 1 1 ( 1 1 1 rH C 00 1 CO (M 1 cil 1 (M 27—30 26—30 25—32 22—34 2.5—30 : ss , 4. 1 CN 26—28 1 t 1 t ^ ‘no; j.ad eatJd iiB:;aj ’aSBjaAV 28.00 27.66 31.27 29.50 34.66 33.55 36.00 29.76 29.94 28.15 26.58 28.50 28.00 27.71 26.00 27.55 27.50 28.17 28.00 32.00 26.00 27.00 24.00 Average composition 1 *:}naa Jad ‘maitojd apnjQ m o (N CJ O lA CO 00 CO 00 C=>l>-COJr^ 00 O CgO '^.'^'^'^CO'^CO'*^^ CO CO'^ CO CO CO Tjl 'TjH •^uaa jad ‘ja^BAi 9.7 10.1 10.3 8.9 11.2 9.6 10.1 9.8 10.1 9.8 10.1 9.5 11.5 9.9 9.4 9.7 11.6 10.3 10.3 10.9 12.0 10.6 10.1 pazAiBOB - saidraBS jaqninij M t-l :)< lf3 r-H CO lO eg 1—1 I-H 60 rH FEEDING STUFF 1 Wheat bran 2 Wheat bran and screenings 3 Standard wheat middlings or shorts.. 4 Wheat middlings, reddog flour „ ^ Whitfi TnirlrIHno-c 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t i 1 > 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 ! t 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 iJI i o (o cs te- J 5 CO i> 8 Wheat middline-s and screenings 9 Mixed feed: wheat bran and wheat middlings 10 Mixed feed: wheat bran, wheat mid- dlings and screenings 11 Mixed feed: wheat bran, wheat mid- dlings. screenings and salt 12 Mixed feed: wheat bran, wheat mid- dlings, screenings and cleanings 13 Mixed feed: wheat bran, wheat mid- dlings and chatf 14 Mixed feed: wheat bran and corn bran 15 Mixed feed: wheat bran, corn bran, rye bran and screenings 16 Mixed feed: wheat bran, corn bran and screenings _ 17 Mixed feed: wheat bran, corn bran and aspirator dust 18 Mixed feed; wheat bran, wheat mid- dlines and corn bran _ 19 Mixed feed: wheat bran, wheat mid- dlings, low grade flour and corn bran 20 Mixed feed: wheat bran, wheat mid- dlings, low grade flour, corn bran and screenings 21 Mixed feed: wheat bran, wheat mid- dlings, corn bran and dust col- lector bran ... 22 Mixed feed: wheat bran, wheat mid- dlings, corn bran and dust col- lector dust 23 Mixed feed: wheat bran, corn bran and wheat dust 1 23 rH 1 1 1 1 r i - - 1 t 1 t 1 1 i ^ i 1 26—32 ! ! ? 1 y ; 3 24—34 9^7 — ?bi ! S . <1 3 C< > 5 > ] |D 1> C CO CO CO J. J. J. 1 CO CO CO O' 1 28—32 o o 00 00 00 CD 00 ClDCO'^C73 22.e ) a.^s ! “-a S g -O' ^ a g .ja g >-«•*-' OQ fe •« jj ^ a T3 ^ O .a 73 03 .2 , S ^ « M A « I O) pS 03 if I if oj >5 iH >H 02 O '“02^ 2 ^ S'gg « CO “2 TJ a -o bo 02 5 2 Q 02 ^ <12 .at-ipQ^i ft 1-2- lO CO CO CO i-Q ^ I rH 5^.9 I g a a ' p a o 03+2 2^— . ^ ^■S|ss 03 P g ts ^22'® .S .^. ,S S 33 ^ 55 03 53 cu C3 £ C3 I si 11. .. o . -* 12 '0^5-0 I'p.p; o he bo .a_|5 2’a^ 82 sga .. a .. T3 o-a' 4) S' 0^ S 'C ^ ^ a; rrr'o'p'o a'a2'a2'p ao2'rio2oi^r'i'Soj g«g 2.^ ^ ^ S ^ S ^ S 2 ^ ^ 8.28 «a s s 2 !i TABLE II — Sum mary of Results of Inspection (continued) 24 I p9[9qB[ :;ou s:ja3Ui(Iiqs jaquiaj^ - 1— 1 paiaq^pj s:;u9uidiqs J9qiuuj»j Cq sia9ip9JSui p99:;uBJBnSun Suiuib:}uo 9 a9quinx - s;uBJ9:jinpB ‘ SniUTB:}U09 j;9quinx 1 1 1 1 1 1 UI9:jOJd 9piU9 U[ 9JOUI JO %i :)U956y9p J9quiujsf - 1 1 1 1 !JBJ 9pnJ9 UI 9JOIU JO %2'Q ^uaioggp J9qiunjs[ rH rH (N - UI9!)OJ(J 9pnJD pUB ^BJ 9pnj9 ^:^oq ui 99:juB -jBnS AiO[9q J9quin^ - 1 1 rH 1 1 1 03 Aiuo ui9ioja 9pua9 UI 99:^uBaBnS AVO[9q J9quinj^ 1 i-H CD I-H C<1 S ^ 03X2^ 3 M 03 t® tn [^r CO CO l9o3c3c3cdo3«!o3 ^“gooooooo ^ S a fl fl a a a 3 3 ■Q oooopooo g-OOUOOUOO ^incc>t^oo®Oi-i(y p;inioioiomci>coo 1-0 I o3 8 tm '*^.9 a 3 o £ 03 ^2 oT 2 1/?^ C3 OQ C3 ^ 1? tuO cu fl I a I o I I d 'S I C3 o) I rt > O H o QJ £ 03 T3 TS iH >1 o G c! o ^ CO 'I ^ c3 03 " C0T3 CO ^ CO OD tK *-> £3 ■!-> O +-> +j -tj CS s 03 O CS 03 03 o o „ o o o q G G a G S G _ sasa o o 5 s O O 0;Q 000 25 TABLE II — Summary of Results of Inspection (continued) 26 paiaqBi ijou sijuanidtqs aaquin^j - Ui - - in I (M 1 1 1 1 1 1 ^[uo itBj apnja ut aa^uBJBnS Moiaq jaqinn^ i-( rH i-H iq rH 0 rH rH CO 05 rH (^5 rH Ln CO 00 CO CO ^5 rH rHCO rH e 5 i-H CO paiaijsiSaj ;jou jaquini^ - 1 1 rH J 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 uoiijBjijsiSai aiojaq uaj[B 4 saiduiBS jaqinn^ N 1 '. - gq 5 (=5 e i CO ^ > ^ ] 5 ! 05 $ ‘noi jad eoud eSBjaAV lOeO®OC3e5lOOOC3Ttl050C<)«0«=>;pt^OOl iOcot^oiftOTtt05e)e<5«o«ocviooeo05iftcooo( 8 > O CO Ci O 00 Ct»CC0l01S(M i|t^ 05 CO O CO I (M r-l CO CO i-H CO CO O I-H M N •;a90 J8d ‘IBj apruo 05C01>;'®05000lC5'i.(Mt-.(55C0005rHi i-HO0=OrH8c0t-Ic0l>^05 O O (M 00 in *i-<*m’^C000C0'^O co^cooo-t^ooioo^i>^t-^oio6o6o6cdt>^co^Oi>^t^o6ooco in o o CO paZi?iBnB saidniBS laqinn^ CO in CO I iCO(MOiCO.t>-C-1 .9 o) 0 3 S ! CO ^ CO q “.a , ii' ^ fl . ^ O c 3 tuO-H 2 a^p'^fla'S M'MoJOiw'a+j^Otuoa (dJCUni r/^*r;£_, al'Sa^'S8sassa2i§§2'^s®^^"“ oSs=3-2'CoooooooOooo2o >> « .a .a pq S^p^OQOOOOOuWOOOMO«^f>i-q C3 co^^:roo^c>i^(Mco' g:=3 C ■ P, O C3 ( QJ W ^ M “ ?.,a «j 1 x bfl ^ C3 O I ^•9:5 ft-g ' as:. ' -u • O w . 0 I □ 2cj S ^ ^ ^3 Srrt “ioSi S s 2 O O o3 ■“ t3 “ a cl » m c3 03 M T-j W) o tiJO fl.9 °^.a cs G ^ Ki q 05 X W O) 4J 05 gl 05 S ^ _g. ^ M w CO'S tm M a a s 05 -o s G « w 02 CO M OT a ^ q q ra s-SS a § ® 8 ! q q q tH " ISii S V ■‘O m q O U( |s ‘5 5 ^ • a; tU} rs^s.SftcB's.9 I gS| ""33 3 “i '« « a g go g " CD cs tc 'O 3Sft“2ft-33 33 s333-(-srQ33+jrrt33 O W O-^ § O C3^ o ^ t , O » , t_i l,\J ft 0 Dft“Q,ft DiftSi OlOJ^OJ^www OPCl^CCCUcC^ft^ r^r'^ 00 o _CD M ^ S o 2 S ft a> o ”0 “ ^ 8 ^ S ^ 03 (1 03_' O O) 03 J tB >1 tk t>j X3 ftj2 bO^X3 g,‘=^ * 33 3 ”“ «i' 02 P (B 'S X 2 -ft S'g| ^ tB CO ^ O 5.13 2:5 *3 13 '3 "3 "3^ ' Q;cLa>a)a)a;» Cl ^ >> c X3 ft^tf-O ft -a S - r/T O r/- O 8 03 t>) ft^o ^ tfl p C 3 I cd p fT-. ^ 1 ^ ft ! O QJ QJ U ID C3 ooooo o o w aj uvj ft,, C >4 6 '“o-- 6 '° ®3 p. c3 03 C • cn ^ — (,\3 w O M O CD 0 ,Q aft* g . ft ft Sa DO i S-. f-| H a> Cl <1 ^ jO ^ P w ^ Q ^ -a S >» CD C3 "..al 03 fl S P? S”“ tB t>J0 S ft a '3 Xi 04 000 ft ft 3 3J35 3) 000 ^ 4 h ^ O 4 ft ft >. (^ >4 PQWpq TABLE II — Summary of Results of Inspection (continued) 28 paiaqei qou squaiiidiqs aaqiun^ n ; 3 1 ) > s s i J (M e- 5 ^ a . j 5 0 ' J q 0 ! 3 4 C 3 5 s 4 37—42 $ ‘uo:j jad aaud iiBqaj aSBjaAV m <=> (M 0 g gg g 0 g rD 05 g 0 0 g g 0 0 i> 0 c4 e> 0 e> 05 m CO (M CO CO (M CO CO C? CO CO 04 0 LO C CO 05 C• 10 GO C05 (Minoo COt^-^i-l co oj •;uaa jad ‘ aa:tBAi pazAiBOB saiduiBS jaqinn ^ N : co(mooooo -^c^i o mo eo rn co o OOCjJmOOCO rHTp OrH CO O rH rH m 05 f-i ^ S a ^ ^<2 o * s M cT CZ ,—k M C/J CM W ca ca^ ca ^ ca S S 3 ^ S'S ro ^ ca O O 'CJ O ^ s P 3 :=! E3 3 'O 'O p o o o p o Saaaaa;i ^ >> >> ^ >> pqpq2q » pq?3 o a 3- 03 la's. 'O'O aT3 o O 03 O t-l tH • 5 a ai ^ a 3 g '^pqpq “pq ^ g ^ a o ^ M X2 a '0.2' 2'3±; o O O rrt tJ ^ ^ 2 ^ -W O 23 2'^ >“3 jZi ^ a a- II . , . ! i o; I w I c ca I £»i3 j bi] cc I .2 !.SSgi^ I ^ I ca I I a? ^ fcH w I ej I 0 ^ ^ CJ I S o cfl - g I s 3 j I £ 5 a S p ! M o ■ .3 3 g^' a> a 'O ^ I OJ M ! a cc ao •-ga I m 2 Oi^ ^ “ tU0T3 ^ a a C3\s > g'3 § , 3 =3-5 P ^ ra ^ ! '"Wpq M ' 1 1 “1^ “ 3 “ o 2'g 2 2l°g -b Q T3 t>>T3 'O M aiO®3 0X ^ 03^22 o ) f-i (H a ® M p , i2 a ^ 2.2 o 03 ^ 2 K*1 Q 5 -^pq “pq ‘^pq 1 tuo b I ^ '.2 0-^0 S 42 . X! T3 CS ' O ' 000 aTp a CQ PQ C ” ” _a CO .2 g +2 _o (d 3 rg 3 +J ^ ■5 Td o S3 5 O O O w O H2 £ 2 ^ i2 pq W W O m 2 M ca .9 oa -Q CQ CO 3 CO Td Td b 2 0 0 .2 ^ .LJ O 2 2 ^ 3 (» >>M 29 30 CO •^naa jad ‘qsB^od; 1.54 1.59 1.18 1.36 0.78 0.80 0.50 0.65 0.95 1.02 1.03 0.47 0.51 0.45 1.00 1.29 1.09 1.16 0.84 1.48 1.72 0.95 1.07 0.95 1.03 0.59 1.55 0.59 0.85 0.73 0.83 0.97 1.06 0.91 0.94 0.45 1.10 1.30 1.21 1.27 0.86 1.21 G R .G o) ^ G (h CO •^uaa jad ‘ptOB aijoqdso’qa: 'i 2.62 2.91 2.60 2.74 1.61 1.72 0.66 1.19 1.78 2.06 1.28 1 1.26 i 0.68 0.86 2.21 2.49 1.89 2.23 2.29 2.78 2.38 1.91 1.97 2.28 i 2.53 ! 1.28 2.76 1.33 0.90 1.25 1.73 1.61 1.98 1.34 1.60 0.74 1.48 2.03 1.97 1.94 1 1.28 0.97 1 G pH 0 C.) •^uaa jad OCOCC^OOCOOiC ioioin)^mi>'COcoococOii>-i-Hoicnr3ir5AncD*^*^ioct^I:^X^C^i-HrHrHC5Oli5C0C^IM^CfiQ0OQdc0i^Jt>Cx5Q006cD rHCOJ>lCO’-^’cO'*^^C>COO<35;D1^0fr^'^ C<1(MTt*l^-C0Lf3C0ir:»C0 '^COCC5co'^TiHcocor-IionHio*^’ir5ioLoiri'^'^'?i»'^COCOi^X-^mOOCOCO '^t>TjS'^CO*^iniOiCOCOr-HlOOOlOo6cO< O(Mm00i000t^00C0i-H0irt4OC0CCO^COrH'^COcd'^^COCO‘^<^'’^COlO ilCt-HCOCOOOrHJt>mrHOCC)i-ir-irHlCCD*iO'^cvico'«^l>C000C005 00 00CC01>-'^001>^00*^l>t-*CDt^ OOiOiCJiOOiOOiOiO^'OOiOOOCiOiOiOOOiOCDOCO C'lcioir^CjOOOiCiOCOOOsOiQiGOOQ pa^isoduioa saiduiBS jaqranj^ lo i-H CO 00 ^ o o +-> tuo c .9 “ o'2 a .2 2 a 0'S CO ^ ^ s-« OJ tuo O o a o TJ oa|-s o 'O _ ^ ^ au cj cu o " - O JM o q g;:^ m 'O tuo Cl ■4-) „ 03 O C3 il“l| o ^ ^ 'o.a o s g to (c'Ci '2 M G C ^ ^ S SiS S s . 9 . 9 .9 a a s ^ 13 TJ-aSSS ggaaa - r* w w g a cj 3 C § fl a C3 « 03 a^s^ .aS^ a o ^ s-i a »s-§ a dr o o’ O O m . oj tuO d tuo .a O.H P'0 cQ-'O fa ^a I -u C3 -iJ , 03 'O 03 I a>CPa)a:)Q;a-)Q^cyQ;a>c.>Q.5oG^ i-(N«T}(in«ir-iC3i ® P'O'O'O'O'O'O'a'a'O'a'O'a — — — 2^5^^ TO ‘G X '+H ^aaaaaa'fbBrtw^^^^^.s.s.a.a^^^ 2 ojotP'O'O'a'O'O'O'O’O'O'O'O'O d O' V 0 S c3 ^ tuO S O d^ « I S g O (H OCX} ui ^ m 5 03 d f-i 03 ^'O ®S &a a tao t« d taO’2 .a « g 2 ® tc . ll 03 03 tuo &0 d d 'O , - „ , ^ ^ t-i »H O 03 u. '*-' d d tao g> o „,.a'a '-‘SoIh O , ^'drq ® tao tao ® O ® jp-'Q'gbflg^ Qjcu >2'dT3^® SSSS ^■“ci;!:;^cr®“0303 TGri ^Oo^^^^tuobJOtuD ^ o o G G G G C G r G 3 G js^aaaaaaa Gh ^ sa taotx-g G P ■G .44 g O § 'G Oj o; OJ q; 0) a> GGGGGGGGGc^GG gg:x:g:g:oG-gg3g:-gg3g: ^. . p£ ^ ^ ^ IS PS ^ ^ is pS ^ ^ » e^d d d .. 'O'O'O'O'O'O'O'O'O'rddJ'O'ti ’O'O'O'O'O'O'O'O'O a a'd ^ QJQJdJ®®®®®® ®P^ ^ssiiiS§§§iii§w«iipq ^'O'O'O .2 o) 0? a; XXX 31 rHOOOOOOCSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOcioOOOCSOOOOOOOOOOOO 2.4-2 oooooooo F2SS85SS?2gSgSsSSSSf^S^F2SoS^J^53g8Sgi^53§SJ2gE23§53£oggSg8$^ CqOOOCSOOOl— (OOCPOOOOOi-HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOr-IOOOOOOOrH o ^ ssssggsss t,^^^^^^^M,-l.-H^rHrHrHrH.-ir-(rH,HrH^,-l,Hr-.rHrHr-(r-.,-l,HrHrHrH,M(N^,-(rHrH,-l,-((M gg5iS8S?S§gSg§SgSg§g§g§gSgSggg§g3gSgggggggggSg 8 ggggs^gg g tO'HCOOS-«»#'«i(-«Hi-ll:~(M>-IC10Jt-COib~t~Mt CO (MlOrHi-IOOO ltj(MeOJq0 00 00TXO0i00C000C01:^rH00rHJ:-0H0lft(Mt-00C0rHC0 o OOCDOl^t^cOOO'^ d O O CD O rH (N (>5 O C0aiJt^'O*'^C0'^'^'rJi(MC005C0rHOC0l0C0C0C0G0l0C0CC>0iT-(»00>(Ni>-C0rHl0Ci la rHrH-i-te<5e0i-l(M00C5O'^J0100--IC*St~C0C30>C/)50(M0> 1>- o'i<-^t^QO- itsrH«o(MA-'t'COOifl-^jr-c>oso>mr-i-5jooQoo>t~iO'^o-Oi>^r^ i-lg^r-c,-ICO(M(>3'!j<(Mi-lrH(MrHrHi-(r-l(M!-(QOi-ig(MX>-!Oi-(i-lr-((Mi-IOgC 10 1 (M (M 1-H I CO 06 00 Oi 1 iOOtOOOCiCOCO»0'^- iio-^Oooioo5co'»oooiaoeoc4i^«o<3jift?oi^O'«ii'ijcooiorH^;^coi05t'(MCOC>!»Oi5i'i'r)C5^ooooy;eoM<5m,-icc>e<3wcoo cooSincpd>oOJt’i-im->i'ioci-iOioO 03 00 O 00 00t^(Mt~0300000J05ClOOlOt^0i00mt^inir--^05-^J:^'#':0cj00in-00ci->si03 0jjt^0ic0in0i $ ‘no:; jad aaiid nB:;ai aSBjaAy S 8 g 8 SS 8 g 8 ^S§S$gg§Sgg 8 S 8 §gSS 8 g 8 gSSSSggSi® 8 S 88 S O cp o •;naa jad ‘;DBj;xa aaJj — uaSoj:;!^^ CO»ACOCCCOr-«(NCOOCOCO^ llOCOCOr-H'^cPrH'^’^i>^COcPrH'^CO •:jn90 Jad *qsB apajQ M-OrHi-HCOrHOiir:)lOCOOirHC<100COt-tCOOi(MkOi>l>- •^uaa jad ‘jaqy apnjQ ■C0C0C-00* iCOOc4c-C0’^l>C0rHlCL0'^0505'^CiC0C000C0rH'^lCC5rHi-Hl>«-^it>-CC(MC01:^rH'^CO(MLr5CiCOOO'^^OOC>i:^COQCOG*C-lOCOi-Ht>l:^C^^CCOlOCOlOCOC^t>»^OCOOOOCOlOrJOr-l(MrH(Mi-(00 ra >> a g o p^ oa fi Si i — ^ E 'a iosga ?o 8 s'S'^3 pa2 TO T I o ^ 5 S P , , >.. 0 ? A G+;. o taosS oSS c3 ^ ft >. P fl 9 ^ ^ 03 P . ft 03 O P ft oSg iS s 2 ' o.S d q o o O' . ga lo"o I Q ^ ^ ^ a ini's N q •SdSo^SSI S cco^o fl t; g- 0 , _ in — I C wQ GpHc^C'T3c3f-j2;::^ho^^ S /-s^ S .9 ^ ^ 5^®"NHffi«-rWoC03^03tU fcflO a ® " Si lcB-&ri4®C:- qS iV. - nieg l^^^cs w a p ft ^ P Jal P oK S ftSO bfl N ^ O P ® f-i M Q P '3 oP I I tao ® P P i ^ P3 ^ , 1 ^ p) g c3<^ 84 rillK;BiliiiiiliSBii!rJis 5 asiii!i!|iS I q^^osg . p ^ 2 aS- 2 ^ ® g q p a-s-a o 2 S p.s? 1 +8. P V5I r: S! ^ a ft 2.aa'So3c3C3 03 03 O3«03c303O3qo3c3o303o3^^®ftft®gg2 ®^'SPPt«+^4a»^„+:>-3(gg^^Si,®0 &fiPPPPPPPPPpPPPPPPP+iSoP'Pf§^iriW 5J^^2o3Pft03o3i®c3®'^^^c3 .2rfP OVPo3o3o3o3o3«cSo3c3qo3o3o3o3o3o3 03qe.joP®P-l m Eci OS es ® ® H ® p.ui'P §cOQW^Oft|ft|ftftft£H^ftftft|Hft:ftc-c_iftft m Vi^ is t-i S S fLScZJ’P PiJr/i " " ''"' 'S'bflTS m m 02 ^ SP^ S hfltujbjobjobobflbcbctniiijobljbx: ■S .a a 0 .2 qj qj g 'S'J: qO Pi 03 p P n: o3^M®®®o3^P Oi(MC-lOCiOCJOi-HOimCq CO I-I O CO rH O SS§gSf;3S?SSS?oggSl^S8SS S Igg S 8 I'^l § ^ SggSSgS^D ^:feg88S§^8]2^Sggg[8-a8S8g5g g ^ T#^(M’^00 8^2^SSSg5: g88feggx°^g'igS3S8g3S3i3g CO CO lO m I (MC^CO 0 '^ir 3 icct^coociaDooo(Moooc! C^l C^J C^l c1 rA (>5 (N Ol oi rn (M* C^l r4 rH O'! 01 C-5 (M* t>\ coX'mx^occ)0':Dccio^c*o(M(Mcococ>coi>>mincocoioco i->T-toi-HOi-trHcooCio Locococ£)tocdcotocoi>^cocoototocdocdioioco’ioco' co'ocdcococdcoco^'ifico CiOiCOCOC^^lOCOO^ dt^ooo’cot^ooddo COCOCiCOCOCOlOCOOLClO(MO COCiOirHCpOOOCirHOOT^r-t r-* I-X ^ T-t 1 ^ l-^t^^COrHOiJC^O’^r-O 35 S? 3 ^S 3 O O O r^ O S‘ 4 ??i?:gi 8 r:ss?iS^ -2 =;; C^* ^ C^ (^q’ C^ c^ (^5 c5 rH c 4 C^ C^ C'#0>t-IOOIQ gi 8 S 8888 S 8 S 8 ? 5 S 88 Cl(MOO.-l>-llQOCOOr-l-:HOt~COr^ IQ i'^ 00 00 O 00 c> CD t- -O IQ c; X CO OOC<|l:^OJ>-COOiOO*^^T-HT-^COrHOiO icoiocoiO':DiOLCOir:i'0 40i-HOOrHT^(Ml^OO^I>lOOOC^l-^ OOlOOOOOlOOO'^OiOlO*^**^ O to CS ^ CO (>3 c^ o oi Oi (M to »M 1-H •TtH ^t) LO to to O I CO — C: CO O CO : LO lO to to O ^MCiOtMOi'^COOqCOOLOCOOii-HCO « S 8 d 8 3 g S g g g 8 g 01(MrHC0O00rHl--C:»C0(Mt0C0l0l0 S g g d g g g S g g i 2 CO -f o 00 to CiC(MlOl>-i>l:^r-t Oi-lOiCO'4llQlQ(MOXXXOi ^888^888888^8^8 <=> OOX^ CO CO 01 t-H Ol Ci CO OCOOOICOO 1— CO 888888 8 8 OqCNlOOCOt^CitOCSOOlOCOrHOOOO i'^i><:oi>cdocoo<:5i>-tooOiOO X^i-I'^CO(NIC50COOi-hCOCOOOt-HCO cDOt^l>^':00£'^<:oi^i-^Oo6o6cio I <0 (M CO o • O ci r-n’ 1 >I . ^ to 1-H oq o • <;£) O 00 O I to n* o CO • O O l>^ OOC0 001>‘00rH(NCDC0O0qrHl>.C0 i>-COCDi OOt^OCOOOQX^tOtor-OtOCOi:^ COOir^J to CO CO I CO O 1>* C^1 J o 00 :o o o 0-1 oi ^ CO CO 00 CO GO X.'* ) CO I'- X> i:^ J CO Oi 00 X'^ 00 00 c COT-HCO(MC ' • OT CO CO TABLE III — Analyses of Feeding Stuffs on the Basis of Inspection (continued) 36 5 ? rt Ynaa jad ‘qsBi^od; 1.13 1.13 1.16 ^.Y 0.93 2 . 5.5 1 1.62 : 3.30 ; 1 . 0 s 1 1.41 i 0.01 1.06 1 0.05 1.47 0.97 0.50 1.50 1 Y 4 0.84 0.74 2.08 1.44 1.52 1.02 1.42 1.27 1.44 0.45 1.16 0.85 1.27 1.14 1.14 1.03 2.50 0.55 1.07 0.71 2.10 0.97 .sS *- 4 P ?H W Yuao J 3 d ‘piOB I oijoqdso'qd;, g :3 i-HC 0 OOT-HC:>OOOC>OOOciorHOOC=)rHOCp<=>OOi-HC •jnaa jad ‘naSn.TiTKT 0 ^ 10 10 (M CO '1' C-l 1 I i-i i-H C-l ^ 1 ^ ‘no:; lad GDIJCl gSbjgay •^^UGD jad ‘;dbi:)X 9 aaij l-- 00 cp ^ ^ ^ > m 10 CO 10 JLO lOCOCiOlOOi»-‘ 0 '^OOlC'^C 5000 COO^OiCOlO'^ir 5 to J:^OrH^COOOOOOi^ 0001 :^iOCOC-cO O.IO Jr^'^lOCOOCOX-^X^CO'^lOlOCOtOCOi^'^'^OCOC^lOCOGOTtiiOOOCOJt^COlOO COC.OOCOJt>- 0 '«!hCiCOa)OilO*^'* 0 »-HOOt^GOCOO(MCOO (M(Mai»OCOCOOOi-QlOJ^i>-t 01 r^^OOOrHT-H • :;uaa jad ‘uia^oid apruQ CO (M CO CO ^ ^ cpm■»l^oo■^• • in CO in o 10 CO ' ' d C 3 <3 1 •:^naa Jad ‘JT 3 J apnio •juaa Jad ‘ajajstoj\[ 00 C3 to 00 CO 1 -^ 00 0-5 cot^oo’ C-C0C0'#01int-IOC0'fC0r-lt^00C01>-inOOC0C0C0' TtlC d 06 o g M ^ g d ^ ■ (M(MCOCO(MCOCPCO(Ml>TH,-l-^in(M(MT-li-lrH (M I-H-H , ) 1-1 I-I (M (M 1 . Q G « 1 M" tt t>i S oj o a a oY^ O rt-r 3 . K -7 ^ ^ ^ <0 _ 03 xi Q >< 2 rH W Y Y Y gsl^ M a s P § ^9p ^ A S X m tH O 03 >> ll« i“i| wY . a ft ’ a Y O 030 >1 >3 □ Q ftp >>“ >■ S p Ci O, iH O 5 p o °o ft >> >1 !>>y u p, o o I 3 5 c303c3u,2?P fej lr?P s “ « c3 V' O' -a Y “ ^ o 'a ftftc a a aYa^Ya^Yo p s s a 3 o o o ‘s a ^ o p ftpac3®Q^|^^^S.P:5| |p| ^H^a-OiSaft’ . H = rp «:ao_g a3wY' ^ ^ rr«< ^ Cl W'T' bflhcY.s.a.B2 pftbfi§°Q,i sa-g^sg^.p P O ^ !-l Q gcp^ o iac;pc333 Si p P |ii p . . . .r:iP i 3 ^ is. c/2 ^ ilTl® ft a P o CSQ ft a=3 o«fta Opi 1 1>> >> p p 1 03 C3 ' ft ft a a o o lOQ I fcfl “ ' S o I ^ iPJp 1 Cl 0 ft P a s 32 a o WP p . 03 |_3 ftY a I o M r't ‘ 1 ' w cc sis§«gl|ss2”S>Ti Y'^lY’Ssigl « PO <=> a^- _ c3 O ^ ^ p a P o-S- r2 >> '0 -pa" 3 -B'^ : w s. 2 Y^^ a'Y^^ ^ J « 5 S 0 . 2 £;Sg =•§■ 2 ^ 2 |l 3 » I »^' 2 iga iSsg® &“ SioS^d-Si-ti hH W 3 A W P-( rrt cy ^ 02o g^O asg YOco 25 ft ^ P ^3 oj p 03 ft a a rao'i' I PPPif<®'~''^PEgO'~'sH-— i^Eu cB ^ P 'P s4?iTll"!iS5t2SS^lg|iTlII«lgS4ss2T|Sr® PW So 03 2oi Y-is giss-ssll® s:is Yi s § Ya »o- = S B i S S gg'S'S? g gawSIII S SSS i55s «S'g| 2 YYYYYYYYYYYWWMWWWWWWaWWWWWPPPPPPP'^^'^ S^gS! dr^(acot}'coint-dsoe^eod::^^< 1 — ir-Hi— I t 3 -ii— 11 — li— 'I— ' 1 — ' 1 — l 03 (NflC|C 3 SSS S 5 )^ J 8 3 g§ 3 S § SSJH ^ ;5 S 3 § S S § I OrHOOOrH Qi34<00i i■^•>#rH(^^a>QCO5P^~00(^^O>l iKllOOlOCOltSlOOlftlOlOlOl • t^(Mi-Hr^(Miooo<»OJjt'Oooo' C 05 (M0 00 (M 1 lCOrHl^lO'*^.l>.OOlO'«i*C0'^lOQ>Oil>»^^CCOt^OO.t^lOJt^lOOC i»lOOi-HCO*^OiO»--tTi^CO' CO Oi 00 OiCOrHCOir:iCOOOt-T-t(MCO'^OllOO(Ml>-COO'^OCOUOOOiCOOi-iOOCOOOCOf-f^lO'«^OiJ I CO O CO CO 00 >i^corP ri^ ^ I O ^ rr< J Xio t-h §s^ CqOLQCOlOOOOOCOOiX'^OOlOOl 5 <)r:|OrHC 00 iOrH 0 iC 0 "^OL^Oc 0 X 0 irHX(MXi-HrHOC' 1 i>» 05 Xt>-X 05 (MTj 5 (MOrHC- rttiOXCOXr-tO»-H CJ-OOqx»-it^X 1 CO ^ lo (N tci lo »o «i (N o XlOX'^OiOCOC 003 C*'^lOC> l^a ^ .go ggEH >> >. a a d es aa aa o o ^ a a a g S3 o o ft CG a § a I S3 S a a a>> °s 2 a o §50 ^ o tf •£ o o W) .Sslioogga ^•S'^^-gSass O D X3 a is S > a 03 a a .a ac' -~i g >> ■ja a S 1 M 03 ^ ® a ^ 2 0. ^O at>.^a g ' >2 >>2 SO a a ^ a t 03« ac-i a ^ g* o ST 9 'I 9 j.^o.3 o 2 o S ooo|^ .§a|^0 SoV 03 g :2:o' , T32 . ® qj O) I T si ® o a.^ « o 3 O "" o 2 ? 2 §’S'H 2 o«^ I gw iU?^^ 3 S|'^lSi|a .'oO ® S ,^a a, a o i_g a a a o _ o^ 2 a ■goSal fi°|S on a .a 'S 9 ^_i oqj in ^O B 2 W a r'“ a^a a t>> as ^ • (H - W ^ 9 a g tuoo o g‘aOp'-’^®Q ft 922 g a' 7'2 JoSal^l^,^ a 'O a ^|9 ago a ao ^o ^ a a a'S lli|llT|ii|j|l| - 2 ? 3 aoa -gQ^ hi a 2 o ® O wa’W' $ I boa; 2 jS 0-:z ^® iSs! I T'-2®R®.2ir'0gh4.JS'O2g'e3 S g Sen’S k;®.® g’lgSsHlTTsal $^-Sl ISelgS^sgSl^SiYSiig^SngsS '^.5^g»2a'=loaS i*5a'’d2®.2a® .a2 ss-sHa-gi. •a'j a^Y o.aM 2.2 2 3 a "3 o 2 :aoWo 'c«s9.oS;52^ „ ^ 5.2 I a^g a I 5 Ph I 2 I b^ 2 ^YS^ 5 S 3 02 T 3 Y® I A^^yI®'^^ a-'^SiS'AS I S'g «i^^Sa:ig 53 S®^ls^ I ^ X M X X 0§i^^§5£3§o^S«-®®g I I S.tibj CQ < 50 «S aagai *3 ^ ® <33 O) 0? ^ Ph Ph Ph c3 oj .!2J .S O c-) ^3 OOOClQQQQQQQti^MWW MX X^I^yB'SI-S Y^Q.2aaaa a I i ®” a s 3 - 3 ' 3 |f^SY'g^S o "" ^ « ga 22 ;aa; aQ gooooo joH w 2^_^_^, ^ ^ >i-h ^ ®0 uflaaaaaai-iiK.^ 35 gS« ^ I ®'S S'S a ® <«|. 22 gQSS£ ^ ® M ® o YPI g 2 £=oS 5 ^®ti!' 2 W-M 2 ’^ OWS g g >.g a a ''^.g o a^ gj ^2 g 5 - : : : : g S « a a 2 boa S ® ® S 2 g 5 ’SiS'' 5 -g-sa§ 2 lsSs”g.gi I § £ fs 9 ^ o a 2 S 2 SS 2 g.S.®®.^.^o®aa>MM ‘^5 3®®2 oooSSSSaosssMooo OOOftQQQQQQQtbIMWW WWWPil^^^OOOOOOOCDOOOOOaWMi MWy igiiiiiiSiSiilSSilgISiiiilgiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliisiigiSiliillii I a 03 53 cs 03 03 S 3 o H a c 3 03 a Q ^ gaaaaaaa a a 2 w.2.2 S 2.2 ggggggggabogjgia ’a24J+J4J+j+J4->+j+j g p p d.g sasasaaa 2 a.?saaa TABLE III — Analyses of Feeding Stuffs on the Basis of Inspection (continued) 39 ,-J,-Io'oMrHOOCOC^rHOC=OOi-IorHrHt-lrHOc4i-10C5C3rHOOC3Cq f-Hi-HOi— iOOOr-JO 81 ?^ q?®,-H'OrHcjoOO CpOi-Ht-HOOOrHO 1 “ CO 00 CO < I CO § <0 ' .i-HCOrHO:»LOCOOr-ilOTj< O0i00i0^0500rHr-H C5<;Ot^OOO(MrHCOCi gg^8SFig88 t 00 o *cocc>(m* i:OQD<=>Oi-hkC'COI>»OOC>t (M00510(^50,-IC'1C> o lO O C0«0i-HC0(MC>00OC0 i>coOL005rHoir:>coLr5^co{Mcocoi-ioOTHoo5Loi>*coi-HcooTtHi'^coioi^o Oioqi-Hoooicoicoir^ ggoo-®dd8oo-;^88o6ddga^gtd8g^d3oo‘o6d^'gdg ddddi^f~:ddod C500I-H CO 00 lO 30,500 1 1 S 1 Deficiency in fat, excess fiber 9,600 8 6 i 8 Deficiency in protein, excess fiber 121 ,000 6 5' j 6 Deficiency in fat and protein, excess fiber 71,600 • 1 1 . : 1) , Deficiency in fat and adulterated 2,400 1 1 i 1 Deficiency in protein and adulterated ! 5,400 2 2 1 2 Deficiency in fat, protein and adulterated 9,600 88 21 : 24 Misbranding 271,280 Id 9 1 10 Incorrect guarantee 41 ,680 25 22' i 2d Wrong label 83,680 4 1 3 8 Altered label 12,060 14 : 8 13 Conflict 108,710*0 1 288 828 Totals 1 2,612,680 The above tabulation shows that over one-half of the feeding stuffs removed from sale was for non-tagging, about one-eighth for protein de- ficiencies, about one-tenth for misbranding and the rest for protein de- ficiencies and excess fiber, conflicting guarantees, etc. Labels were fur- nished by the manufacturers for the bulk of the untagged goods, while in cases where shipments were removed for deficiencies of crude fat and crude protein or excess crude fiber or misbranding, settlement in the majority of cases was reached either by relabeling with State Chemist’s labels showing correct guarantees or by returning shipments to manufac- turers and replacing same by shipments up to guarantee in every par- ticular. Table VI, page 207, gives details of the 444 shipments of feeds removed from sale in 1916. In this table will be found name of manufacturers, brands, official and inspection numbers, place where sample was secured, amount withdrawn from sale and cause for removel from sale. REBATES , The Indiana law makes no provision for the payment of rebates, but where deficiencies are of such a nature as to permit of reasonable explana- tion the payment of refund on the basis of guarantee and inspection re- sults should be accepted as an evidence of good faith on the part of the manufacturer. If the deficiencies continue over a period of time and in a number of samples, the payment of rebates can hardly be considered as an excuse for failure to exercise proper chemical and factory control. Rebates never fully compensate the purchaser for inferior feed and consumers may be certain that deficiencies or the presence of inferior materials will be the exception and not the rule with manufacturers who are exercising proper care in their shipments. Cases involving the payment of rebates will receive individual con- sideration and the payment of a refund will not be considered as affecting 41 the right of this department to take such action in all cases as may be deemed advisable. Interstate shipments in violation of the law will be sampled under the Federal Food and Drugs Act. Retailers, agents or dealers receiving rebates will be required to pro- rate them among the final purchasers on the basis of inspection results, price and amount purchased and to file receipts from the purchasers v;ith the Department showing such distribution. If any of the shipment remains unsold and permission is given to relabel and continue the sale, reduction in retail price on the basis of inspection results will be required. Receipt and distribution of the following rebates have been certified in 1915. For details of inspection of samples see Table IV. Manufacturer, name of feed Acme-Evans Company, Indianapolis, Ind. Acme Middlings and Screenings American Milling Company, Chicago, 111. Amco Cottonseed Meal Amco Cottonseed Meal F. W. Erode & Company, Memphis, Tenn. Owl Brand Cottonseed Meal Owl Brand Cottonseed Meal Dove Brand Cottonseed Meal Brown Molasses Food Co., Anderson, Ind. Bro-Mo-Co Molasses Dairy Feed C. L. Campbell & Co., Little Rock, Ark. Single Hump Camel Brand Cotton- seed Meal Chicago Feed & Fertilizer Co., Chicago, 111. Magic Brand Tankage Magic Brand Tankage Chicago Heights Oil Mfg. Co., Chicago, 111. “Prize” Brand Cottonseed Meal “Prize” Brand Cottonseed Meal Choctaw Sales Co., Kansas City, Mo. Choctaw Standard Cottonseed Meal and Cake — Cincinnati Animal Food Co., Cincinnati, Ohio. “Porkopolis” Brand Digester Tank- age S. P. Davis, Little Rock, Ark. Good Luck Brand Cottonseed Meal- Veribest Brand Cottonseed Meal Dixie Mills Company, East St. Louis, 111. Anchor Cotton Seed Meal East St. Louis Cotton Oil Co., National Stock Yards, 111. East St. Louis Brand Cotton Seed Meal East St. Louis Brand Cotton Seed Meal East St. Louis Brand Cotton Seed Meal In- spec- tion No. D. Name and address of dealer, agent or consumer i ' No. tons pur- 1 chased 1 Amt. re- bate $ 2882 Geo. W. Blair, Mishawaka i i 5 10.00 2024 W. E. Hayes, Kokomo 1 3 i 1 8.22 1469 Geo. Steckley, Kendallville ! 3 5.16 1524 S. F. Trembley Co., 1 . Columbia City- 20 1 42.80 2241 C. E. Bash & Co., Inc., Huntington 20 ' 7.80 5083 Heldt Co., Evansville 15 17.55 3261 Indiana Seed Co., Indianapolis— 1 i 20 1 14.66 j 4954 1 G. Wolff & Sons Co., Hamilton 1 22 34.22 4426 Hartine & Co., Elwnnd 171/2 13.77 4433 ! Windfall Grain Co., Windfall-.. 171/2 13.00 1623 A. B. Cohee & Co., 1 i McCordsville 1 i 3.00 2638 Salem Cooperative Assoc., Salem i 71/2 1 19.12 i 1641 Granville Moody, Rensselaer 30 ! 128. 10 2827 John Taylor, Columbus, R. R... 1/2 2.03 5058 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., Benham 20 41.20 5301 Ed. Helmick, Greensburg 231/2 49.35 3484 Eberts & Bro., North Vernon.— 2 2.36 1807 Purity Bakery Co., Linden 20 76.20 5153 Suckow Co., Franklin 25 31.00 5338 T. S. Nuggen, Lewisville 20 24.40 42 Manufacturer, name of feed In- spec- tion No. D. Name and address of dealer, agent or consumer No. tons 1 pur- chased Amt. re- bate $ Eldred Mill Company, Jackson, Mich. Gusto Brand Cottonseed Meal 5183 Paul V. Brooks, Greens Fork 20 64.80 Gusto Brand Cottonseed Meal 5324 W. F. Parks, Kitchel, R. R. 8... 20 ! 103.00 Feeders Supply Company, i Kansas City, Mo. “Equity Brand” Cotton Seed MeaL. 1619 The Farmers Mill, Huntingburg 20 ' 44.00 “Equity Brand” Cotton Seed MeaL_ 1676 Wm. Roff, Conrad 30 92.67 “Equity Brand” Cotton Seed Meal__ 1678 J. J. Lawler, Kansas City, Mo.. 30 117.05 “Equity Brand” Cotton Seed MeaL_ 1700 J. J. Lawler, Kansas City, Mo.. 25 59.91 “Equity Brand” Cotton Seed Meal.. 1710 J. J. Lawler, Kansas City, Mo.. 25 28.15 “Equity Brand” Cotton Seed MeaL. 1862 J. J. Lawler, Kansas City, Mo._ i 25 1 92.11 “Equity Brand” Cotton Seed MeaL. 1868 J. J. Lawler, Kansas City, Mo.. 25 ,108.46 “Equity Brand” Cotton Seed MeaL. 2207 J. J. Lawler, Kansas City, Mo.. 25 59.00 Humphreys-Godwin Company, Memphis, Tenn. ! Forfat Brand Cottonseed Meal 2751 Indiana Seed Co., Indianapolis.. ! 20 10.08 4934 G. I. Neptune, Thorntown. 1 15 6.15 Forfat Brand Cottonseed Meal 5135 Butcher & Duncan, Oakland City 18 57.25 5142 E. W. Masters, Frankfort 25 30.25 5302 II. L. Beall, Clarksburg 10 27.40 Imperial Cotto Milling Company, Chicago, 111. Imperial Cotto Brand Cottonseed i Meal 2824 H. C. Glick, Elizabethtown 20 ! 9.15 Imperial Cotto Brand Cottonseed Meal 3511 Chas. W. Jessup, Madison 3 9.15 Johnson & Company, W. B., Memphis, Tenn. Supreme Brand Cottonseed Meal 2458 Burge Thomas Milling Co., Marion 15 18.30 Supreme Brand Cottonseed Meal 2459 Burge Thomas Milling Co., Marion 15 18.30 Supreme Brand Cottonseed Meal 2460 Burge Thomas Milling Co., Marion 15 18.30 Kiewit, Arnold, West Harrison, Ind. Kiewit’s Wheat Middlings 2873 Fred McKee, Cedar Grove, R. R. 1 IVi 32.60 Krause Milling Co., Chas. A., Milwaukee, Wis. 1 Rarlgpr lhairy Eepd 3429 W. E. Hayes, Kokomo 3 6.00 Lovitt & Company, L. B., 1 Memphis, Tenn. T.ovitt, Brand Cnttnnscpd Meal 2306 Hawley Hall, Lewisville 9 18.80 T.nvitt Brand Cottonseed Meal 2987 D. V. Richardson, Clayton 20 21.60 Memphis Brand Cottonseed Meal 2232 Luebcke Bros., Crown Point 20 20.00 Memphis Brand Cottonseed Meal 4628 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis.. 20 31.80 Memphis Brand Cottonseed Meal 5298 Haynes Milling Co., Portland... 20 45.20 Macdonald, J. M., Cincinnati, Ohio. Kineda Prime Cottonseed Meal 3661 M. A. Conroy, Jeffersonville 20 38.92 Kineda Prime Cottonseed Meal 5174 M. A. Conroy, Jeffersonville 15 30.00 Kineda Prime Cottonseed Meal 5330 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis.. 20 53.60 Macado Cott.onsppd Meal 1768 Haynes Milling Co., Portland 20 91.60 Macado Cottonseed Meal 1873 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis.. 20 27.40 Newsome Feed & Grain Co., The, Pittsburgh, Pa. Palmo Midds 1501 Emery E. Harper, Connersville.. 25 20.80 Xothern, W. C., Little Rock, Ark. Butterfly Cottonseed Meal and Cake 1486 Goodrich Bros. Hay & Grain Co., Winchester ... 20 28.20 Butterfly Cottonseed Meal and Cake 2799 Amo Mill & Elevator Co., Whiteland . 20 18.20 liutterfly Cottonseed Meal and Cake 4980 Sweitzer & Wolfe, Howe 5 20.80 Manufacturer, name of feed In- spec- tion No. D. Name and address of dealer, agent or consumer No. tons pur- chased Amt. re- bate $ Planters Cotton Oil Co., Dallas, Texas Prime Cotton Seed Meal and Cake.. 2169 Sedalia Elevator Co., Scdalia... 20 22.40 Ralston Purina Co., St. Louis, Mo. Winner Prime Cottonseed Meal 2942 National Soldiers Home, Marion 1% 517/20 3 5.68 Winner Prime Cottonseed Meal 4044 National Soldiers Home, Marion Studebaker Grain & Seed Co., Bluffton 8.54 Winner Prime Cottonseed Meal 4184 2.49 Winner Prime Cottonseed Meal .. 4782 Zionsville Milling Co., Zionsville Chas. Kelley & Son, Pairmount 10 26.10 Rapier Sugar Peed Company, Owensboro, Ky. Rapier’s Molasses-Alfalfa Hog Peed. 2422 2 40.60 Sulzberger & Sons Co., Chicago, 111. Sulzberger’s “High Protein” Tank- age 3956 Remington Feed & Flour Store, Remington 1 .57 Texas Cake & Linter Company, Dallas, Texas. Sunset Brand Cottonseed Meal and Cracked Cake 1589 Josiah Meeks, Parker _ 23 26.91 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 U. S. laboratory for the central district at Chicago. This department has absolutely no control over such samples or subsequent proceedings which may be taken under the Federal law, nor do said samples or pro- ceedings in any way affect proceedings against local dealers under the state law. This department continuing its cooperation with the Federal Govern- ment under the Federal Food and Drugs Act, sent to the Central District, United States Bureau of Chemistry, 88 samples of interstate shipments representing 25 manufacturers and 17 types of feed. Since November, 1911, when the State Chemist was first appointed as Federal Inspector and Collaborating Chemist, this department has collected and sent U. S. laboratories, 201 samples of interstate shipments representing 117 manu- facturers and 108 types of feed. CASES REPORTED TO PROSECUTORS A study of the results of feed inspections for the past several years shows that deliberate efforts to defraud or adulterate are few. That the large proportion of violations of the Feeding Stuff law consists of failure to furnish or attach official labels, mistakes in attaching proper labels and failure to make registration and observe similar technicalities. Care- ful investigation of all these cases has shown that the majority of viola- tions are due to ignorance of the law and carelessness on the part of the employees and similar factors. In connection with prosecutions, it is to be noted that it is the duty of this department to file affidavits in cases which it considers advisable and for the prosecutor of the district in which the violation occurs to con- duct subsequent proceedings. Cases may be reported at any time within two years of the date of violation and it is not always possible to file affidavits during the year in which the violation occurs. The following cases were certified in 1916 and the filing of affidavits in a number of others was, on the advice of prosecutors, held in abeyance on promise of future compilance with the law.. 44 Name of violator Address Violation No. of af- fidavits filed ! Result i Chas. Webster of Uhl & Snyder Milling Co Jno. F. Hughes, Elwood.__ Connersville Connersville 1 non-tagging misbranding 1 ! ' held pending future compliance with law conviction Marion S. Hufford ! Frankfort non-tagging 1 held pending future Wm. Heppe Logansport not registered 1 compliance with law held pending future F. L. Armtsrong, New Albany Milling Co... New Albany inaccurate 1 compliance with law held pending future Tra Kidwell i Lakeville guarantee non-tagging 1 ; compliance with law held pending future Helmet & Ernest Luebski. Crown Point non-tagging 1 compliance with law no report Akin-Erskine Mlg. Co. | Evansville misbranding and 2 no report Herbert Tull Monon adulteration misbranding 1 conviction ESTIMATED SALES 1916 COMPARED WITH THOSE OF 1914 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. However, estimated sales, exclusive of condimental feeds, based on labels sold and other available information, are 317,664 tons in 1916 as against 270,339 tons in 1915 and 271,751 tons in 1914. The estimated retail value of feeds sold in 1916 is $10,316,516, which when compared with the expenditures for 1915 show an increase of $1,494,831. The following table shows the estimated sales for different classes of feed for 1914, 1915 and 1916 together with estimated expenditures for 1915 and 1916. Kind of feed j Estimated tons Estimated retail value $ ! 1014 1016 11916 1016 ; 1016 1 Mill by-products— wheat bran, middlings, rye feeds, red dog, etc., with and with- out screenings 121,808 110,408 146,086 :3,481,304 4,2172,072 2 Poultry feed— without grit 17,082 18,281 201,510 785,297 1 893,504 with grit 16,318 16,718 14,688 663,771 1 616,141 poultry mash 3 Proprietary feeds— containing molasses 27,600 1,344 84,066 1,688 30,220 50,741 1,080,707 78,047 083,111 without molasses 7,281 7,780 0,086 255,007 .302,730 4 Hominy feed 31,844 28,431 38,625 860', 186 1,069,051 5 Corn bran 2119 375 266 7,620 5,241 44,978 6 Corn feed meal 812 1,187 1,406 33, '667 7 Corn germ meal 6,500 7,210 11,375 227,088 366,402 8 Corn gluten feed 3, '375 8,504 3,088 111,845 116,004 d Corn gluten meal 110 Corn and oats chop i 8,156 1,876 125 1,666 68,319 160,340 4,9'50 65,067 11 Miscellaneous chops 5,661 6,111 4,761 166,594 121 Wheat middlings and palm oil 1,460 1,125 2,188 88,041 66,019 13 Alfalfa meal 563 318 488 10,086 10,337 14 Animal by-products 5,281 6,406 0,281 809,968 378,759 440,068 15 Cottonseed meal 14,281 11,004 18,388 520,420 16 Cottonseed feed 04 260 210 6,668 7,2120 17 Cold pressed cottonseed 1 376 436 460 10,986 14,278 18 Linseed meals 6,219 21,968 1,625 127,748 71,101 10 Unscreened flaxseed oil feed 876 681 500 20,788 24,829 m Distillers’ dried grains ! 219 188 2,189 6,302 71,258 21 Brewers’ dried grains 1,000 1,'348 1,760 33,300 50,569 22 Dried yeast grains 28 Malt sprouts , 62 82 125 31 620 2,750 939 24 Dried beet pulp ! 188 166 63 4,368 1,844 26 Calf meals i 069 088 1,000 81,137 86,000 26 Miscellaneous ! 676 260 5,023 Totals - 271,761 ; 2701,380 817,664 8,821,684 10,016,516 45 Comparing the estimated expenditures for feeds sold in 1916 with those sold in 1915 we find in nearly every case a considerable increase; the most marked increase in expenditures being $791,668 for mill by- products; $108,297 for poultry feeds without grit; $200,815 for hominy feeds; $129,454 for corn germ meal; $109,087 for animal by-products; $32,978 for wheat middlings and palm oil; $17,239 for brewers’ dried grains and $146,670 for cottonseed meal. Those which show a considerable de- crease for expenditures are as follows: $47,630 for poultry feeds with grit; $66,596 for proprietary feeds containing molasses and $56,552 for linseed meals. The annual increase of tonnage and expenditures for feeding stuffs for the past six years is summarized in the following table: Year 10(11 1012 1018 1 1014 1015 1016 Estimated sales tons 170,000 5,066,006 106,752 6,371,571 217,680 6,466,616 1 271,761 1 ’ 8,461,761 270,380 8,821,664 317,664 Estimated retail value $ 110,316,516 SUMMARY OF THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEEDING STUFF LAW Between July 1, 1907, when the Indiana Feed Law went actively into effect and January 1, 1917, the inspectors of this department secured 25,337 official inspection samples. With the exception of approximately 230, these have all been examined either macroscopically or microscop- ically, many of them being subjected to both methods of examination, while 23,755 samples were chemically analyzed for moisture, crude fat, crude protein, etc. The following summary gives in brief form the results for each year: TEAR 10’o7i 10082 101.0 1 1011 1(012 1013 1914 1015 1016 Number of samples secured 2303 2433 2903 310.5 3775 3877 Number of samples analyzed 1452 2702 2633 2086 2840 2606 2048 3469 3536 Per cent, up to guarantee 517.2 67.1 70.0 75.3 74 70.7 62 79.4 76.7 Per cent, below guarantee in fat only 24.7 22.4 210.5 16.1 17.5 9.4 9.6 9.9 8.1 Per cent, below guarantee in crude protein only 18.9 16.2 6.3 7.5 4.8 6.0 6.1 8.3 12.7 Per cent, below guarantee in both crude fat and crude protein 5.9 7.6 3.8 2.9 I 2.4 3.4 2.8 2.4 3.3 Per cent, misbranded as to presence 1 1 of inferior ingredients ^ 9.9 is.o 7.1 3.2 2.7 4.0 3.8 3.8 2.3 1 July 1, 1907- July 1, 1908 2 July 1, 190&-Jan. 1, 1910 2 Includes samples examined microscopically It is practically impossible to place the results secured from the en- forcement of the law on a dollar and cents basis but special attention is requested to the great reduction in percentage of samples found deficient which has decreased since the first inspection from. 24.7, 13.9, 5.9 for crude fat, crude protein and both crude fat and crude protein to 8.1, 12.7 and 3.3 respectively. The percentage misbranded as to the presence of inferior materials is shown in the preceding summary to decrease from 9.9 per cent, in 1907 to only 2.5 per cent, in 1916. This marked improvement is especially im- portant from the purchaser’s standpoint, and without doubt this one item saves many times the cost of enforcing the law. The standard of feeds examined in 1916 does not show an improve- ment over that of the several previous years. This may be attributed to 46 several causes. (1) an inspection of a larger number of samples; (2) a more thorough examination of samples collected; and (3) owing to the demand for commercial feeding stuffs and the high prices paid for the same, together with the nearly complete utilization of the by-products from manufacture of human foods for the purpose of feeding animals, there is an inducement to substitute the inferior for the high grade. This department is convinced that at this time of demand and high prices a most rigid examination of all classes of feeding stuff is necessary. This is especially true of compounded feed and those bought because of their high protein content. 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 chem- ists. The results as reported in Table IV are official and final. Table I, page 12, contains the Digestion Coefficients of a number of common feeding stuffs as determined by the digestion experiments and compiled by various authorities. Table II, page 22, summarizes the results of the inspection from Janu- ary 1, 1916, to January 1, 1917, based on guarantees. In this table a feed sold under a guarantee of pure wheat bran and found to contain screenings would be listed under wheat bran as adulterated. Table III, page 30, contains the average complete feeding analysis of the 1916 inspection samples arranged in classes and in the case of many concentrates and proprietary feeds under brand names according to the results of inspection. For example if a feed sold under a guarantee of pure wheat bran was found to contain screenings it would appear in this table under the heading “Wheat Bran and Screenings.” The percentages of nitrogen, phosphoric acid (P2O5) and potash (K2O) for the different classes and brands of feed are given in this table. This information may be profitably used by the consumer who wishes to take into consideration fertilizing values of feeding stuffs when making pur- chases. Table IV, page 48, contains the detailed results of samples analyzed chemically and examined microscopically or macroscopically for the year ending December 31, 1916, 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 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 “Principal Ingredients Identified” are printed in bold face type. In poultry feeds the percentage of grit was determined; and where found present in quantities probably in excess of the fowl’s need the percentage is printed in bold face type. 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. Table V, page 199, contains a list of samples collected and subjected to microscopical or macroscopical but not to chemical examination. Table VI, page 207, contains a list of the shipments withdrawn from sale, amount, place of sale and reasons for withdrawal. Table VII, page 226, which is published in accordance with the wishes of a majority of manufacturers, dealers and consumers as ascertained 47 from replies to circular letter, contains a list of the brands which we are advised will be on sale in the State in 1917-1918. Failure to appear in this table does not prevent a registered brand being placed on sale but merely indicates that no reply to circular letter has been received from the manu- facturer by this department. For the convenience of consumers the feed- ing stuffs have been divided into classes, covering all the more important feeds offered for sale in Indiana. ATTENTION, CONSUMERS, AGENTS AND DEALERS In deciding on companies from whom to purchase and represent, study closely the details of inspection in Table IV, page 48; purchase from and represent companies who ship feed properly labeled and up to guarantee; when for any reason rebate is received, notify this department promptly. Dealers who have sold any deficient feed and received rebate 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, 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 who ship deficient, adulterated or unlabeled feed. 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 cooperating with this department and patronizing firms who meet the re- quirements of the law in every particular. TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected, Jan. 1, 1916, to Jan. 1, 1917 LABEL Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude Fat per cent. Crude Protein percent. Official Inspection D. Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found WHEAT BRAN Akin-Erskine Milling Company, Evansville, Ind. Winter Wheat Bran 6031 1573 Ray &, Hartz, Chrisney 10.1 3.9 4.1 14.0 16.9 Winter Wheat Bran 6031 2781 Coal City Milling Co., Coal City 9.5 3.9 4.2 14.0 16.5 Winter Wheat Bran 6031 3089 Theo. A. Stunkel, Haubstadt... 9.3 3.9 3.7 14.0 16.1 Winter Wheat Bran 6031 3101 Edw. E. Goeke Co., Evansville.. 8.8 3.9 3.8 14.0 16.6 Winter Wheat Bran ^ 6031 3156 West Side Hay &. Grain Co., Evansville 10.3 3.9 3.8 14.0 16.1 Winter Wheat Bran 2 6031 31.57 -John M. Klenck Co., Evansville. 10.8 3.9 3.9 14.0 16.9 Winter Wheat Bran 6031 40.55 ,1. A. Zink Son, Pekin 10.0 3.9 3.6 14.0 16.5 Winter Wheat Bran 6031 4056 O. T,. tlanble, Pekin 10.0 3.9 3.8 14.0 16.6 Akron Milling Company, Akron, Ind. W^heat Bran 3597 3571 Manufacturers 10.9 3.5 1 4.3 14.0 14.1 Anderson & Benzine, Kouts, Ind. 1 Anderson Benzine’s Wheat Bran 436 4574 Kouts Roller Mills, Kouts .. ... 8.4 3.7 ! 3.7 14.0 14.3 Angola Elouring Mills, Angola, Ind. Angola Elouring Mills Wlieat Bran 109S 4316 Manufacturers 8.4 3.8 4.0 14.0 15.1 Angola Elouring Mills Wheat Bran 1098 4950 1 Manufacturers 8.2 3.8 3.9 14.0 14.1 Ashley-Hudson Milling & Grain Com- 1 i pany, Ashley, Ind. 1 1 Ashlev-Hndsnn W’heat Bran 3144 4345 Mnnufaeturers 9.3 3.8 4.5 14.0 16.1 Ballard & Ballard Company, Louisville, Ky. . i ttBallard’s Bran 3168 2875 Mathys & Elynn, Mauckport... 10.0 4.1 4.0 14.5 14.4 Ballard’s Bran 3168 3670 Ballard & Ballard Co., Charlestown 9.7 4.1 4.3 14.5 15.0 Batchelor, Barlow & Batchelor, Sharpsville, Ind. i W'heat Bran 4675 3435 Batchelor & Batchelor, ! Sharpsville 9.5 3.8 4.2 14.0 15.3 Bay State Milling Company, Winona, Minn. “Winona” Coarse Wheat Bran 7140 1784 J. S. Crawford, Crown Point... 9.4 4.0 5.2 13.0 14.7 “Wdnona” Coarse Wheat Bran 7140 3219 J. S. Crawford; Crown Point. __ 10.1 4.0 5.4 13.0 14.0 “Winona” Coarse Wheat Bran » 7140 4751 McMahan Bros., Valparaiso 10.5 4.0 4.9 13.0 15.5 Berlien Mills, Angola, R. E. B., Ind. W’heat Bran 7738 4319 Manufacturers 9.1 3.0 4.3 14.0 15.6 W’heat Bran 7738 4946 Manufaeturers 10.4 3.0 3.6 14.0 15.4 Bluffton Milling Company, Bluffton, Ind. Wheat Bran 661 ' 1654 Manufacturers 11.1 3.8 4.3 14.0 15.9 Wheat Bran 661 4187 Manufacturers 8.0 3.8 4.4 14.0 17.1 Bock, Leonard, Argos, Ind. 1 W'heat Bran 550 3521 J. A. Bock, Argos 10.3 3.7 ! 4.C 14.0 15.1 Boehmer & Ritzer, Scott, Ind. VV'heat Bran 4 1628 2563 Manufacturers 10.8 3.8 1 4.5 14.0 14.0 W’heat Bran 4 1628 1 4349 Manufacturers 9.8 3.8 4.5 14.0 13.6 Bolte & Sons, Ben, Eerdinand, Ind. i i wheat Bran 7275 3744 Manufacturers 9.9 3.5 4.0 14.5 17.2 Wheat Bran 4612 Manufacturers 7.0 3.5 ! 4.2 14^ 16.8 tt Not tagged. Labels furnished 1 8.7% foreign material consisting of chaff, shrivelled and cracked wheat, ground weed seeds and hulls. Removed from sale. Re- labeled No. 7729 ) 2 11.8% foreign material consisting of chaflF, shrivelled and cracked wheat, ground weed seeds and hulls. Salt .61%. Removed from sale. Returned to mfrs. 3 ChaflF, oat hulls and cockle hulls present ^ Wheat middlings present 49 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (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 TS C 1 Bowling Green Mills, The, j Bowling Green, Ind. 3370 2082 Manufacturers 9.8 3.9 4.6 14.0 18.0 Burrell & Morgan, Elkhart, Ind. 1 ! 253 1578 Manufacturers 10.8 3.8 4.2 14.0 14.6 253 3861 Manufacturers 10.4 3.8 4.6 14.0 14.0 Butler Milling Company, Butler, Ind. ■Riltlpr Millinfr rin’.s. Wheat Bran 1029 4288 Manufacturers 9.5 3.8 4.1 14.0 14.7 1029 4925 Manufacturers 7.9 3.8 3.9 14.0 14.6 Carpenter, B. 0., Perrysville, Ind. 3582 4490 Manufacturer 10.3 3.0 3.6 14.0 16.0 3582 5148 Manufacturer ... 9.6 3.0 3.4 14.0 15.0 Cauble, 0. L., P.ekin, Ind. 1018 40.52 Manufacturer 10.1 3.8 4.5 14.0 15.9 Wheat Bran 5 _ 1018 4970 Manufacturer _ lO'.l 3.8 3;6 14.0 15.3 Cauble & Dunlevy, Henry ville, Ind. 4295 2447 Manufacturers 9.5 3.5 4.9 14.0 16.9 Cayuga Milling Company, Cayuga, Ind. Cayuga Milling Co’s. Wheat Bran « __ 421 4519 Arthur Maegerlein Roller Mills, Clay City 9.8 3.8 3.6 14.0 17.1 Champion Roller Milling Company, ! Richmond, Ind. Wheat Bran 2496 3308 Richmond Roller Milling Co., Richmond 10.8 3.5 4.0 14.8 15.7 Churubusco Flouring Mills, Churubusco, Ind. Wheat Bran 6282 4988 Duglay «& Jones, Churubusco— 9.0 3.0 4.3 13.0 15.1 City Milling Company, Kendallville, Ind. Wheat Bran _ _ _ _ 6273 4258 Manufacturers 9.5 3.8 4.8 14.0 16.6 Wheat Bran 6273 4985 Manufacturers 8.8 3.8 4.4 14.0 16.1 City Mills, South Whitley, Ind. Wheat Bran 6105 3942 Manufacturers 9.5 3.5 4.3 14.0 13.9 Wheat Bran 6105 4994 Manufacturers 9.3 3.5 3.9 14.0 14.9 Clark Bros., Hagerstown, Ind. Wheat Bran __ _ 2562 4338 Manufacturers 9.0 3.2 4.4 12.0 14.7 Cook Milling Company, Richmond, R. R. No. 4, Ind. Wheat Bran 4796 3349 Manufacturers 9.2 3.4 4.1 12.0 15.0 Coppes Bros. & Zook, Nappanee, Ind. Bran 5628 2073 B. I. Holser & Co., Walkerton_. 8.9 3.6 3.9 13.5 14.9 Bran 5628 3523 Beni. Noftsger. Rochester 9.8 3.6 4.4 13.5 13.4 Bran 5628 4321 G. Wolff &.Sons Co., Hamilton 8.8 3.6 4.0 13.5 13.7 Daniels & Pickering Company, Middletown, Ind. Daniels’ Wheat Bran 104 4362 J. M. Walker & Son, Middletown 9.2 3.2 3.9 12.0 14.5 Deck, James M., Roann, Ind. Pure Winter Wheat Bran 195 5033 Manufacturer 8.9 3.7 3.8 14.0 15.8 Delp Grain Company, E. E., 1 i Bourbon, Ind. 1 Bourbon Bran 2989 2808 MannfflPtTirers ' 9.8 3.8 4.4 14.0 15.1 Edwards & Loomis Company, ! Chicago, 111. Wheat Bran s 3950 2063 C. B. Way, LaPorte i 8.8 __3.0 4.4 14.0 16.1 ® Crushed cheat present ® 5% foreign material consisting of chaff, ground ® Removed from sale. Relabeled No. 6030 weed seeds, etc. Relabeled No. 6835 Small amount of middlings and chaff present 5 ^ TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (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] Edwardsport Mills, Edwardsport, Ind. 7210 1690 Manufacturers 9.8 3.0 3.7 13.0 17.1 Wheat Bran 7210 5023 Mannfaetnrers 10.4 3.0 3.0 13.0 15A Eesley & Company, Wm., West College Corner, Ind. 3220 2894 Manufacturers 10.4 3.5 3.8 14.0 15.2 Bran 3220 4404 Manufacturers 10.8 3.5 4.3 14.0 13.3 Excelsior Mill Company, Yankton, S. Dak. **Bran ® 2119 Hubert French, T.inn Grove 9.7 4.8 16.1 Farmers Milling & Elevator Company, Veedersburg, Ind. 5000 2253 Manufacturers 10.2 3.0 4.0 12.0 18.5 5000 4468 Manufacturers 9.4 3.0 4.5 12.0 15.9 Geneva Milling & Grain Company, Geneva, Ind. 3109 1790 Manufacturers 10.0 3.3 3.7 14.0 16.3 Miller’s Wheat Bran 3109 1792 Manufacturers 9.0 3.3 3.4 14.0 17.1 Miller’s Wheat Bran 3109 3285 Manufacturers __ 10.5 3.3 4.0 14.0 16.7 Graft, C. V., Winchester, Ind. Wheat Bran 3484 1842 Manufacturer 9.2 3.8 3.8 14.0 17.3 Green Bros. & Oldfather, Warsaw, Ind. fWheat Bran 7919 4475 Manufacturers - 9.2 3.5 4.3 14.0 14.5 Greenfield Milling Company, Greenfield, Ind. Bran 4469 2740 Manufacturers 9.2 3.0 4.0 15.0 18.8 Hampton, W. D., Worthington, Ind. Wheat Bran 1124 2925 Manufacturer _ 10.4 3.8 3.8 14.0 19.9 W’heat Bran _ 1124 3935 Manufaeturer 10.0 3.8 3.8 14.0 14.9 Hardinsburg Milling Company, Hardinsburg, Ind. Hardinsburg Milling Co’s. Wheat Bran 422 1488 Hardinsburg Roller Mills, Hardinsburg 10.8 3.7 4.3 14.0 16.5 Hardinsburg Milling Co’s. W’heat Bran 422 1490 Hardinsburg Roller Mills, Hardinsburg 10.3 3.7 4.3 14.0 16.3 Haun & Son, A. H., Bainbridge, Ind. Haim’s Bran __ _ _ _ 4422 2449 I. A. Leavel, Bainbridge 9.3 3.8 4.3 14.0 18.7 Huber & Schultz, Poland, Ind. Bran 865 2084 Cagle & Schopnjeyer, Poland.. _ 10.2 3.8 4.2 14.0 16.9 Huntington Mill Company, Huntington, Ind. Bran _ _ _ 491 4002 Manufacturers 9.8 3.6 3.8 14.2 16.5 Hutchinson Flour Mills Company, The, Hutchinson, Kans. Mill B,nn Bran lo 4995 3916 Tull Department Store, Monon.. 10.9 3.5 4.0 15.5 16.9 Mill Run Bran 4995 3917 Tull Department Store, Monon.. 10.1 3.5 2.0 15.5 14.2 Mill Run Bran 12 4995 3918 Tull Department Store, Monon.. 10.8 3.5 4.3 15.5 17.3 Mill Rnn Bran 4995 3919 Tull Department Store, Monon.. 11.7 3.5 3.1 15.5 8.9 Igleheart Bros., Evansville, Ind. Pure Wheat Bran 5771 3088 Ballard & Magenheimer, Haubstadt — 9.1 4.0 4.4 14.5 14.8 ** Not registered n Low grade flour. Removed from sale t Before registration Wheat middlings. Removed from sale. ” 3700 lbs. removed from sale Relabeled No. 4996 ^ _ 4.2% foreign material consisting of cracked Groimd corn containing screenings consisting and shrivelled wheat, chaff and weed seeds. of cracked and shrivelled wheat, ground Removed from sale weed seeds and chaff. Removed from sale TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) Number Crude Fat per cent. Crude Protein per cent. LABEL c .2 Sample secured from q; 1 1 Official u . OiQ § MoistU] per cen 1 Guar- 1 anteed 1 Found Guar- anteed 1 Found Iroquois Roller Mills, Rensselaer, Ind. 6139 2861 Manufacturers __ 9.3 3.0 4.1 13.0 13.5 6139 3718 Manufacturers 11.1 3.0 4.1 13.0 14.0 Johnston & Sons, C. H., Pinola, LaPorte, R. R. No. 7, Ind. 7391 2065 Manufacturers 10.0 3.0 4.5 13.0 16.1 7391 3778 Manufacturers 9.2 3.0 4.9 13.0 15.4 J Street Milling Company, LaPorte, Ind. 762 2108 Manufacturers 10.5 3.8 3.8 14.0 14.7 762 3774 Manufacturers 8.8 3.8 4.7 14.0 15.4 Kanimon, Prank W., Cross Plains, Ind. 2360 2912 Manufacturer 10.1 3.8 4.2 14.0 15.2 Kehlor Plour Mills Company, St. Louis, Mo. Palace Bran 5808 1743 J. H. Leonard, Sullivan 11.4 4.0 4.3 14.5 17.6 5808 3651 Eberts Grain Co., Nabb {1.6 4.0 4.3 14.5 16.7 Klondike Milling Company, The, Danville, Ind. 274 3401 Manufacturers 12.4 3.7 4.3 14.4 16.9 274 4884 Manufacturers __ 9.4 3.7 4.4 14.4 17.5 Lawrenceburg Roller Mills Company, Lawreneeburg, Ind. Snowflake Bran 3936 3616 Milan Mill & Elevator, Milan... 9.8 3.8 4.1 14.2 14.9 Snowflake Bran 3936 5275 Chas. Kelly & Son, Pairmount.. 8.4 3.8 4.0 14.2 14.7 Leesburg Grain & Milling Company, The, Leesburg, Ind. Wheat Bran 305 2818 Manufacturers . 8.6 3.8 4.3 14.0 14.5 Wheat Bran 305 3893 Manufacturers 9.8 3.8 4.6 14.0 14.9 Lewis Milling Company, Lewis, Ind. Wbieat Bran 6005 4530 Mannfaetnrers 8.8 3.5 4.4 14.0 17.4 Lindauer, Perd., Pulda, Ind. W'heat Bran 1036 3770 Manufacturer 8.9 3.8 4.3 14.0 16.1 Lindsborg Milling & Elevator Company, The, Lindsborg, Kans. Pure Wheat Bran 6073 2254 P. A. Pinch & Co., Hillsboro... 8.4 3.5 4.1 1 14.5 17.6 Lingeman, Adams & Company, Brownsborg, Ind. Bran 3320 4143 Manufacturers 9.4 3.8 4.0 14.0 15.7 Bran 3320 4528 Manufacturer.s 10.0 3.8 4.2 14.0 14.7 Little Crow Milling Company, Warsaw, Ind. Jjittle Crow Wheat Bran 360 1543 Manufacturers 10.4 3.8 3.8 14.0 14.8 Little Crow Wheat Bran 360 3597 Manufacturers 10.9 3.8 4.0 14.0 14.0 Lynn Milling Company, The, Lynn, Ind. Wheat Bran 6233 1899 Manufacturers 10.2 3.5 4.5 13.5 16.8 Wheat Bran 6233 4601 Lynn City Mills, Lynn 8.1 3.5 4.3 13.5 14.6 Maegerlein Roller Mills, Arthur, Clay City, Ind. Bran 3807 2780 Manufacturers 9.7 3.0 4.6 13.0 17.0 Bran . 3807 4517 Manufacturers 9.5 3.0 4.3 13.0 15.9 Martin & Martin, New Castle, Ind. Martin & Martin’.s Wheat Bran 3150 2593 Manufacturers 10.4 3.2 4.0 12.0 16.7 Martin & Martin’s Wheat Bran 3150 4304 Manufacturers 9.6 3.2 4.3 12.0 16.5 Martin & Martin’s Wheat Bran 31.50 5306 Manufacturers 9.4 3.2 4.1 12.0 16.3 t Before registration 52 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (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 Matthews Roller Mills, The, Matthews, Ind. ] Wheat Bran 3131 3575 Manufaeturer.s 11.0 3.5 4.1 14.0 15.3 Maumee Valley Mills, New Haven, Ind. Bran 6896 3591 Kraus & Apfelbaum, Pierceton.. 9.2 3.5 4.7 14.0 15.1 6896 3982 Manufacturers 9.9 3.5 4.5 1 14.0 j 16.4 Mexico Roller Mills, Mexico, Ind. 1 Pure. Wheat Bran 4009 3525 Manufacturers 10.7 3.5 4.4 1 14.0 15.5 Milan Milling Company, Milan, Ind. 3315 3612 Manufacturers 10.0 3.7 4.4 14.0 : 15.1 3315 4703 Manufacturers 9.0 1 3.7 3.9 14.0 ' 14.1 Myers & Son, Joseph H., Chili, Ind. 1 1 j 3326 2193 Manufaeturer.s 10.6 3.0 3.9 16.0 15.2 Bran 3326 3533 Manufacturers __ 10.9 3.0 1 4.2 16.0 15.4 McCoy Bros.; Liberty, Ind. ^ 1 1 1 Wheat Bran _ 1428 4409 Manufacturers 9.7 3.5 4.5 14.2 14.6 Naber & Company, Chas. P., Alexandria, Ind. Naber.s Bran 7197 4420 Manufacturers 10.2 3.3 i 4.0 14.0 16.3 Neill & Van Valer, Jonesboro, Ind. j 1 Wheat Bran 1 763 2324 Jonesboro Milling Co., Jonesboro 11.3 3.8 ! 4.4 14.0 16.0 New Carlisle Milling Company, 1 New Carlisle, Ind. Wheat Bran 1316 2104 Manufacturers 10.8 3.8 4.0 14.0 14.6 Wheat Bran 1316 3793 Manufacturers 9.4 3.8 4.4 14.0 14.0 Norris & Kidwell, Washington, Ind. Wheat Bran 6279 3896 ATanufacturers 9.1 3.0 3.7 13.5 17.6 Wheat Bran 6279 5232 Manufacturers _ __ _ __ 8.8 t 3.0 3.2 13.5 ! 16.3 Northwestern Consolidated Milling Com- pany, The, Minneapolis, Minn. Pure Wheat Bran 2825 3064 1 Bicker Bros. Co., Hammond 10.2 4.0 4.9 14.5 : 13.8 Page Milling Company, The Thomas, i 1 Topeka,- Kans. ' ftPure Winter Wheat Bran __ . 6109 3980 Neal’s Feed Store, Jasonville 9.8 4.0 4.6 15.0 17.3 Pure Winter Wheat Bran 6109 5287 Carter & Edwards, Martinsville. 9.9 I 4.0 4.2 15.0 16.1 Pure Winter Wheat Bran 6109 5288 Carter & Edwards, Martinsville. 9.9 4.0 4.4 15.0 16.6 Phoenix Flour Mill, Evansville, Ind. i *Wheat Bran 3226 W. H. Small & Co., Evansville.. 9.6 1 4.2 16.8 Piqua Milling Company, The, Piqiia, Ohio. ' ttWheat Bran 2296 1836 The Mead Grain Co., Union City 9.8 3.0 ' 4.2 ! 14.0 15.6 Plainville Milling Company, Plainville, Ind. i Wheat Bran 4372 3901 Manufacturers 10.0 3.8 4.4 14.2 ! 15.9 Ray & Rice, Camden, Ind. ! ! Wheat Bran 5342 1478 Manufacturers 10.5 3.3 3.9 j 14.0 15.2 Wheat Bran . 5342 2988 Manufacturers 9.8 3.3 i 4.4 14.0 I 14.5 Richland Milling Company, 1 I 1 1 Bloomfield, Ind. 1 1 Wheat Bran 1 1149 2028 Manufacturers .. 12.3 3.5 3.8 14.0 16.2 Wheat Bran I 1149 3926 1 Manufacturers 9.9 3.5 4.5 14.0 15.8 ♦ Not tagged 314 tons removed from sale because of muti- tt Not tagged. Labels furnished lated tags. Replaced on sale 1 3/20 tons removed from sale because of mutilated tags. Label No. 8195 furnished 53 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection cf Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) - - ' - _ _ . ^ _ Crude Crude Fat Protein C _o per cent. per cent. LABEL Official a>rj a Sample secured from j Moistui I percen Guar- ! anteed j Found Guar- anteed ; Found Richmond Roller Mills, Richmond, Ind. 1 The Richmond Roller Mills Wheat 482 3312 Manufacturers 10.2 3.2 4.9 12.0 16.2 Rittenhouse, E.^., Liberty Mills, Ind. 3043 5029 Manufacturer 9.0 2.5 3.2 12.5 13.9 Riverside Mill, The, Wolcottville, Ind. 1620 4278 Riverside Milling Co., 8.5 3.8 4.3 14.0 15.7 Wolcottville 1 1620 4979 Manufacturers 9.1 3.8 4.5 14.0 15.6 Roper & Brown, Hobart, Ind. 4178 1812 1 Manufacturers 10.4 3.5 3.5 3.2 3.5 14.0 16.5 4178 4771 Manufacturers 10.0 14.0 15.4 Russell-Miller Milling Company, 1 1 i Fargo, N. Dak. 3584 4305 New Castle Flour and Feed 1 Exchange, New Castle j 9.0 4.0 5.2 13.0 14.7 Schilt, W. F., Bremen, Ind. 7971 4873 J. A. Zehner, Plymouth 8.8 3.7 4.3 14.0 16.5 Schulte, W. 0., Freelandville, Ind. Wheat Bran 6435 5019 Manufacturer 9.6 3.6 3.5 12.0 16.7 Schultz, Baujan & Company, I Beardstown, 111. fSinnUAnm DrflU 6013 1679 Walker & Chambers, Wheatland 9.4 3.5 4.6 14.0 15.8 Seidel, W. T., Orland, Ind. 6372 2963 Orland Milling Co., Orland 10.4 3.0 3.9 13.0 1 15.4 "WUpfit Bran 6372 4340 Orland Milling Co., Orland 9.2 3.0 3.9 13.0 14.0 Shane Bros. & Wilson Company, . Hastings, Minn. f T^rnn 4925 i 2946 Jacob Portman, Columbia City 10.3 3.7 4.0 14.0 16.8 Shawnee Milling Company, 1 1 i 1 Topeka, Kans. *Rrpn .. . _ ........ 4573 4013 Bishop Elevator Co., 1 i 9.6 4.0 i .3 14.0 ! 16.7 Logansport ■Whpat Rran - 4573 4479 Galbreath & Schriner, Cayuga.. 8.9 4.0 1 4.2 14.0 1 15.8 Sheridan Milling Company, 1 1 Sheridan, Ind. 5595 4268 1 Manufacturers 9.1 2.8 3.5 13.0 18.0 Silver Star Milling Company, ■ i Patricksburg, Ind. 3622 2462 Manufacturers 9.7 3.0 i 4.6 13.0 17.9 3622 Manufacturers 10.0 3.0 j 4.5 j 13.0 17.6 Sims Milling Company, Frankfort, Ind. 6303 j 2773 3437 Manufacturers 9.2 3.7 1 i 4.2 14.0 15.4 "RT*or» 6300 i 4700 Manufacturers , 8.8 3.7 j 4.1 1 14.0 15.4 151 ail Sleepy Eye Flour Mills Company, Minneapolis, Minn. Sleepy Eye Bran 4108 1558 P. Backer & Son, Troy 1 9.8 4.4 j 5.1 15.3 14.8 Sloan, J. F., Palestine, Burket P. 0., i j 1 i Ind. 0 1 /-V ^ rt TX71** o 4" I-? t» . 228 . 1660 3621 Manufacturer 10.1 3.8 1 4.3 14.0 14.9 Smith, A. S., Flint, Ind. Wheat Bran — 4324 Manufacturer . 8.8 3.8 1 4_^0 ! 14.0 1 1 15.0 54 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) LABEL Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude Fat per cent. Crude Protein percent. Official § •+3 y . m C Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found Smith Grain & Milling Company, 1 Warsaw, Ind. i Wheat Bran 804 3588 Green Bros. & Oldfather, Warsaw 10.3 3.5 4.2 12.5 14.8 ffWheat Bran 804 4474 Farmers Co-Operative Elevator Co., Ligonier 9.1 3.5 4.5 12.5 14.9 Southwestern Milling Company, Inc., The, Kansas City, Mo. Pure Wheat Bran 7285 4476 Jordan & Baird, Kewanna 9.2 3.5 4.2 17.0 17.0 Pure Wheat Bran 7285 4573 Jordan & Baird, Kewanna 9.7 3^5 4!3 17!o 16!2 Spencerville Milling Company, Spencerville, Ind. Wheat Bran 5804 4233 Manufacturers 9.3 3.2 3.9 13.5 16.2 Star Milling Company, The, Aurora, Ind. 1038 3643 Manufacturers 10.5 3.8 4.0 14.2 16.5 Star Milling Company, Shoals, Ind. Star Wheat Bran 502 4166 Manufacturers 9.8 3.8 4.4 14.0 16.7 St. Joe Milling Company, St. Joe, Ind. St. Joe’s Wheat Bran 5553 4931 Manufacturers 8.8 3.4 3.7 14.0 14.8 Stott, David, Detroit, Mich. Winter Wheat Bran 5279 2508 Home Grain Co., LaGrange 8.4 4.5 4.7 16.0 16.0 Winter Wheat Bran 5279 4309 Home Grain Co., Angola 9.1 4.5 4.3 16.0 14.7 Stoudt, Thomas, South Bend, Ind. ’I''hnmas Stnndt’s Wheat Bran 2234 1915 Manufacturer 11.1 3.3 4.1 14.5 14.3 Suckow Company, Franklin, Ind. “Perfection” Wheat Bran 5047 2340 Manufacturers 9.3 3.8 4.1 14.0 17.8 “Perfection” Wheat Bran 5947 4741 David R. Webb Co., Edinburg.. 9^7 3!8 4!5 14.0 16A Thornburg Milling & Elevator Com- pany, Martinsville, Ind. Bran 656 2181 Manufacturers 10.1 3.2 3.8 14.0 15.4 Timbrook & Hursh, Auburn, Ind. Anbnrn Roller Mills Wheat Bran 7031 4226 Manufacturers 8.6 3.8 4.2 14.0 14.6 Anbnrn Roller Mills Wheat Bran 7031 4911 Manufacturers 9.7 3^8 4.0 14!o 14!7 Tresselt & Sons, C., Fort Wayne, Ind. Wheat Bran 409 3964 Manufacturers ___ 9.9 3.8 4.7 14.0 15.9 Tuttle & Company, R., Columbia City, Ind. Perfection Bran 817 1.526 Manufacturers 9.7 3.8 4.0 14.0 16.1 Perfection Bran 817 3527 0. Gandy & Co., Denver 10.5 3.8 3.9 14.0 16.4 Perfection Bran 817 4990 Manufacturers 8.7 3.8 3.6 14.0 15.5 Uhl & Snider, Connersville, Ind. Uhl & Snider’s Wheat Bran 522 2586 Uhl-Snider Milling Co., Connersville 10.0 3.2 4.5 12.0 16.1 Ulrich & Son, Levi, Greensboro, Ind. Bran 5397 4299 Manufacturers ... 10.6 3.5 3.2 12.5 14.7 Valentine & A"alentine, Franklin, Ind. Wheat liran 933 2334 Manufacturers 9.3 3.8 4.0 14.0 16.8 Wheat Bran 933 4825 Manufacturers 7.7 3.8 4.4 14.0 16.2 Wakarusa Milling Company, Wakarusa, Ind. Wakarusa Wheat Bran _ 1249 2614 Manufacturers 10.3 3.8 4.1 14.0 14.3 + + Not tagged. T.,abels furnished 2.y foreign material consisting of cracked i" Wheat middlings and approx. 3.7% foreign wheat and crushed weed seeds. Removed materials chiefly crushed cheat from sale \ 55 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) LABEL Wellington Milling Company, Anderson, Ind. Wellington’s A. X. A. Bran- Wildcat Roller Mills, Cutler, R. R. No. 2, Ind. Wheat Bran Wilmot Flouring Mills, Wilmot, R. R. No. 1, Pierceton, Ind. Wheat Bran Witmer Grain Company, Grabill, Ind. Wheat Bran Wheat Bran Woodburn Elevator & Milling Company, The, Woodburn, Ind. Wheat Bran Yerxa, Andrews & Thurston, Inc., Minneapolis, Minn. Bran Yohn, W. B., North Webster, Ind. Wheat Bran Zehner Milling Company, Plymouth, Ind. Wheat Bran Wheat Bran Ziliak & Schafer Milling Company, Haubstadt, Ind. Pure Wheat Bran WHEAT BRAN, SCREENINGS AcmCHEvans Company, Indianapolis, Ind. Acme Bran and Screenings ttAcme Bran and Screenings __ Bartlett Company, The J. E., Jackson, Mich. Wheat Bran with Screeninga Wheat Bran with Screenings Wheat Bran with Screenings Bernet, Craft & Kauffman Milling Company, St. Louis, Mo. Mt. Carmel Bran and Screenings. Mt. Carmel Bran and Screenings. Mt. Carmel Bran and Screenings. Billman & Sons, C. H., Shelbyville, Ind. Shelby Wheat Bran and Unground Wheat Screenings Shelby Wheat Bran and Unground Wheat Screenings Boonville Milling Company, Boonville, Ind. Wheat Bran & Screenings. Brose, George, Evansville, Ind. Wheat Bran & Screenings Wheat Bran & Screenings Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude Fat per cent. Crude Protein per cent. Official Inspection D. Guar- anteed Found ; Guar- anteed 1 Found 4986 4357 Manufacturers 8.7 i 3.0 4.0 15.7 i 14.4 3208 3923 Manufacturers 9.3 3.3 4.6 14.0 15.8 6432 3589 Manufacturers 9.7 3.0 4.0 13.0 15.7 2940 4231 Manufacturers 9.6 3.5 3.7 14.0 17.1 2940 4927 Manufacturers 8.4 3.5 3.8 14.0 15.5 4600 4229 Manufacturers 8.6 3.0 3.4 14.0 16.1 6516 3477 W. G. Sweet, Royal Center 10.0 5.5 5.7 12.0 12.3 6836 3590 Manufacturer 10.0 3.5 4.1 13.5 14.3 1431 2795 J. A. Zehner, Plymouth 9.3 3.8 4.3 14.0 14.3 1431 4871 J. A. Zehner, Plymouth 9.1 3.8 3.9 14.0 15.8 7670 5051 Manufacturers 1 9.0 4.0 4.0 1 4.0 14.5 7159 1960 Thorntown Grain Co., Thorntown 9.4 3.5 4.1 15.5 15.9 7159 3818 Galt Sc- tin J Smith Pend 10.0 3.5 4.3 15.5 15.5 6813 1887 Chas. A. Neff, New Paris 9.6 3.0 4.6 14.0 15.1 6813 3283 Geneva Milling & Grain Co., Geneva — . 10.1 3.0 5.1 14.0 13.6 6813 3991 Judson Creamery & Produce Co., North Judson 9.4 3.0 4.5 14.0 15.2 . 5518 1904 Zionsville Milling Co., Zionsville 8.9 3.5 4.4 14.3 16.0 5618 2669 E F -Tnbnsnn^ Pnnli 9.3 3.5 4.1 14.3 16.3 . 5518 4629 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis. 9.9 3.5 4.3 14.3 15.4 6546 3014 Manufacturers - 10.0 3.0 3.6 14.0 16.5 6546 4788 Manufacturers 7.5 3.0 3.8 14.0 16.1 2842 3834 Maniifflctnrer.s 9.7 3.7 4.0 14.0 16.9 2942 3179 Manufacturer . 9.8 3.2 4.0 13.5 16.4 . 2942 5127 Manufacturer 92 3.2 4.2 13.5 15.3 ft Not tagged. Labels furnished 18 Small amount of wheat screenings TABLE !V — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) LABEL Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude Fat ‘ per cent. Crude Protein per cent. Official Inspection Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found Brose & Arnold, Evansville, Ind. 1 i 2257 3173 Manufacturers 9.5 3.7 4.1 14.0 18.2 2257 5129 Manufacturers 9.1 3.7 3.9 14.0 1 16.0 Castetter & Company, Clyde J., 1 Goshen, Ind. tWheat Bran & Ground Screenings 7291 1587 Manufacturers 10.3 3.5 5.6 14.0 14.0 Chicago Heights Oil M’f’g. Company, i 1 Chicago, 111. “Prize” Wheat Bran and Screenings... 7005 1731 Russell & -Co., Portland 10.9 3.5 4.4 14.0 15.7 “Prize” Wheat Bran and Screenings... 7005 1866 C. E. Roadrick, Morocco ! 9.0 3.5 4.7 14.0 15.8 “Prize” Wheat Bran and Screenings... 7005 3501 H. W. Schmidt, Madison 1 10.0 3.5 4.9 14.0 i 15.6 “Prize” Wheat Bran and Screenings... 7005 4878 R. R. McDaniel, Danville 8.9 3.5 4.6 1 14.0 15.6 Claro Milling Company, Waseca, Minn. 1 i 1 Claro Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings 6615 2014 Przybysz Flour & Feed Co., Claro Wheat Bran with Ground South Bend 9.5 3.0 6.0 14.0 14.9 6615 3822 J. 0. Barrett, South Bend 10.5 3.0 5.7 14.0 14.3 Commander Mill Company, Minneapolis, Minn. Commander Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run... 7139 3042 Valparaiso Grain & Elevator Commander Wheat Bran with Ground Co., Valparaiso 10.7 4.0 5.3 14.0 13.8 Screenings not exceeding Mill Run... 7139 4757 Valparaiso Grain & Elevator Co., Valparaiso 9.9 4.0 4.7 14.0 14.5 Coombs Milling Company, Wm. A., Coldwater, Mich. j Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings I jiot cxCPftiing Mill Run 7345 4941 L. W. Crandall, Fremont 8.8 3.0 4.3 14.0 14.7 Decatur Roller Mills, Decatur, Ind. , i Wh^'at ftT’an Mr. Sf>rppning-R 5427 2096 Manufacturers [ 10.8 3.0 3.9 13.0 15.5 Wheat Bran & Screenings 5427 4199 Fornax Milling Co., Decatur | 1 9.8 3.0 4.2 13.0 14.8 Deutseh & Sickert Company, Milwaukee, Wis. Wheat Bran with Screenings 7259 4617 Indiana Seed Co., Indianapolis.. 7.7 4.0 4.1 13.0 15.4 Dickinson Company, The Albert, 1 Chicago, 111. Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings not f^XOPPrlirig Mill Run 5841 4759 Wm. Harbeek, Valparaiso 8.9 4.0 4.9 14.5 16.8 Donmeyer, Gardner Company, Peoria, 111. Wheat Bran vdth Screenings not to i exceed Mill Run 6208 3490 North Madison Coal Co., I Wheat Bran with Screenings not to North Madison 10.0 4.0 5.3 14.0 16.1 exceed Mill Run 6208 4038 Burns & Davis Drug Co., Otterbein 9.4 4.0 5.1 14.0 16.1 Eckhart Milling Company, B. A., Chicago, 111. Bran anii Spreenings 6194 3106 Flack Bros., Fast Ghicagn 10.1 4.0 4.5 14.0 14.9 Edinger & Company, Louisville, Ky. Wheat Bran & Wheat Screenings 7205 4956 Salem Co-Operative Association, Salem 8.6 4.0 4.5 14.5 16.8 Emison, J. & S., Vincennes, Ind. Mixed Feed 4237 1637 The Crescent Feed Store, Oakland City 8.9 3.0 4.1 14.0 16.1 Enterprise Milling Company, Milroy, Ind. l^ran Mr. SrrppniTig.R 2077 3050 Manufacturers 11.2 2.9 3.8 14.1 15.4 Bran & Screenings 2077 5039 Manufacturers .. 9.5 2.9 4.2 14.1 15.9 t Before registration 1*^ Wheat middlings present 57 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) ^ Number LABEL • j Official Inspection D. Etna Lumber & Milling Company, Etna Green, Ind. 6659 2804 1 Everett, Aughenbaugh & Company, Waseca, Minn. E-A-CO Wheat Bran with Ground 6024 3214 : Fyke Milling Company, LaGrange, Ind. 6423 2504 ] 6423 4355 ; Garland Milling Company, Greensburg, Ind. 7279 2489 : 7279 3182 : 7279 4747 : 7279 5036 Goshen Milling Company, Goshen, Ind. 2335 1583 2335 3839 2335 3840 Hales & Edwards Company, Chicago, 111. Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run I 7509 3044 Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run 7509 5203 Hall Milling Company, W. C., Brazil, Ind. Hall’s Bran & Screenings 3806 4030 Home Mill & Grain Company, Mt. Vernon, Ind. IMixGd Feed ----- ------ 3237 3244 TVTtypH "PpPfl — 1 3237 3245 JVIixGd FGCd 3237 5072 MixGd 3237 5073 Hornung, J. M., Greensburg, Ind. Wheat Bran S<’'”pening.s _ 2577 3193 Wheat Bran ^ Screenings 2577 4743 Huntcr-Robinson-Wenz Milling Company, St. Louis, Mo. Bran and Screenings . 5219 3482 Bran and Screenings . 5219 4620 Bran and Screenings . 5219 5207 Hum, W. D., R. R. No. 1, Ramsey, Ind. Mix^d --------- 1 65901 3697 Indiana Milling Company, Terre Taute, Ind. Wheat Bran & Mill Run Screenings.... . 5908 3276 Judson Creamery & Produce Company, North Judson, Ind. Wheat Bran & Screenings . 8123 5187 Kansas Flour Mills Company, The, Wichita, Kans. Wheat Bran and Se^ecnings 5076 1937 Brtin - 5076 ; 3346 Brsn £ind 5076 ; 3512 Sample secured from Manufacturers Paul E. Raasch, Crown Point. M. A. Conroy, Jeffersonville. Manufacturers D. M. Blackmore, Greensburg. Eberts Grain Co., Nabb. Manufacturers C. E. Paxson, Elkhart. C. E. Paxson, Elkhart. Wm. Harbeck, Valparaiso T. H. Owens & Co., Bedford. Manufacturers Manufacturers Manufacturers Geo. W. Graston Milling Co., Dupont W. D. Hum Milling Co., tt Not tagged. Labels furnished H. H. Cliver, Terre Haute 9.8 Manufacturers J, C. Barrett, South Bend... J. H. Menke, Richmond Fulton Grain & Lumber Co Fi^ton — . Vo Wheat middlings. Relabeled No. 7471 Crude Fat per cent. ] Crude Protein per cent. Moistui per cen Guar- anteed 73 3 . O pH Guar- anteed 1 Found 9.5 4.0 4.0 1 1 14.5 15.9 ... 9.7 3.0 5.7 14.0 14.9 8.7 3.5 4.3 13.5 15.0 8.7 3.5 4.0 13.5 15.0 9.5 3.7 3.7 15.0 15.5 9.9 3.7 3.8 15.0 14.8 8.6 3.7 3.8 15.0 15.4 8.7 3.7 3.8 15.0 14.8 10.6 4.0 4.4 14.0 15.4 10.3 4.0 4.4 14.0 15.0 10.4 4.0 4.2 14.0 15.4 10.6 3.0 4.8 14.0 13.9 .... 9.4 3.0 5.2 14.0 13.7 9.4 3.0 3.8 13.0 16.7 9.0 3.2 4.0 14.4 15.9 8.6 3.2 4.0' 14.4 17.9 8.8 3.2 3.8 14.4 14.7 8.6 3.2 3.3 14.4 17.0 J 10.0 3.7 3.8 14.1 13.9 ! 8.6 3.7 4.1 14.1 14.5 . 9.9 4.0 4.7 14.5 17.0 “0.. . 9.1 4.0 4.3 14.5 16.2 . 9.1 4.0 4.1 14.5 16.1 1 . 10.8 3.5 4.5 13.5 15.8 3.8 4.6 14.0 13.6 j 9.8 - 8.7 3.5 4.3 14.0 16.1 . 10.0 4.4 4.5 14.7 16.8 9.2 4.4 4.2 14.7 , 16.9 9.6 4.4 4^ 1 14.7 * 17.4 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) LABEL Humber Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude Fat per cent. Crude Protein per cent. Official Inspection D. Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found Kansas Flour Mills Company, The, 1 Wichita, Kans. Mill Run Bran and Wheat Screenings.. 5077 1804 D. G. McFadden Grain Co., Ridge vi lie 8.9 4.4 4.8 14.7 14.7 Kaw Milling Company, The, Topeka, Kans. Wheat Bran and Screenings 6702 2416 Cayuga Milling Co., Cayuga 8.2 4.0 4.5 17.0 18.4 6702 3324 Omer G. Whelan, Richmond. 10.3 4.0 4.2 17.0 15.8 Wheat Bran and Screenings 7935 4795 0. W. Gotto, Michigan City 9.5 4.0 4.0 16.0 17.1 Kemper Mill & Elevator Company, Kansas City, Mo. j Anchor Bran with Ground Screenings.. 6030 2146 Bridgeton Milling Co., 1 • Bridgeton 9.0 4.0 4.7 14.5 16.0 ttAnehor Bran with Ground Screenings.. 6030 3978 Ola Chambers, Jasonville 9.0 j 4.0 3.7 14.5 17.4 Anchor Bran with Ground Screenings.. 6030 4287 Goodrich Bros. Hay & Grain i Co., Westfield ! 9.9 4.0 4.3 14.5 16.6 Krause Milling Company, Chas. A., Milwaukee, Wis. Badger Wheat Bran and Screenings... 6362 1658 Hartman & Dotterer, Bluffton. 1 10.1 3.5 4.4 14.0 15.3 Badger Wheat Bran and Screenings... 6362 3291 Steifel & Levy, Bryant... 10.0 3.5 4.4 14.0 15.2 Ligonier Milling Company, Ligonier, Ind. Mixed Feed 28.53 2605 Mflnnfactnrers 9.7 3.8 4.1 14.0 15.4 Mixed Feed ... 2853 3845 North Side Feed Store, Mishawaka 10.1 3.8 4.0 14.0 15.3 Loughry Bros. Milling & Grain Company, Monticello, Ind. T.ong-hry’.s Mixed Feed 1946 2772 City Feed Store, Plymouth.. . 8.7 3.7 5.3 14.0 15.3 Louisville Milling Company, Louisville, Ky. Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings 1 not exceeding Mill Run... 6175 2482 John Gienger & Co., Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings Jeffersonville __ 9.1 4.0 4.0 14.5 14.6 not exceeding Mill Run 6175 2519 New Albany Milling Co., Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings New Albany 8.5 4.0 4.1 14.5 14.8 not exceeding Mill Run 6175 3701 Corydon Milling Co., Corydon.. 10.4 4.0 4.3 14.5 14.9 Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run 6175 4662 John H. Shine & Co., New Albany 8.7 4.0 4.2 14.5 13.4 Mallinson, Charles L., Evansville, Ind. Mixed Feed 7363 3231 Manufacturer . _ 9.3 3.5 4.1 13.5 16.5 Maney Milling Company, Omaha, Neb. I Mixpd Fppd .5.589 2358 Paul Kuhn & Co., Riley 10.4 4.0 4.1 14.0 15.4 Mayflower Mills, Fort Wayne, Ind. Mayflower Bran and Screenings 22 6715 2549 H. E. St. John, Albany 10.6 3.8 5.2 14.0 15.6 Mayflower Bran and Screenings 6715 3985 DeBolt & Niswonger, Monroeville 9.2 3.8 5.0 14.0 15.0 ttMayflower Bran and Screenings 6715 4688 Garrett & Funk, Liberty Center 8.5 3.8 4.8 14.0 15.2 National Feed Company, St. Louis, Mo. Wheat Bran and Screenings 4659 1735 Fred B. Lash Flour Mills, Farmersburg ... 11.2 3.0 4.1 14.0 16.4 Wheat Bran and Screenings 4659 2520 New Albany Milling Co., New Albany 10.0 3.0 3.8 14.0 16.8 Wheat Bran and Screenings 4659 2676 C. H. Galloway & Co., Paoli 9.5 3.0 4.2 14.0 17.2 National Mills, Angola, Ind. Wheat liran with Screenings 7622 4312 Manufacturers ._ 8.8 3.0 4.1 13.5 14.1 Wheat Bran with Screenings 7622 4952 Manufacturers 8.3 3.0 3.8 13.5 14.6 New Era Milling Company, The, Arkansas City, Kans. Wheat Bran & Wheat Screenings 6859 2135 John H. Kuhn & Son, Michigan City ... 9.2 3.5 3.9 16.0 17.6 tt Not tagged. Labels furnished Wheat middlings and screenings “1 Wheat middlings present. Relabeled No. 8083 59 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) ■ Number Crude Fat - per cent. Crude Protein per cent. § •u Sample secured from LABEL / I Official “ft OQ a R o *S ^ O rre Haute 10.2 3.5 4.9 14.5 16.1 Valparaiso Grain & Elevator Company, Valparaiso, Ind. Wheat Bran Jir, Screenings 6008 1853 Manufacturers 9.4 3.8 1 4.7 liO 15.2 Washburn-Crosby Company, Minneapolis, Minn. Washburn-Crosby Co.’s Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings not exceed- ing Mill Run 5464 1536 Thomas S. Nugen, Lewisville 9.1 4.0 1 5.9 ■ 14.5 14.7 tt Not tagged. Labels furnished 20 sacks not tagged. Removed from sale TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) • Number Crude Crude Fat irroLein LABEL o ■+3 Sample secured from a; S-i tt per cent. per cent 6 S I TJ 1 •73 "o o m C OT O 'S ^ O rt cl Cl S- O a 1 Washburn-Crosby Company, i Minneapolis, Minn. Washburn-Crosby Co.’s Wheat Bran ! i with Ground iScreenings not exceed- ing Mill Run 5464 1973 Connell, Anderson Grain Co., ttWa^hburn-Crosby Co.’s Wheat Bran Beeson 9.2 4.0 5.8 14.5 13.9 with Ground Screenings not exceed- ing Mill Run ..... _ .. 5464 3132 Hay & Grain Supply Co., Gary. 10.3 4.0 5.5 14.5 13.3 Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings 7229 2583 Frank Wright, Brookville 10.0 4.0 5.5 13.0 i 13.2 Wheat Brail with Ground Screenings 7229 2866 T. S. Nugen, T.ewisville 9.8 4.0 5.4 13.0 13.3 Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings nnt exceeding Mill Run 7229 3118 Indiana School for Feeble Mind- 1 Wheat Bi:an with Ground Screenings ed Youth, Fort Wayne 9.4 4.0 5.0 13.0 ! 13.6 7229 4397 Frank A. Wright, Laurel 10.0 4.0 5.0 13.0 1 13.9 Western Blour Mill Company, Davenport, Iowa. “Black Hawk Bran” with Ground Screenings not to exceed Mill Run... 7086 2005 Wortjiington Grain Co., 1 1 Black Hawk Bran with Ground Worthington .. . 9.0 4.5 4.1 13.1 1 16.6 Screenings not to exceed Mill Run... 7895 4859 Przybysz Flour & Feed Co., 1 South Bend 8.8 3.0 4.2, 13.3 16.3 Zenith Milling Company, Kansas City, Mo. Wheat Bran & Screenings not exceed- ing Mill Run 7373 2956 Fred Holtz. Williamsnort 10.6 3.2 4.0 15.0 15.1 Wheat Bran & Screenings not exceed- vvuiiaiiispuit 1 ing Mill Run 7373 3011 j Richards & Lawson, Shelby ville_ 10.1 3.2 4.2 15.0 15.7 Ziliak & Schafer Milling Company, Haubstadt, Ind. Ziliak’s Wheat Bran.& Screenings 5849 3086 Manufacturers _ 9.1 4.0 4.3 14.0 16.5 STANDARD WHEAT MIDDLINGS OR SHORTS \ Acme Milling Company, The, i Aurora, Ind. Middlings 968 1 3606 Manufacturers 9.3 3.9 5.1 14.2 17.3 Akron Milling Company, The, Akron, Ind. W^heat Middlings 2795 2622 Manufacturers 11.4 4.0 4.1 14.0 14.4 Wheat Middlings 2795 3572 Manufacturers 12.1 4.0 3.4 i 14.0 13.6 Amo Mill Elevator Company, Amo, Ind. Amo Middlings 4442 2992 Manufacturers ip.2 2.8 3.8 13.0 16.1 Amo Middlings 25 4442 4734 Amo Mill & Elevator Co., Anchor Milling Company, Rochester, Ind. Wheat Middling.s Bargersville 9.7 2.8 4.3 1 i 13.0 16.0 3747 2189 Manufacturers 12.4 4.0 4.7 14.0 15.2 W’heat Middling.s . 3747 I 3515 Manufacturers 11.9 4.0 4.6 14.0 13.8 Angola Flouring Mills, Angola, Ind. 1 Aneola Flouring Mills Middlings 1097 4315 Manufacturers 8.7 4.0 4.3 1 14.0 14.8 Ansrola Flouring Mills Middlings 1097 4949 Manufacturers 10.3 4.0 4.4 14.0 16.7 Ashley-Hudson Milling & Grain Company, Ashley, Ind. Ashlev-Hudsnn Wheat Middlings 3145 4344 Manufacturers 9.8 4.0 4.5 14.0 15.4 Bainton Bros., Buchanan, Mich. Middlings 7128 2161 A. C. Heitschmidt, Michigan Citji 11.3 2.5 2.7 12.0 12.5 Middlings _ _ 7128 3762 A. C. Heitschmidt, Michigan City 11.9 2.5 2.5 12.0 11.8 tt Not tag-g-ed. Labels furnished Ground screenings present 62 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) LABEL Bay State Milling Company, Winona, Minn. “Winona” Fancy White Flour Mid- dlings “Winona” Fancy White Flour Mid- dlings “Winona” Fancy White Flour Mid- dlings “Wdnona” Fancy White Flour Mid- dlings 26 Bergenroth Bros., Troy, Ind. Middlings Middlings Berlien Mills, Angola, R. F. D., Ind. Wheat Middlings Berne Milling Company, Berne, Ind. Wheat Middlings Wheat Middlings Bicknell Mill Company, Bicknell, Ind. White Middlings Billman & Sons, C. H., Shelbyvillc, Ind. Shelby Shorts Shelby Shorts Bluffton Milling Company, Bluffton, Ind. Wheat Shorts Wheat Shorts 27 Wheat Shorts Bock, Leonard, Argos, Ind. Wheat Middlings Boehmer & Ritzer, Scott, Ind. Wheat Middlings 27 Boldt & Son, Crawfordsville, Ind. Boldt’s Shorts Bolte & Sons, Ben, Ferdinand, Ind. Wheat Shorts Boonville Milling Company, Boonville, Ind. Shorts Bowling Green Milling Company, Bowling Green, Ind. Middlings Bridgeton Roller Mills, Bridgeton, Ind. Middlings Bristol Milling Company, Bristol, Ind. Wheat Middlings Brizius Company, The Chas. W., Newburgh, Ind. Eagle Wheat Shorts or Middlings Brose & Arnold, Evansville, Ind. Wheat Middlings Wheat Middlings Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude Fat per cent. V Crude Protein per cent. Official 1 Inspection 1 D. Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found j 7144 2203 J. S. Crawford, Crown Point.— 10.3 4.5 4.2 14.0 15.5 7144 2417 Cayuga Milling Co., Cayuga 8.7 4.5 i 4.2 14.0 15.2 7144 4763 J. S. Crawford, Crown Point—. 9.7 4.5 4.8 14.0 17.0 7144 4765 J. S. Crawford, Crown Point... 9.7 4.5 4.8 14.0 16.8 2025 1561 Manufacturers 11.4 4.0 4.4 15.0 17.1 2025 3787 Manufacturers 9.9 4.0 3.8 15.0 16.9 7515 4318 Manufacturers 9.2 3.0 4.2 12.0 15.8 2107 4159 Manufacturers 10.5 3.3 2.5 14.0 13.3 2107 4654 Manufacturers 10.7 3.3 2.3 14.0 ! 13.0 7825 5015 Manufacturers 10.6 3.0 3.4 12.0 17.8 494.3 3013 Manufacturers 10.0 2.0 3.3 12.0 15.4 4943 4787 Manufacturers 10.3 2.0 4.1 12.0 17.0 660 16.55 Manufacturers 11.6 4.5 4.4 14.9 15.1 660 4186 Manufacturers 10.3 4.5 2.3 14.9 14.2 660 4658 Manufacturers 9.9 4.5 3.9 14.9 15.8 548 3522 J. A. Bock, Argos _ 10.4 4.0 4.7 14.0 15..3 1627 4348 Manufacturers 10.9 4.0 2.5 14.0 J 10.1 51 3019 Manufacturers 10.4 4.0 4.3 14.0 15.7 1 7276 3743 Manufacturers 10.2 4.0 3.6 1 14.5 1 1 17.1 930 3836 Manufacturers 10.4 4.0 4.5 14.0 18.2 6206 2080 Bowling Green Mills, 1 Bowling Green ’ 10.9 3.0 2.5 13.0 14.5 2850 2145 Bridgeton Milling Co., Bridgeton 11.1 2.0 2.8 14.0 14.5 2019 1593 Manufacturers 10.5 4.0 3.8 14.0 13.4 7194 3831 Manufacturers 10.6 3.8 4.2 14.0 17.3 7491 .3174 Manufacturers 11.0 4.0 3.9 14.0 16.1 7491 5130 Manufacturers 10.1 4.0 4.0 14.0 ' 15.7 1^/10 tons removed from sale -7 Low grade flour present ^3 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) LABEL Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude Fat per cent. 1 Crude Protein per cent. [3 ’o O .2 o . 1 'O i 0) O Si <73 n 1 O ri 'O S g Brudi & Company, Jos., New Haven, Ind. 2246 4218 Maumee Valley Mills, New Haven 9.4 2.8 2.8 13.1 14.0 Bundy Mill Company, L. L., Vallonia, Ind. Shorts . .... 3917 2836 Mannfaettirers 9.2 3.0 3.8 13.0 16.3 3917 4163 Bundy Bros., Vallonia _. 11.0 3.0 2.6 13.0 13.9 Burrell & Morgan, Elkhart, Ind. 254 1577 Mannfaetnrers 11.0 4.0 4.6 14.0 14 . 9 " Middlings 254 3850 Burrell & Morgan, Mishawaka__ 9.9 4.0 5.0 14.0 15.3 Butler Milling Company, Butler, Ind. Wheat Middlings 28 7082 4289 Manufacturers 9.6 3.6 3.3 14.0 13 3 Carpenter, B. 0., Perrysville, Ind. “Wheat Middlings” 4712 4489 Manufacturer 10.8 2.8 3.8 14.0 15.5 “Wheat Middlings” 4712 5147 Manufacturer 10.9 2.8 4.7 14.0 15.9 Cauble, 0. L., Pekin, Ind. Wheat Shorts 1016 2577 Manufacturer _. . ... 10.2 4.0 4.0 14.0 16.2 Wheat Shorts 28 1016 4054 Manufacturer _ _ __ 10.2 4.0 2.8 14.0 13.8 Wheat Shorts 1016 4961 O. L. Cauhle, Salem 9.3 4.0 4.4 14.0 16.5 Wheat Shorts 29 1016 4971 Manufacturer 9.2 4.0 3.2 14.0 13.8 Central Kansas Milling Company, I.yons, Kans. **Wheat Shorts 2152 0. W. Gotto, Michigan City__ _ 10.4 4.6 19.3 Champion Roller Milling Company, Richmond, Ind. Wheat Middlings or Shorts 4700 3309 Manufacturers 11.3 4.0 4.9 16.0 17.8 Chicago Heights Oil Mfg. Company, Chicago, 111. “Prize” White Middlings 7004 1661 Hartman & Dotterer, Bluffton_ 9.0 3.5 5.0 15.0 16.5 “Prize” White Middlings _ 7004 1711 The L. Keilman Co., Dyer__ ___ 10.4 3.5 4.1 15.0 16.2 “Prize” White Middlings 7004 1865 C. E. Roadrich, Morocco 10.1 3.5 3.6 15.0 15.8 City Milling Company, Kendallville, Ind. Wheat Middlings 6370 4257 Manufacturers 9.1 3.0 3.8 13.0 14.3 City Mills, South Whitley, Ind. Wheat Middlings 6106 3941 Manufacturers 10.3 3.5 4.2 14.0 15.2 Wheat Middlings _ 6106 4995 Manufacturers _ 11.0 3.5 4.5 14.0 16.1 Clark Bros., Hagerstown, Ind. Wheat Middlings 2007 4337 Manufacturers 9.1 3.7 3.7 14.0 14.1 Clark & Sons, C. G., Rushville, Ind. Clarks Middlings 6866 3055 Manufacturers 11.2 5.0 4.9 18.0 18.0 Clarks Middlings 6866 3738 E. J. Chambers, Mays 9.3 5.0 4.6 18.0 18.5 Clarks Middlings 7918 5042 Manufacturers 8.6 4.5 4.7 18.0 17.9 Clayton Milling Company, Clayton, Ind. Clavton Wheat Middlings 28 2114 2986 Manufacturers ._ 10.2 3.9 1.9 14.2 13.4 White Middlings _ __ 7722 4813 Manufacturers __ 10.1 1.8 2.8 13.0 13.9 Coal City Milling Company, Coal City, Ind. Coal City Wheat Shorts 6913 2783 Manufacturers 10.3 3.5 3.8 14.0 15.4 Collamer Milling Company, Collamer, Ind. White Middlings 7052 4993 Manufacturers 10.6 2.0 3.8 13.0 14.5 ** Not registered Low grade flour present Low grade flour present. Relabeled No. 5590 ^^/ 2 o ton removed from sale. Used by dealer TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) LABEL Number Sapiple secured from Moisture per cent. Crude Fat per cent. Crude Protein per cent. Official Inspection D. Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found Corbin Milling Company, New Harmony, Ind. 1 314 3851 Manufacturers 10.3 4.0 4.4 ' 14.0 16.9 Corbin’s Wheat Middlings 314 5061 Fuhrer-Ford Milling Co., New Harmony j 9.2 4.0 2.6 14.0 13.3 Croxton, James W., Cloverdale, Ind. 246 1481 Manufacturer 12.3 3.8 3.1 14.0 14.9 Davis & Johnson, Coatesville, Ind. 1 i Wbef>t. Middlings 31 438 2994 Manufacturers 10.7 3.8 2.3 1 14.4 15.7 Deck, James M., Roann, Ind. 196 5032 James PI. Deck, Roann_.i 10.2 4.0 4.7 14.0 16.7 Delp Grain Company, E. E., Bourbon, Ind. 3118 2802 Manufacturers — 9.5 4.0 1 4.2 ; 14.0 16.0 Dilger Bros., Mariah Hill, Ind. 3632 1509 Manufacturers 11.7 2.5 2.6 12.0 14.3 Duglay & Jones, Churubusco, Ind. j 7468 4987 Manufacturers 9.6 /3.0 4.2 13.0 ! 15.9 Eberts & Bro., North Vernon, Ind. i i Wheat Shnrt.s 3i 5413 4731 Manufacturers i 10.7 i 4.0 35 15.0 14.5 Edwardsport Mills, Edwardsport, Ind. 1 i 1 wheat Shorts 31 6830 5022 Manufacturers 11.4 3.0 2.3 13.0 12.8 Eesley & Company, Wm., College Corner, Ohio. Wheat Middlings 2921 2895 Wm. Eesley & Co., W. College Corner 11.3 1 4.0 4.4 14.0 15.8 Wheat Middlings 2921 4403 Wm. Eedey & Co., i , W. College Corner 11.0 1 4.0 4.2 14.0 1 14.3 Egloff Milling Company, Vincennes, Ind. ! I Wheat Shorts 6054 5012 Manufacturers 9.2 4.0 4.3 14.0 1 17.6 Egloff Sons, A., St. Meinrad, Ind. i 1 Shorts 2749 1518 Manufacturers 9.9 3.8 3.9 15.0 I 18.0 Shorts 2749 3740 Manufacturers 10.3 3.8 3 4 15.0 1 16.4 Shorts 2749 4606 Manufacturers 10.0 3.8 3.8 j 15.0 i 15.2 Emison, J. & S., Vincennes, Ind. 1 1 1 Middlings 1536 1684 Ray Newsome, Bickne’ll 8.9 4.0 5.1 14.0 17.0 Middlings 1536 3933 W. D. Hampton, Worthington.. 9.5 4.0 4.9 14.0 17.4 Enterprise Milling Company, j Milroy, Ind. i Middlings 2317 3049 Manufacturers 11.0 3.8 5.3 14.2 17.1 Ewing Mill Company, Brownstown, Ind. i •j-fWheat Shorts 298 3555 James W. Miles, Butlerville 8.3 4.0 3.7 14.0 17.4 Wheat Shorts 298 4149 1 P’he Ewing Mill Co., Ewing 9.4 4.0 2.7 14.0 14.0 Excelsior Mill Company, i Yankton, So. Dak. **Shorts 33 2120 Hubert French, Linn Grove. 11.1 4.8 17.0 Farmers Milling & Elevator Company, Veedersburg, Ind. Wheat Shorts 7577 4471 Manufacturers 10.0 2.0 3.0 12.0 14.3 Fuhrer-Ford Milling Company, Mt. Vernon, Ind. Wheat Middlings 4682 3250 Manufacturers 8.5 3.5 4.2 14.0 14.9 Wheat Middlings 4682 5068 Manufacturers .. 8.6 3.5 4.3 14.0 15.9 ** Not registered l^ow grade flour present tt Not tagged. Labels furnished ^3 3350 ibs. removed from sale 65 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) Number Crude Crude Fat Protein LABEL 1 Sample secured from a; 4J per cent. percent. Official on C! R 0) m w ■J S3 ft Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found Gaston Roller Mill, Gaston, Ind. 5.')09 2114 Manufacturers 11.4 2.0 3.6 12.0 15.6 Wheat Middlings _ .5509 4905 Manufacturers 10.5 2.0 4.8 12.0 17.1 Geneva Milling & Grain Company, Geneva, Ind. Shorts Middling.s, 3-1 42S7 1791 11.3 3.4 2.5 14.0 13.7 Shorts & Middlings 3-4 •_ 4287 3286 10.2 3.4 2.7 14.0 13.8 Graft, C. V., Winchester, Ind. 5097 1843 Manufacturer 10.9 3.0 3.8 14.0 16.0 Greenfield Milling Company, Greenfield, Ind. • 4470 2739 Manufacturers 9.9 3.0 4.4 15.0 17.5 Gross, L. J., Sandborn, Ind. 4267 1693 11.7 3.5 2.9 14.0 13.7 4267 5017 Manufacturer _ _ 10.3 3.5 3.5 14.0 15.2 Hall Milling Company, The W. C., Brazil, Ind. 5923 2041. 11.7 2.0 2.5 13.0 13.8 Hampton, W. D., Worthington, Ind. Wheat Shorts 2220 2926 Manufacturer 10.8 2.3 3.3 12.8 16.5 Wheat Shorts 2220 3934 Manufacturer _ __ 9.5 2.3 2.8 12.8 14.3 Hardinsburg Milling Company, Hardinsburg, Ind. Wheat Shorts 2263 1489 Hardinsburg Roller Mills, Hardinsburg _ 11.4 3.5 4.3 13.0 15.6 Harris Milling Company, Greencastle, Ind. Harris’ Middlings __ _ _ 211 2999 Manufacturers _ 11.3 3.6 3.6 14.5 15.9 Haynes Milling Company, The, Portland, Ind. Wheat Middlings 43a9 1770 Manufacturers - 11.2 3.0 4.0 14.0 16.5 Wheat Middlings 4389 4138 Manufacturers 9.2 3.0 4.6 14.0 16.8 Hazleton Flour Mills, The, Hazleton, Ind. Wheat Shorts __ 6634 1717 Davis & Phillips, Oaktown 11.1 4.5 4 0 14.0 16.8 Wheat Shorts 3^; _ 7475 5000 L. Combs & Sons, Vincennes 8.3 3.0 4.2 14.0 15.0 Hibbits Mill Company, Muncie, Ind. Finished Middlings 7298 4397 M aniif nctiiTprs 9.5 4.0 4.0 14.0 16.1 Holland Mills, The, Holland, Ind. Wheat Middlings 3^ 5386 1.522 Manufacturers 12.0 3.0 2.5 13.0 14.8 Wheat Middlings 3^ j 5386 3734 Manufacturers 9.5 3.0 2.2 13.0 15.1 Hollingsworth, S. P., Russiaville, Ind. Wheat Shorts 31 1517 1474 Manufacturer 12.6 4.0 2.0 14.0 13.1 Home Mill & Grain Company, Mt. Vernon, Ind. Wheat Middlings 37 7449 3240 Manufacturers 8.7 4.2 3.9 16.9 16.4 Hornung, J. M., Greensburg, Ind. Middlings 415 3194 Manufacturer 10.4 3.8 3.8 14.2 15.1 Middlings 415 4748 Manufacturer 10.2 3.8 4.0 14.2 15.1 Hubbard, J. W.,^ Monrovia, Ind. Wheat Middlings 3i 7551 4858 Manufacturer 19.2 3.5 2.7 14.0. 14.1 tt Not tagged. Labels furnished Removed from sale. Relabeled No. 7174 3^ Low grade flour present 37 Removed from sale. Relabeled No. 7686 66 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) Number Crude Fat per cent. Crude Protein per cent. LABEL .2 Sample secured from vun City Mills, T.ynn 9.2 3.5 4.5 13.0 15.7 Maney Milling Company, Omaha, Neb. Wheat Shorts 2996 4533 Paul Fnhn Xr, Cn., Riley 9.2 4.0 4.8 14.0 17.2 Mangelsdorf Bros. Co., Atchison, Kans. **-Feed 47 4282 Goodrich Bros. Hay & Grain Co., Westfield 9.2 4.2 8.3 Martin & Martin, New Castle, Ind. Martin & Martin’s Wheat Middlings.. _ 3794 2594 Manufacturers 11.3 3.7 3.8 14.0 16.7 Mayflower Mills, Fort Wayne, Ind. 1 Mayflower Mills Wheat Middlings ^®... 451 2768 C. H. Grube, Argos 9.6 4.0 4.0 14.0 15.7 Mayflower Mills Wheat Middlings 451 2960 Sheldon & Wilier, Orland 9.8 4.0 4.8 14.0 15.7 Mayflower Mills Wheat Middlings 451 2973 Arnold & Nelson, Montpelier 9.8 4.0 5.6 14.0 16.5 Mayflower Mills Wheat Middlings 451 4313 Sheldon & Co., Angola 9.2 4.0 4.7 14.0 15.4 Milan Milling Company, Milan, Ind. Shorts 3314 3613 Manufacturers 10.0 4.0 4.8 14.0 16.3 Shorts -- 3314 4702 Manufacturers 9.6 4.0 5.0 14.0 15.0 ** Not registered Ground kafir and milo and traces of wheat t Before registration and millet. 33 1/20 tons removed from sale *5 Low grade flour present and shipped out of state. Omitted from average in Table II Small amount of finely ground sereenings 68 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) Number Crude Fat per cent. Crude Protein per cent. LABEL c .2 I Official u . oiri a bample secured from R 0 ) 00 W II Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found Modoc Roller Mills & Elevator, Modoc, Ind. Wheat Middlings 4963 1484 Manufacturers 11.8 1.5 1.6 1 1 10.0 12.9 Muller Bros. Milling Company, Ferdinand, Ind. 6708 1520 Manufacturers 10.6 4.0 4.7 1 14.0 18.2 6708 4610 Manufacturers 9.7 4.0 4.1 14.0 16.0 Myers & Son, .Joseph H., Chili, Ind. White Middlings __ 3324 2195 Manufacturers 11.5 3.0 2.9 16.0 13.9 Germ Middlings _ _ 3325 2194 Manufacturers 11.3 3.0 5.3 15.0 16.3 3325 3532 Manufacturers _ _ 10.8 3.0 4.6 15.0 15.7 White Middlings 7581 3531 Manufacturers 10.9 2.9 2.6 13.9 14.0 McCoy Bros., Liberty, Ind. 162 4408 Manufacturers 11.5 3.8 3.9 15.1 14.4 Napoleon Flour Mills, Napoleon, Ind. Napoleon Middlings _ _ _ 4043 4.586 Manufacturers 9.6 3.8 4.1 14.2 15.4 National Feed Company, St. Louis, Mo. “Middlings” __ 3022 1665 Hartman & Dotterer, Bluffton. 9.3 4.0 4.2 16.0 18.6 “Middlings” _ __ 3022 2439 Crabbs, Reynolds, Taylor Co., LaFavette 8.6 4.0 4.6 16.0 18.1 Neill & Van Valer, Jonesboro, Ind. Wheat Shorts 765 2323 Jonesboro Milling Co., .Toneshoro 11.6 4.0 3.9 14.0 14.0 New Carlisle Milling Company, New Carlisle, Ind. Wheat Middlings 1317 2103 Manufacturers . __ 10.9 4.0 4.4 14.0 15.4 Wheat Middlings 49 1317 3794 Manufacturers ___ 10.3 4.0 3.3 14.0 12.5 New Era Milling Company, The, Arkansas City, Ark. Standard Wheat Shorts . 6860 2136 John H. Kuhn & Son, Michi£ran Citv 9.8 4.0 5.2 17.5 20.0 New Milling Company, The, Greenfield, Ind. Middlings 49 1863 2743 Manufacturers _ 10.8 4.0 2.7 i 14.0 15.5 Middlings 49 __ 1863 2969 Manufacturers 10.1 4.0 3.2 14.0 17.2 New Prague Flouring Mill Company, New Prague, Minn. Seal of Minnesota Standard Middlings 7609 3789 South Bend Grain Co., South Bend _ 10.1 6.0 5.8 13.5 17.4 Nieman, C., Sunman, Ind. Nieman’s Middlings 500 3189 Manufacturer 10.1 4.0 4.8 14.0 17.1 Noblesville Milling Company, Noblesville, Ind. Noblesville Milling Co.’s Middlings 3767 1613 Pendleton Feed & Pendleton Fuel Co., 10.7 4.0 4.5 15.0 16.9 Noblesville Milling Co.’s Middlings ^4_- 3767 2407 Hollett-Winders Grain Co., Arcadia _ _ _ 9.3 4.0 5.0 15.0 17.0 Nodine, W. J., Waterloo, Ind. Wheat Middlings 3151 4942 W. J. Nodine, Fremont 10.1 3.5 4.3 14.0 14.6 Nordmeyer, John A., Morris, Ind. Wbent Afiddlings 4080 3186 Manufacturer ... 11.6 3.6 3 3 14.6 15.0 Norris & Kidwell, Washington, Ind. wheat. Middlings 4,9 6280 3897 Manufacturers 10.5 5.0 2.7 15.4 14 3 Wheat Middlings 6280 .5233 Manufacturers — 9.5 5.0 3.6 15.4 15.4 North Manchester Milling Company, North Mant'hester, Ind. “North Manchester Milling Companys Middlings’’ 49 8.55 2476 Manufacturers _10.4 10.3 4.0 3.5 14.0 13.7 “North Manchester Milling Companys Middlings” 8.55 .3915 Manufacturers — 4.0 4.4 14.0 15.3 Low ifrade Hour present si Removed from sale. Relabeled No. 7306 69 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) LABEL Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude Fat per cent. Crude Protein percent. ’3 o PI .2 m 1 'O O ri 73 1 ^ rj O rt T3 p) g Oaktown Milling Company, Oaktown, Ind. 5432 1719 Mannfaeturer.s 11.9 4.0 4.2 14.0 16.3 AVheat Shorts 5432 3338 Manufacturers __ _ _ __ 10.4 4.0 3.9 14.0 15.6 Oldenburg Flour Mills, Oldenburg, Ind. Wheat Shorts __ 2663 3192 Manufacturers 10.7 3.0 4.5 13.1 17.2 Wheat Shorts 2663 4589 Manufacturers __ _ __ 9.7 3.0 4.4 13.1 15.4 Orleans Mill & Elevator Company, Orleans, Ind. Wheat Middlings 7019 4088 Manufacturers __ 9.3 4.0 3.5 14.0 16.5 Osakis Milling Company, Osakis, Minn. Fancy Middlings 3195 2138 H. F. Keppen, Michigan City 9.0 4.0 6.9 15.0 17.5 Ossian Roller Mills, Ossian, Ind. Wheat Middlings _ 6399 1671 Manufacturers _ _ __ . 9.9 3.1 3.6 13.5 14.3 Pancost Milling Company, Elkhart, Ind. Middlings 800 1610 Manufacturers 11.5 4.0 4.7 14.0 14.2 Middlings __ 800 3860 Manufacturers 10.0 4.0 4.6 14.0 14.3 Paoli Milling Company, The, Paoli, Ind. Shorts 627 4090 Manufacturers 9 3 3.0 3.8 12.0 14.7 Pennville Milling Company, Pennville, Ind. Wheat Middlings 3545 1761 Manufacturers 13.1 3.0 3.5 13.0 15.4 Peru Milling Company, The, Peru, Ind. Wheat Middlings 18 2732 Manufacturers 10.3 3.1 5.0 14.2 16.2 AVheat Middlings __ _ 18 4393 Manufacturers _ _ __ 10.6 3.1 4.0 14.2 15.5 Phoenix Flour Mills, Evansville, Ind. *Shorts 3227 AA’. H. Small & Co., Evansville 10.4 3.7 17.2 Piqua Milling Company, The, Piqua, ,0. AVheat Middlings 2295 1803 D. G. McFadden Grain Co., Ridgeville _ ___ _ ___ __ __ 10.3 4.0 4.7 16.0 17.2 AA’heat Middlings 2295 4069 I). G. McFadden Grain Co., Ridgeville ___ 9.8 4.0 4.6 16.0 16.8 Plainfield Milling Company, Plainfield, Ind. AA'heat Middlings __ 4408 4816 Mnnnfactnrers 10.2 3.5 4.9 13.0 14.7 Plainville Milling Company, Plainville, Ind. Middlings _ 3895 3900 Manufacturers _ _ _ 10.4 4.0 4.1 14.0 17.8 Ray & Rice, Camden, Ind. AVheat Shorts __ _______ 3002 1476 Manufacturers 11.4 3.0 4.4 14.0 16.0 Wheat Shorts _ _ 3002 2989 Manufacturers io!2 3.0 3.9 14’o 14.9 Redden & Sons, Wm., New Paris, Ind. AA’heat Middlings _ 2625 1888 Manufacturers 11.8 2.0 3.3 10.0 13.1 Red AA’ing Milling Company, Red AA’ing, Minn. Bixota Standard Middlings ^5 5493 2546 H. E. St. John, Albany 9.9 5.7 5.7 18.3 16 8 Richland Milling Company, Bloomfield, Ind. Shipstuff 1147 2027 Manufacturers 12.3 4.0 3 8 14.0 16.7 Shipstuff ___ 1147 3928 Manufacturers ll’.5 4^0 3.7 u'.o 14^9 Richmond Roller Mills, Richmond, Ind. The Richmond Roller Mills AA’heat Middlings ___ _ __ 483 3310 Manufacturers 10.6 3.7 4.7 14.0 16.9 * Not tagged Soreenings present Small amount of whole and crushed weed Relabeled No. 7641 seeds 70 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) Number Crude Fat per cent. Crude Protein percent. LABEL !:! O •43 Sample secured from (U Official OiQ m d 5 0) ® o ’3 Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found Ridgeville Roller Mills & Elevator, Ridgeville, Ind. Wheat, Middlings 56 1833 1805 Ideal Milling & Grain Co., Ridgeville 1 1 11.6 4.0 2.6 14.0 17.4 Rittenhouse, E. S., Liberty Mills, Ind. T.iberty Bird Middlings . 3044 2478 Acme Grain Co., N. Manchester. Manufaeturer 10.4 2.5 3.5 12.5 13.3 Liberty Bird Middlings 3344 5028 9.9 2.5 3.4 12.5 13.3 Riverside Mill, The, Wolcottville, Ind. Riverside Mill’s Wheat Middlings 1621 4277 Riverside Milling Co., Wolcottville 9.5 4.0 4.0 14.0 15.0 Roach & Rothenberger, Delphi, Ind. Shorts and Middlings se 286 3889 Manufacturers 10.8 4.0 3.4 14.0 14.5 Rockport Mining Company, Rockport, Ind. Kopp’s Wheat Middlings 56 2748 1569 Manufacturers 10.8 3.5 2.3 i 14.0 13.5 Kopp’s Wheat Middlings 2748 3809 Manufacturers 10.3 3.5 4.5 14.0 16.8 Rohm Bros., Rockville, Ind. Shorts _ _ _ 293 2148 Manufacturers . 11.4 4.0 4.5 14.0 17.6 Shorts 293 3674 Bloomingdale Mill Co., Bloomingdale 10.1 4.0 4.1 14.0 16.6 Shorts . _ . 293 3677 Manufacturers 11.3 4.0 4.2 14.0 17.6 Roper & Brown, Hobart, Ind. Hobart Wheat Middlings 5960 1813 Manufacturers 12.2 3.5 3.4 14.0 15.4 Hobart Wheat Middlings 5960 4772 Manufacturers 10.9 3.5 4.6 14.0 16.5 Russell-Miller Milling Company, Fargo, N. Dak. Standard Middlings 5182 2850 Guy M. Wells, Knox _ _ 9.1 4.0 6.0 15.0 15.8 Standard Middlings 5182 4306 New Castle Flour & Feed Ex- change, New Castle 9.1 4.0 6.0 15.0 16.5 Russell-Miller Milling Company, Minneapolis, Minn. Flour Middlings 5505 3221 Luebcke Bros., Crown Point 10.4 5.’0 3.7 16.0 14.5 Flour Middlings 7810 4663 John H. Shine & Co., New Albany _ 8.9 5.0 5.1 15.0 17.3 Flour Middlings 7810 5229 Prater-Mottier Co., Terre Haute 10.6 5.0 4.5 15.0 16.6 Salem Farmers Milling Company, Salem, Ind. Wheat Shorts 6922 2629 T. F. Batt, Salem 9.7 2.0 4.1 12.0 15.6 Salem Milling Company, Salem, Ind. Wheat Shorts 3161 4047 Manufacturers 10.7 2.0 2.9 13.0 12.4 Scharnberg, N. M., Michigan City, Ind. Wheat Middlinsrs 4142 2140 H. F. Keppen, Michigan City 9.8 3.5 5.0 14.0 16.5 Schulte, W. C., Preelandville, Ind. Wheat Shorts 6436 5020 Manufacturer 10.8 4.0 4.1 14.0 17.2 Schultz Bros., Elberfeld, Ind. Middlings 3925 1618 Manufacturers 11.9 4.0 4.4 14.0 16.5 Seidel, W. T., Orland, Ind. W^heat Middlings 6373 2962 Orland Milling Co., Orland 10.4 3.0 3.9 13.0 15.6 Wheat Middlings 6373 4341 Orland Milling Co., Orland 9.9 3.0 4.1 13.0 15.0 Shawnee Milling Company, Topeka, Kans. Wheat Middlings 4574 4478 Galbreath & Schriner, Cayuga__ 9.3 4.0 4.8 16.0 16.9 Shine & Company, .J. H., New Albany, Ind. Star Middlings 5457 3720 Hammond & Toncin, Milltown.. 10.6 4.0 4.0 14.0 16.6 71 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) LABEL yilver Star Milling Company, Patricksburg, Ind. Shorts Shorts Shorts 59 Sims Milling Company, Prankfort, Ind. Wheat Shorts Wheat Shorts Sloan, J. P., Palestine, Burket P. O., Ind. Sloan’s Wheat Middlings Smith, A. S., Plint, Ind. Wheat Middlings Smith Grain & Milling Company, Warsaw, Ind. Wheat Middlings — Snoddy, M. W., Covington, R. R. No. 1 Ind. Wheat Middlings Southwestern Milling Company, Inc., The, Kansas City, Mo. Pancy White Middlings Pure Gray Shorts Pure Brown Shorts Pure Brown Shorts Pancy White Middlings 59 Pancy White Middlings 59 Pancy White Middlings Pancy White Middlings 59 Sparks Milling Company, Terre Haute, Ind. Wabash Middlings Wabash Middlings Spencer & Company, J. W. Veedersburg, Ind. Wheat Shorts Spencerville Milling Company, Spencerville, Ind. Middlings & Shorts Mixed __ Spink Milling Company, The, Washington, Ind. .Wheat Middlings Wheat Middlings Star & Crescent Milling Company, Chicago, 111. Ctescent Middlings Crescent Middlings Crescent Middlings Crescent Middlings *Star Wheat Middlings Starlight Milling Company, Borden, R. R. No. 1, Ind. tWheat Middlings Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude Fat per cent. Crude Protein percent. Official Inspection D. Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed § 3838 2461 Manufacturers 10.5 3.5 3.2 13.0 15.9 3838 2775 Manufacturers 10.8 3.5 2.8 13.0 14.6 3838 4536 Manufacturers 11.1 3.5 2.5 13.0 14.4 6304 3438 Manufacturers 10.7 4.0 4.6 14.0 16.9 6304 4699 Manufacturers 9.3 4.0 4.2 14.0 16.4 227 3620 Manufacturer 10.8 4.0 4.0 14.0 15.0 1661 4323 Manufacturer 9.7 4.0 4.0 14.0 14.6 803 3586 Green Bros. & Oldfather, Warsaw 11.3 3.8 4.2 13.5 14.7 4718 4488 Manufacturer 10.6 2.5 4.5 13.0 17.2 6158 2156 n W Bntt.rij Michigan City . 10.5 2.6 3.3 16.8 17.0 7286 4004 Zook Bros., Logansport 10.2 4.0 3.9 18.0 17.9 7342 4005 Zook Bros., Logansport 9.7 4.5 4.5 18.0 18.1 7342 4583 Jordan & Baird, Kewanna... _ 10.0 4.5 4.6 18.0 17.6 7343 3473 Jnrdqn Jir. Bnirflj Kewanna. 11.4 3.0 2.7 17.0 15.9 7343 3705 John H. Shine & Co., New Albany 10.6 3.0 3.0 17.0 16.0 7343 4006 Zook Bros., Logansport 9.5 3.0 3.3 17.0 16.4 7343 4582 "Rf^ird^ Kewanna 9.7 3.0 2.7 17.0 15.7 2774 4024 Charles Johnson, Sullivan 9.5 4.0 4.3 14.0 15.7 ■ 2774 5264 W. D. Hampton, Worthington.. 9.2 4.0 5.1 14.0 16.1 334 2251 Parmers Mill & Elevator Co., Veedersburg 10.9 3.0 2.8 12.0 15.8 • 5474 4234 Mannfactnrer.s 10.1 3.2 3.6 13.5 14.6 6960 3877 Mannfactnrer.s . . 9.9 3.7 4.0 14.0 15.7 6960 5221 Mannfact.nrer.s .. 9.7 3.7 3.9 14.0 15.1 3110 1817 Rnper Brown, Hobart 10.8 4.5 4.3 16.0 16.5 3110 3164 -Toe SemanciV, Whiting 12.0 4.5 4.4 16.0 16.4 - 3110 4512 Crabbs, Reynolds, Taylor Co., LaPayette 9.0 4.5 4.9 16.0 17.0 - 3110 4762 Roper Sr. Brown, Hobart 10.3 4.5 4.7 16.0 17.6 4550 Arno Mill & Elevator Co., Whiteland 7.8 — 5.0 — 16.9 - 7795 4051 Manufacturers 10.7 1 2.0 2.0 11.0 13.1 * Not tagged t Before registration 59 Low grade flour present 72 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (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 Star Milling Company, Shoals, Ind. Star Shorts 503 4165 Manufacturers 10.0 4.0 4.2 14.0 17.1 St. Joe Milling Company, St. Joe, Ind. St. Joe’s Wheat Middlings _ 5127 4930 St. Joe Mills, St. Joe... 9.5 4.0 3.7 14.0 15.3 Stott, David, Detroit, Mich. Climax Middlings 5278 4311 Home Grain Co., Angola 9.5 5.0 4.3 17.0 15 6 Climax Middlings 5278 4352 Home Grain Co., LaGrange 9.3 5.0 4.5 17.0 , 15 8 Stoudt, Thomas, South Bend, Ind. Thos. Stoudt’s Wheat Middlings 277 1916 Manufacturer V’ 8 5.0 3,4 15.4 ' 1 13.3 Suckow Company, Franklin, Ind. Middlings 3914 2141 C. B. Cook Co., Greenwood 9.9 4.0 3.8 14.0 i 17.5 Swayzee Milling Company, Svvayzee, Ind. Wheat Middlings — 4664 4692 Manufacturers 7.5 2.0 2.9 13.0 14.3 Thomas & Son, A. R., Markle, Ind. Wheat Shorts 3189 2273 Manufacturers 10.2 3.2 3.7 14.1 1 15.8 Thompson, Lester, Prairie Creek, Ind. Thompson’s Wheat Shorts 6529 1737 J. P. Allan, Farmersburg 12.4 3.8 3.7 14.9 15.9 Thompson & Son, Somerville, Ind. **Shorts 1633 Manufacturers 11.9 3.6 15.4 Thurgood, Geo. R., Vincennes, Ind. Shorts __ 1539 3027 Chas. R. Thurgood, Vincennes.. 10.7 4.0 3.9 14.0 14.7 Timhrook & Hursh, Auburn, Ind. Auburn Roller Mills Middlings _ 6985 4225 Manufacturers 9.1 3.4 4.3 14.0 15.7 Auburn Roller Mills Middlings 6985 4910 Manufacturers 10.6 3.4 4.8 14.0 15.6 Tresselt & Sons, C., Fort Wayne, Ind. Wheat Shorts 410 3963 Manufacturers .. 10.6 4.0 4.7 14.0 16.9 Wheat Middlings 411 2905 Indiana School for Feeble Mind- ed Youth, Fort Wayne 10.6 4.0 4.7 14.0 16.0 Wheat Middlings 411 3962 Manufacturers 10.9 4.0 5.2 14.0 16.5 Trimble Milling Company, The, Milton, Ky. I+Shipstuff 1989 3503 C. W. Jessup, Madison 10.2 4.0 4.6 14.0 15.5 Tuttle & Company, R., Columbia City, Ind. Perfection Middlings 818 1527 Manufacturers . 10.2 4.0 4.8 14.0 16.2 Perfection Middlings 818 3936 Manufacturers 9.8 4.0 3.8 14.0 14.2 Perfection Middlings 818 4991 Manufacturers 9.7 4.0 4.7 14.0 15.9 Uhl-Snider Milling Company, Connersville, Ind. Wheat Middlings 5136 2585 Manufacturers 10.8 3.7 4.1 14.0 15.9 Ulrich & Son, Levi, Greensboro, Ind. Shorts 5396 4309 Manufacturers 11.0 2.0 1.7 12.0 12.1 Union Roller Mills, West Harrison, Ind. Kiewit’s Wheat Middlings 7078 2874 Manufacturers . 10.3 3.9 4.2 14.0 15.0 Valentine Valentine, Franklin, Ind. Middlings ‘’i __ __ 932 2335 Manufacturers 9.5 4.0 3.7 14.0 17.1 Victoria Milling Company, The, Jasper, Ind. Victoria Wheat Shorts 7170 3798 Manufacturers 8.3 3.3 3.5 15.0 16.8 Wabash Milling Company, The, Wabash, Ind. Middlings 2 4390 Manufacturers 11.2 4.0 4.7 14.0 16.1 ♦* Not registered 15 tons removed from sale. Relabeled No. 7455 tt Not tagged. Labels furnished 4 73 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) Number Crude Fat per cent. Crude Protein per cent. LABEL § Sample secured from ! Official m C Moistui per cen Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed 1 Found Wakarusa Milling Company, Wakarnsa, Ind. Wakarusa Wheat, Middling.s C 2 1248 2615 Manufacturers 10.6 4.5 3.9 15.0 13.5 Wallace Milling Company, The, Dale, Ind. tW’allace’s Pure Wheat Middlings 7747 3771 Manufacturers 10.0 4.0 3.5 15.0 16.6 Wellington Milling Company, Anderson, Ind. Wellington’s A. X. A. Middlings 4987 4358 Manufacturers 10.0 4.0 4.7 15.0 16.3 W^estern Flour Mill Company, Davenport, Iowa. “Black Hawk’’ Wheat Standard Mid- dlings 63 673.5 1785 A, B Nicholson, Merrillville. 9.7 5.7 4.8 16.3 16.6 Black Hawk Standard Middlings 7896 4841 South Bend Grain Co., South Bend __ ,8.7 5.2 5.4 15.0 18.6 Wildcat Roller Mills, Cutler, Ind. Wheat Shorts 1091 3922 Manufacturers 10.5 4.0 4.0 14.0 14.5 W’ilkinson & Company, T. B., Knightstown, Ind. Middlings 119 4411 Manufacturers _ 11.9 3.5 3.5 14.0 15.5 Witmer Grain Company, Grabill, Ind. W’heat Middlings 1679 4232 Manufacturers 9.5 4.0 4.1 14.0 15.1 W’heat Middlings __ 1679 4928 Manufacturers 9.1 4.0 4.9 14.0 16.7 Woodburn Elevator & Milling Company, W^oodburn, Ind. Wheat IVfiddlings 62 5480 4228 Manufacturers 9.7 3.0 2.7 14.0 13.6 W’oolard, C., Hagerstown, R. R. No. 20, Ind. Wheat Middlings 6746 4.331 Manufacturer 8.7 2.5 4.3 14.0 15.7 Wright, John H., Clinton, Ind. W’heat Middlings __ _ 7077 5224 Manufacturer 10.4 3.5 4.6 15.5 16.5 Yerxa, Andrews & Thurston* Inc., Minneapolis, Minn. Nokomus Durum W^heat Middlings 6955 3476 W^ G. Sweet, Royal Center 10.3 5.5 6.6 14.5 14.8 Yohn, W\ B., North W^ebster, Ind. Wheat Middlings 6837 3593 Manufacturer _ 10.8 3.5 3.9 13.5 15.0 Zehner, J. A., Plymouth, Ind. Wheat Middlings 6449 2793 Manufacturer _ _ 9.6 3.0 3.8 13.0 14.0 Wheat Middlings _ _ _ 6449 4872 Manufacturer 9.4 3.0 4.7 13.0 16.1 Zenith Milling Company, Kansas City, Mo. W’heat Shorts _ 7372 2957 Fred Holz, WJlliamsport 10.4 3.5 5.5 16.0 19.6 W’heat Shorts 7372 3474 Jordan & Baird, Ketvanna- 9.3 3.5 4.1 16.0 16.6 ttWheat Shorts 7372 4501 F. W^ Gilbert & Sons, Dana 8.4 3.5 5.7 16.0 18.1 Ziliak & Schafer Milling Company, Haubstadt, Ind. Middlings _ __ 4059 3085 Manufacturers 9.7 3.5 3.7 14.5 16.4 Middlings 4059 5049 Manufacturers 9.9 3.5 3.5 14.5 15.4 Zionsville Milling Company, Zionsville, Ind. W’heat Shorts 4298 1938 Manufacturers 10.5 3.0 4.3 14.0 17.7 W’heat Shorts __ 4298 4784 Manufacturers 10.3 3.0 4.1 14.0 16.3 t Before registration *^3 1700 lbs. removed from sale. Relabeled No. tt Not tagged. Labels furnished 6655 02 Low grade flour present 74 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) Number Crude Fat per cent. Crude Protein per cent. LABEL c .2 Sample secured from Official O . (UCi in P R o to y *S ^ kS OJ s ft Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found WHEAT MIDDLINGS, RED DOG FLOUR i i 1 Cadick Milling Company, Grandview, Ind. 136 1566 L. Schoenfeld, Rockport 9.3 4.0 4.8 14.0 18.3 136 3799 Manufacturers 8.4 4.0 4.4 1 14.0 1 16.1 WHITE MIDDLINGS j 1 Schaefer & Schwartzkopf, , Columbus, Ind. 2102 3459 Manufacturers 12.0 2.0 3.0 11.0 13.7 2102 4711 Manufacturers 10.9 2.0 3.2 11.0 14.1 Stott Flour Mills, David, Detroit, Mich. 2021 Kramer & Wolff, Lakeville 10.7 4.6 15.8 RED DOG FLOUR Baldwin, Jr., Dwight M., Minneapolis, Minn. 3205 3213 Paul E. Raasch, Crown Point.. 10.0 5.5 4.3 17.5 15.2 Bay State Milling Company, Winona, Minn. 7145 1819 McMahan Bros., Wheeler 10.0 4.5 4.1 15.0 15.4 Rpddnp" Flnnr _ 7145 3220 J. S. Crawford, Crown Point 10.3 4.5 4.8 i 15.0 16.6 Reddog Rlniir 65 7145 4764 J. S. Crawford, Crown Point 9.9 4.5 4.4' 15.0 16.2 Blish Milling Company, Seymour, Ind. "PlieVi’a *r>r\or 6403 2828 W. H. Newsome, Grammer 8.6 3.5 2.5 16.0 13.7 ‘Rlich’c "nncr 'Plnnr 6403 3712 Manufacturers 10.7 3.5 2.7 16.0 16.6 Chicago Heights Oil Mfg. Company, Chicago, 111. t“Prize” Red Dog Flour +t“Frize” Red Dog 'F'lnnr 7402 7402 1877 2275 Hamilton & Kellner, Rensselaer- North Judson Flour & Feed i 8.6 4.0 5.4 17.0 17.6 On., North .Tndson 9.4 4.0 5.1 17.0 17.6 Claro Milling Company, Waseca, Minn. T^ncr 7046 3824 J. C. Barrett, South Bend 10.8 3.0 4.9 15.0 16.1 Coppes Bros. & Zook, Nappanee, Ind. 6936 2598 Manufacturers 10.0 2.7 3.5 15.5 14.5 XvcUClU^ JjiUUI (^X>i cliiUCU. V Loughry Bros. Milling & Grain Company, Monticello, Ind. T?P(4 7731 2854 Thomas Jensen, W^heatfield 10.2 3.5 4.9 16.0 17.3 +T ./MTcrVirir’a T?Pf4 T)no* TPlmiP 7731 3599 Manufacturers 8.6 3.5 3.7 16.0 15.9 +T rMTcrhrir’c T?Pr4 "nno* T^lmir 7731 3600 Manufacturers 7.7 3.5 5.2 16.0 18.1 1 j o xvvd — ~ Mayflower Mills, Fort Wayne, Ind. + 1^0/1 T^nor 7444 2247 Girt L. Gnagy, Hamilton 10.6 2.0 3.0 10.0 14.3 Medora Mill Company, Medora, Ind. **Rprl Dne* l^lmir 2832 Manufacturers : 9.2 2.4 14.6 XVCUX ilCIUlA — — New Albany Milling Company, New Albany, Ind. Superb Red Dog Rlonr 6104 2521 Manufaptnrprs 9.4 5.0 6.3 18.0 19.1 Snpprb Rpd Drig Flour 6104 3625 Manufacturers 9.3 5.0 5.5 18.0 19.0 Snp^rl^ l^pr] "Plmir 6104 7097 3626 Mnnufapturers 10.2 5.0 3.0 18.0 15.5 Nichols & Company, C. E., Lowell, Ind. Rpd T^of^ Flnnr 1776 Mannfnpturprs . . 9.0 4.0 5.7 16.5 18.1 Valparaiso Grain & Elevator Company, Valparaiso, Ind. Red Dog Flour 1406 1852 Manufacturers 10.3 2.0 4.2 16.0 16.3 * Not tagged t Before registration '♦ Not registered tt Not tagged. Labels furnished 700 lbs. removed from sale. Relabeled No. 7144 75 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) LABEL Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude Fat per cent. Crude Protein per cent. '3 5e O .2 "IS 01 rj CD c 1 'O u O rt TJ 1 0 d O § 1 Washburn-Crosby Company, Minneapolis, Minn. Washburn-Crosby Co’s “Adrian” 735 1787 A. G. Nicholson, Merrillville 9.7 5.0 5.3 18.0 17.9 7017 4780 Wm. Steeb, Crown Point. 8.8 5.0 6.2 17.0 19.5 7233 2246 Girt L. Gnagy, Hamilton. 9.3 4.0 6.0 16.0 18.9 Red Dog Elour (Adrian) 7233 4351 Hawk Bros. Milling Co., Mongo. 9.1 4.0 4.8 16.0 16.9 LOW GRADE FLOUR Oakland City Roller Mills, Oakland City, Ind. 3859 Manufacturers 10.4 1.5 11.1 Pillsbury Flour Mills. Company, Minneapolis, Minn. Pillsbnry’.s XN Daisy 5489 1821 MeMahan Bros., Valparaiso 9.8 4.5 5.0 17.0 16.8 Pillsbury’s XX Daisy 5489 2301 J. R. Guild & Co., Medaryville. 9.8 4.5 4.5 17.0 16.9 f fPillshnry’.s XX Daisy 7137 4554 De T.oss Smith, TiaFayette 9.3 4.0 4.0 16.0 17.5 Sullivan Mill & Elevator Company, Sullivan, Ind. 5212 Isaac Bunch, T-intnn 11.2 1.6 12.9 WHEAT MIDDLINGS, SCREENINGS Acme-Evans Company, Indianapolis, Ind. Acme Middlings and Screenings 5590 1961 Thorntown Grain Co., Thorn- town 9.6 4.5 4.5 16.5 17.2 Acme Middlings and Screenings 5590 2882 Geo. W. Blair, Mishawaka 7.8 4.5 3 5 16.5 15.9 Acme Middlings and Screenings 5590 4427 Urmston Grain Co., Elwood 9.4 4.5 4.2 16.5 17.2 Baldwin, Jr., Dwight M., Minneapolis, Minn. Baldwin Flour Mills Wheat Flour Midds and Screenings 5694 3212 Paul E. Raasch, Crown Point... 10.2 5.0 5.6' 16.5 16.7 Ballard & Ballard Company, Louisville, Ky. Kentucky Farm Feed 5093 2464 George H. Denser, Charlestown. 7.9 4.2 4.2 15.6 13.6 Kentucky Farm Feed 5093 3669 Ballard & Ballard Co., Charles- town 9.8 4.2 3.8 15.6 14.6 Bartlett Company, The J. E., Jackson, Mich. Standard Wheat Middlings and . Screenings 6814 1886 Chas. A. Neff. New Paris 10.3 4.5 5.5 13.5 17.1 Standard Wheat Middlings and Screenings 6814 3289 Jacob Rupel. Brvant 10.0 4.5 6.2 13.5 15.8 Standard Wheat Middlings and Screenings 6814 3989 Judson Creamery & Produce Farmer Brand Flour Middlings with Co., North Judson 9.9 4.5 5.3 13.5 17.2 Screenings 7668 3281 Hubert French, Linn Grove 9.8 4.0 4.9 15.0 15.4 Farmer Brand Flour Middlings with Screenings 7668 3313 Geneva Milling & Grain Co., Farmer Brand Flour Middlings with Geneva 10.2 4.0 5.1 15.0 15.2 Screenings 7668 4320 T. I. Ferris. Pleasant Lake 9.3 4.0 4.7 15.0 17.1 Farmer Brand Flour Middlings with Screenings 7668 4652 Berne Grain & Hay Co., Berne. 9.7 4.0 4.4 15.0 16.1 Bay State Milling Company, Winona, Minn. “Winona” Wheat Middlings & Wheat Screenings 5604 1556 P. Backer & Son, Troy 10.6 5.0 5.9 17.0 16.6 “Winona” Wheat Middlings with Ground Screenings from Wheat _ . 7141 1818 McMahan Bros., Wheeler 10.3 5.0 4.9 15.0 15.9 “Winona” Wheat Middlings with Grovmd Screenings from Wheat 7141 3218 J. S. Crawford, Crown Point 10.0 5.0 5.3 15.0 15.9 “Winona” Wheat Middlings with Ground Screenings from Wheat 7141 4781 J. S. Crawford, Crown Point 8.8 5.0 5.0 15.0 17.4 ** Not registered tt Not tagged. Labels furnished Rebate. See page 41 76 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) LABEL Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude Fat -• per cent. Crude Protein percent. is '5 o .2 '43 o . (D 1 O a 'O a § O a T3 C 1 Bernet, Craft & Kauffman Milling Company, St. Louis, Mo. Wheat Middlings and Screenings 5791 1905 Zionsville Milling Co., Zionsville 9.4 4.9 4.4 17.2 17.6 Wheat Middlings and Screenings 5791 3583 .Tnhn Grnrrij Milan 9.9 4.9 3.4 17.2 17.1 “A” Wheat Middlings with Screenings. 5806 4457 N. W. Mattix & Co., Lebanon.. 9.8 3.0 3.7 15.0 17^4 Brose, George, Evansville, Ind. Wheat Middlings and Screenings 6854 3180 Mannfactnrcr 9.7 3.8 4.2 15.5 18.1 Wheat Middlings and Screenings 6854 5128 Manufacturer 9.8 3.8 4.3 15.5 15.8 Cannelton Elour Mills, Cannelton, Ind. Ship & Wheat Screenings 2.589 Manufacturers 11.1 4.0 4.8 14.0 17.7 Ship & Wheat Screenings 2589 Manufacturers 9.9 4.0 4.4 ll’.O 16i8 Castetter & Company, Clyde J., Goshen, Ind. fWheat Middlings & Screenings 7292 1586 Manufacturers 10.4 4.0 6.4 14.0 17.6 Wheat Middlings & Screenings 7292 3881 Manufacturers 10.4 4.0 6.1 14.0 16.6 Chicago Height Oil Mfg. Company, Chicago, 111. “Prize” Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings 6444 1730 Russell & Company, Portland.. 11.6 4.0 3.9 15.0 17.1 “Prize” Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings — 6444 1874 Hamilton & Kellner, Rensselaer. 10.2 4.0 4.4 15.0 17.2 “Prize” Standard Middlings and Screenings _ 7006 1663 Hartman & Dotterer, Bluffton. 9.1 4.0 5.6 15.0 17.3 “Prize” Standard Middlings and Screenings 7006 2541 Beach Suminers, Alhanv 10.7 4.0 4.8 15.0 18.4 “Prize” Standard Middlings and Screenings 7006 2813 Batchelor & Batchelor, Sharps- “Prize” Standard Middlings and ville . .. 8.8 4.0 4.8 15.0 18.5 Screenings 7006 4437 Windfall Grain Co., Windfall... 8.9 4.0 5.4 15.0 16.4 Claro Milling Company, Waseca, Minn. , Claro Wheat Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings 6616 2400 Rnlicrt Pnrtcr Piccrn 10.3 3.0 6.4 14.0 16.5 Claro Wheat Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings _ 6616 3823 .1. Barrett, South Bend 11.0 3.0 6.7 14.0 17.8 Columbia City Mill & Elevator Company, Columbia City, Ind. Wheat Middlings & Ground Screenings 6990 1.530 Manufacturers 11.5 2.8 4.1 13.0 15.0 Wheat Middlings & Ground Screenings 6990 3938 Manufacturers 10.3 2.8 3.4 13.0 14.3 Coppes Bros. & Zook, Nappanee, Ind. Wheat Middlings and Ground Wheat Screenings __ . 5627 1895 Berry Bros., Lynn .. .. 9.4 4.2 4.7 17.0 16.0 Wheat Middlings and Ground Wheat Screenings 5627 2600 Manufacturers 9.4 4.2 4.6 17.0 15.8 Middlings and Ground Wheat Screen- ings _ __ _ 7561 3921 Miller & Walker, Plora 9.8 4.0 5.0 15.8 15.9 Middlings and Ground W’heat Screen- ings __ __ __ __ 7561 4235 Manufacturers . 9.5 4.0 4.1 15.8 15.8 Middlings and Ground Wheat Screen- ings 7561 4909 Garrett Elevator Co., Garrett... 9.9 4.0 4.4 15.8 15.8 Crocker, Win. G., Minneapolis, Minn. Wheat Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run 5469 2380 Jay Grain Co., Elwood 10.5 5.0 5.7 15.0 16.1 Wheat Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run 5469 3457 .1. R. Starr, Winamac 10.3 5.0 5.4 15.0 15.9 Decatur Roller Mills, Decatur, Ind. Wheat Middlings & Screenings 5426 2097 Manufacturers 12.1 3.0 3.2 13.0 13.2 t Before registration \ 77 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) LABEL Dickinson Company, The Albert, Chicago, 111. Flour Middlings with Ground Wheat Screenings not to exceed Mill Run... Flour Middlings with Ground Wheat Screenings not to exceed Mill Run___ Flour Middlings with Ground Wheat Screenings not to exceed Mill Run Eagle Roller Mill Company, New Ulm, Minn. Wheat Middlings with Ground Screen- ings not exceeding Mill Run Eckhart Milling Company, B. A., Chicago, 111. Middlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run Middlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run Edinger & Company, Louisville, Ky. Wheat Middlings and Wheat Screen- ings — Wheat Middlings and Wheat Screen- ings — Empire Milling Company, Minneapolis, Minn. Empire Milling Company Wheat Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run Etna Lumber & Milling Company, Etna Green, Ind. Etna Middlings & Screenings Everett, Aughenbaugh & Company, Waseca, Minn. E-A-CO Wheat Middlings and Ground Screenings E-A-CO Wheat Middlings and Ground Screenings Fyke Milling Company, LaGrange, Ind. Wheat Middlings & Screenings Wheat Middlings & Screenings Garland Milling Company, Greensburg, Ind. Garland Middlings & Screenings Garland Middlings & Sereenings Goshen Milling Company, Goshen, Ind. Wheat Middlings & Ground Wheat Screenings Home Mill & Grain Company, Mt. Vernon, Ind. Wheat Middlings & Sereenings Wheat Middlings & Screenings Hunter & Company, O. L., Chicago, 111. Calumet Middlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run... Calumet Middlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run... Indiana Milling Company, Terre Haute, Ind. Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run... Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude Fat per cent. Crude Protein percent. Official Inspection D. Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed § 6944 2853 John Dolezal & Co., San Pierre. 10.9 4.5 5.0 15.5 16.1 6944 3043 Wm. Harbeck, Valparaiso 10.0 4.5 5.3 15.5 16.1 6944 47.58 Wm. Harbeck, Valparaiso 10.5 4.5 4.9 15.5 16.0 6687 2621 Urschel Bros., Tippecanoe 10.1 4.5 4.4 15.4 16.1 5400 2200 0. Gandy & Co., Denver 8.8 4.0 4.2 14.0 16.0 5400 3107 Flack Bros., E. Chicago 10.2 4.0 4.4 14.0 16.0 7206 3703 James M. Lee & Co., i New Albany . .. . 10.1 4.5 4.2 15.5 16.9 7206 4553 Salem Cooperative Association, Salem 8.5 4.5 5.5 15.5 16.5 7394 3994 North Judson Flour & Feed Co., North Judson 10.1 4.0 5.6 15.0 16.3 6660 2803 Manufacturers 9.2 4.0 4.6 1 16.0 15.7 5440 2619 0. Gandy & Co., Mentone 10.3 3.0 6.0 15.0 17.4 5440 3328 Omer G. Whelan, Richmond. ... 10.0 3.0 6.4 15.0 17.2 6422 2505 Manufacturers ... 9.8 3.5 3.8 13.5 14.4 6422 4354 Manufacturers 9.3 3.5 3.5 13.5 14.1 7281 3183 Manufacturers 11.1 4.3 4.3 16.5 16.5 7281 4720 John t'rum, Milan ._ .. 9.2 4.3 4.6 16.5 17.0 6610 1581 Manufacturers 11.1 4.1 3.6 14.5 14.3 7686 5066 Manufacturers ... 9.0 4.0 5.1 16.0 17.6 7686 5075 Manufacturers . .. 8.8 4.0 4.2 16.0 16.5 6131 3719 Iroquois Roller Mills, Rensselaer 11.0 4.0 5.1 14.5 14.3 6131 4061 Goodrich Bros. Hay & Grain Co., Winchester 9.9 4.0 4.5 14.5 14.0 6787 3297 Manufacturers 9.7 4.0 5.5 14.5 15.1 78 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (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 Kansas Flour Mills Company, The, ! ! Wichita, Kans. Standard Shorts and Wheat Screen- ings 67 5079 3184 Krnme Son, Batp.sville . 10.3 5.8 4.1 17.0 17.6 standard Shorts and Wheat Screen- 5079 3345 .1 H. MpnlrPj RiphTnnnd 9.4 5.8 4.8 17.0 17.8 White Shorts & Wheat Screenings ®®_- 5080 2133 John H. Kuhn & Son, Michigan City 9.7 5.8 4.4 17.0 19.1 Kehlor Flour Mills Company, 1 St. Louis, Mo. 1 Rex Middlings and Ground Screenings. 6682 1674 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., ! South Raub 9.4 4.0 4.0 16.0 17.6 Rex Middlings and Ground Screenings. 6682 1741 J. H. Leonard, Sullivan 12.1 4.0 4.0 16.0 17.7 Rex Middlings and Ground Screenings. 6682 3650 Eberts Grain Co., Nabb 9.6 4.0 4.1 1 16.0 17.0 Rex Middlings and Ground Screenings. 6682 3683 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., Crawfordsville 10.9 4.0 4.1 16.0 ' 17.3 Rex Middlings and Ground Screenings. 6682 4513 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., LaFayette 9.4 4.0 4.3 16.0 16.4 Kemper Mill & Elevator Coyipany, i Kansas City, Mo. ! Crescent Middlings with Ground 6028 2954 Jones Bros., Attica 10.6 4.2 5.1 16.0 19.1 i ttCarnation Gray Middlings and Screenings not exceeding Mill Run... 7325 3977 Ola Chambers, Jasonville 9.6 4.3 4.6 16.0 1 17.9 ttCarnation Gray Middlings and 1 Screenings not exceeding Mill Run... 7325 4870 Tull’s Department Store, Monon 7.6 4.3 4.9 16.0 17.5 Ligonier Milling Company, Ligonier, Ind. 1 Wheat Middlings and Screenings 6421 2242 G. Wolf & Sons Co., Hamilton. 11.8 4.0 4.0 14.0 14.7 Wheat Middlings and Screenings 6421 3846 North Side Feed Store, Lindsborg Milling & Elevator Co., The, Mishawaka 10.7 4.0 4.0 14.0 14.8 Lindsborg, Kans. Wheat Shorts & Screenings 6074 2255 F. A, Finch & Co., Hillsboro 9.3 3.5 5.1 16.0 19.0 Loughry Bros. Milling & Grain Company, Monticello, Ind. Loughry’s Wheat Middlings and Screenings 6170 2420 Union Elevator Co., Louisville Milling Company, New Richmond 8.4 4.0 5.2 14.0 16.8 Louisville, Ky. Wheat Shorts with Ground Screenings Tint pvpppding Mill Run 69 6176 2463 m A PnRSj Spllprshnrg 9.4 4.0 4.4 15.0 16.7 Wheat Shorts with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run 6176 2490 M. A, Conroy, Jeffersonville 9.2 4.0 4.2 15.0 15.2 ttWheat Shorts with Ground Screenings Tint pypppdinp- Mill Run 6176 2880 rirnig^ Rrns , T.pnvpnwnrth 11.0 4.0 5.5 15.0 15.6 Wheat Shorts with Ground Screenings Tint p-vpppding Mill Rnn 6176 4679 M. A. Conroy, Jeffersonville 9.1 4.0 4.1 15.0 15.3 Lyon & Greenleaf Company, Ligonier, Ind. Wheat Middlings and Screenings 8003 4938 T. I. Ferris, Pleasant Lake 9.0 4.0 4.5 14.0 15.9 Mallinson, Charles L., Evansville, Ind. Wheat Shorts & Ground Screenings Tint PYpppiiing Mill Rnn 7364 3232 Manufacturer 9.8 4.0 4.3 14.0 17.8 Marshall Milling Company, Marshall, Minn. ItShorts and Screenings not exceeding Mill Run 6396 4736 Amo Mill & Elevator Co., Uargpr.Rville 9.7 5.0 5.0 17.0 16.8 Miller Flour & Feed Company, The Wesley, South Bend, Ind. Wheat Middlings & Screenings 6483 1920 W. E. Rouch, Mishawaka 12.2 4.0 4.6 14.0 17.4 Wheat Middlings & Screenings. 6483 3812 Manufacturers 9.7 4.0 4.2 14.0 18.0 tt Not tagged. Labels furnished % ton removed from sale. Labels No. 6176 Removed from sale furnished tons removed from sale because of mutil- ated labels. Relabeled No. 7476 79 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) Number Crude Fat per cent. Crude Protein per cent. LABEL .2 Sample secured from Official u • on cn Pi rj PJ R 0) ffl y ’S !-i VH y g ft Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis, Ind. ttMcOoys Choice Wheat Middlings with Screenings not exceeding Mill Run___ 5514 2025 Albert Rose, Sharpsville 10.6 3.0 4.2 16.0 17.4 McCoys Choice Wheat Middlings with Screenings not exceeding Mill Run___ 5514 2710 Manufacturers 9.5 3.0 4.2 16.0 18.0 National Feed Company, St. Louis, Mo. Wheat Middlings & Ground Screenings 7349 3505 C. G. Hunger, Madison 10.4 4.0 5.0 16.0 17.8 Wheat Middlings & Ground Screenings 7349 3660 M. A. Conroy, Jeffersonville 10.1 4.0 4.7 16.0 17.7 National Mills, Angola, Ind. Wheat. Middlings with Sereenings 7623 4953 Ma.nnfflPtnrers 9.1 3.0 4.1 13.0 15.0 16.5 Nichols & Company, C. E., Lowell, Ind. Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run___ 7095 1774 Manufacturers 8.8 4.5 6.0 15.0 Noblesville Milling Company, Noblesville, Ind. Noblesville Milling Co.’s Middlings & Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run 7306 3529 J. F. Crowder, Macy 10.3 4.0 5.5 15.0 16.4 North Madison Coal Company, North Madison, Ind. +tMiddlings Sereenings 7617 5498 2901 Mannfapf.nrprs 10.2 4.0 5.4 15.0 15.4 Northwestern Consolidated Milling Company, The, Minneapolis, Minn. Wheat Flour Middlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run_._ 2280 J. C. Phillips, Star City 9.9 4.5 5.8 15.5 16.1 Wheat Flour Middlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run___ 5498 5323 J. C. Phillips, Star City 9.5 4.5 5.1 15.5 16.7 Wheat Standard Middlings with Ground Sereenings not exceeding 6394 3062 Bieker Bros. Co., Hammond 9.5 4.5 5.4 15.0 15.2 Mill Run Phoenix Flour Mill, Evansville, Ind. Wheat Middlings and Ground Screen- ings 6856 3238 Mannfar.tnrer.s 9.3 4.0 4.2 15.5 16.3 Pillsbury Flour Mills Company, Minneapolis, Minn. Pillsbury’s Wheat Standard “B” Mid- dlings with Ground Screenings not exeepding Mill Run 7134 2278 Miller & Dilts, Winamac 9.2 4.0 5.9 14.0 15.8 Pillsbury’s Wheat Standard “B” Mid- dlings with Ground Screenings not pxpppdine- Mill Rnn 7134 7134 2371 4566 A R. Rmplpr, Rlwnnd 10.0 4.0 5.8 14.0 15.8 15.6 Pillsbury’s Wheat Standard “B” Mid- dlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run Peoples Store, New Amsterdam. 8.8 4.0 5.3 14.0 Plant Milling Company, Geo. P., St. Louis, Mo. Wheat Middlings with Screenings V not pxpeeding Mill Rnn _ 5558 2032 G. 0. Jean, Bloomfield 11.7 4.0 5.1 17.0 18.6 ^ Wheat Middlings with Screenings not exceeding Mill Run 5558 3315 Creitz & Deardorff, Centerville. 10.1 4.0 4.8 17.0 18.0 Plotnieki & Company, Louis P., South Bend, Ind. Middlings Snrppnings 6893 2015 Manufacturers 8.7 3.0 5.6 13.0 16.0 Poseyville Milling Company, The, Poseyville, Ind. Whpat, .miorts Xr. Sprppnings 7676 3855 Manufacturers 10.0 4.0 4.8 14.0 17.3 Wheat Shorts & Screenings 7676 5063 Manufacturers 9.7 4.0 4.9 14.0 16.3 t'!' Not tagged. Labels furnished 8o TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) Number LABEL Prairie State Milling Company, Chicago, 111. Wheat Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run TO Roper & Brown, Hobart, Ind. ttWheat Middlings with Screenings. Riioff, Geo. D., Osgood, Ind. Wheat Shorts and Crushed Wheat Screenings Schilt, W. P., Bremen, Ind. Wheat Shorts & Screenings Wheat Shorts & Screenings Wheat Shorts & Screenings Schultz, Baujan & Company, Beardstown, 111. Sunbeam Middlings and Screenings.. Sheffield-King Milling Company, Minneapolis, Minn. “Pairybow” ti “Pairybow” “Pairybow” Sleepy Eye Plour Mills Company, Minneapolis, Minn. Sleepy Eye Wheat Middlings with not to exceed Mill Run of Ground Screenings Star & Crescent Milling Company, Chicago, 111. Star Middlings with Ground Screen- ings not exceeding Mill Run Star Middlings with Ground Screen- ings not exceeding Mill Run Suckow Company, Pranklin, Ind. Middlings & Screenings Middlings & Screenings Trow (’ornpany, W., Madison, Ind. Trow’s Middlings & Screenings Valentine 5 0) OQ O *s ^ Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed 1 Found Orleans Mill & Elevator Company, The, Orleans, Ind. 7451 2649 Manufacturers 11.5 5.0 1 5.9 1 9.0 ^ 10.2 Shields & Company, A. D., Seymour, Ind. 5231 3716 Chas. Vogel, Seymour 11.8 2.5 1 4.4 7.5 8.5 OAT 3IIDDLINGS Dixon Cereal & Feed Company, Dixon, 111. 3207 C. J. Loyd & Co., Greensburg__ 7.7 7.9 16.5 Quaker Oats Company, The, Chicago, 111. **Rock River Fine Oatmeal 4241 Krause & Applebaum, Bremen.. 9.2 4.6 H.7 OATS, BARLEY, WHEAT Mortorff, M. J., Metz, Ind. 4310 Manufacturer 9.4 2.7 12.5 OATS, CORN MEAL, SCREENINGS Worthington Grain Company, Worthington, Ind. <~lhnp Ti'ppr) 3967 3932 Manufacturers 10.0 3.5 3.3 10.0 10.1 OATS, CORN FEED MEAL, CORN BRAN, MHEAT AND CORN SCREENINGS Loughry Bros. Milling & Grain Company, Monticello, Ind. I.miyhry’s Mivpii Chop Feed 5935 3373 J. F. Biehl & Son, Brazil 10.6 3.0 3.5 8.5 11.0 Loughry’s Mixed Chop Feed 5935 3577 T. C. Martin, LaFayette 11.4 3.0 3.2 8.5 10.8 T nnghry’s Mivpd Chop Feed 5935 5319 T. C. Martin, LaFayette 9.2 3.0 3.5 8.5 11.9 OATS, CORN FEED MEAL Kuhn & Company, J. H., Michigan City, Ind. “A” Chop Feed 3840 3752 J. H. Kuhn & Son, Michigan City 11.6 3.4 3.9 9.0 9.7 OATS, CORN BRAN Greenfield Milling Company, Greenfield, Ind. Chop Fppd 5141 2742 Manufacturers . 10.6 2.0 6.0 6.0 11.2 .VLFALFA MEAL Dickinson Company, The Albert, Chicago, 111. Alfalfa Meal 2816 2162 A. C. Heitschmidt, Michigan City 8.6 1.0 1.5 12.0 13.3 Alfalfa Meal — 2816 4796 A. C. Heitschmidt, Michigan City 7.9 1.0 1.6 12.0 15.0 Kornfalfa Feed Milling Company, Kansas City, Mo. Pioneer Alfalfa Meal 3727 4818 Indiana Seed Co., Indianapolis.. 8.2 1.5 1.5 12.0 15.1 Krause Milling Company, Chas. A., Milwaukee, Wis. Alfalfa Meal 7330 4254 Stiefel & Lew, Avilla 8.0 1.0 1 14.0 15.0 Ralston Purina Company, St. Louis, Mo. Purina Alfalfa Meal °° 955 2212 A. L. Wheeler, Mooresville 9.4 2.0 2.5 16.0 14.3 Not registered y** 1700 lbs. removed from sale. Relabeled No. 7352 TABLE IV — Report of inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) LABEL Wash-Co. Alfalfa Mixed Feed & Milling Company, Port Calhoun, Neb. Wash-Co. Alfalfa Meal ttWash-Co. Alfalfa Meal BONE Joslin-Schmidt Company, The, Cincinnati, Ohio. “Abattoir Brand” Poultry Bone Swift & Company, Chicago, 111. ttSwift’s Poultry Bone Swift’s Poultry Bone BLOOD MEAL Armour Fertilizer Works, The, Chicago, 111. Blood Meal Major Bros. Packing Company, Mishawaka, Ind. Blood Meal MEAT SCRAPS AND MEAT MEAL American Agricultural Chemical Com- pany, The, New York, N. Y. ttGround Meat Scraps ttGround Meat Scraps Armour Fertilizer Works, Chicago, 111. Armour’s Meat Meal Armour’s Meat Meal Armour’s Meat Meal Armour’s Meat Meal Armour’s Meat Meal Armour’s Meat Meal Armour’s Meat Meal Chicago Feed & Fertilizer Company, Chicago, 111. Magic Brand Meat Scraps Darling & Company, Chicago, 111. Darling’s Meat Scraps ttDarling’s Meat Scraps Darling’s Meat Scraps Darling’s Meat Scraps Darling’s Meat Scraps Darling’s Meat Scraps Darling’s Meat Scraps Darling’s Meat Scraps Darling’s Meat Scraps Darling’s Standard Meat Scrap Darling’s Standard Meat Scrap Darling’s Meat Crisps Joslin-Schmidt Company, Cincinnati, Ohio. “Abattoir Brand” Meat Scraps “Abattoir Brand” Meat Scraps *“Abattoir Brand” Meat Scraps “Abattoir Brand” Meat Scraps Number Sample secured from Moisture 1 percent. Crude Fat per cent. Crude Protein per cent. Official Inspection D. Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found 5477 2498 J. P. Struck, Wolcottville 9.0 0.5 1.6 12.0 15.4 5477 2662 C. C. Kasch, Logansport 8.3 0.5 1.5 12.0 13.7 6792 2514 H. L. Graf, New Albany 6.2 2.0 1.0 25.0 28.2 62 1.542 Little Crow Milling Co., Warsaw 7.3 0.0 2.4 25.0 26.0 62 4613 Indiana Seed Co., Indianapolis.. 5.8 0.0 2.4 25.0 26.1 906' 4043 National Military Home, Marion 9.4 0.0 0.4 80.0 84.7 1971 1917 Manufacturers 39.7 1.0 0.7 55.0 55.2 8106 5253 Elnora Elevator Co., Elnora 6.3 10.0 9.9 45.0 49.6 8106 5265 Odon Milling Co., Odon 6.4 10.0 10.2 45.0 50.2 6263 2243 G, Wolf & Sons Co., Hamilton.. 7.3 6.0 10.7 60.0 66.3 6263 2307 T. S. Mttgen, Louisville . .. . 6.1 6.0 9.8 60.0 69.5 6263 2867 Louisville Elevator Co., Louisville . ... 7.5 6.0 9.7 60.0 68.4 6263 2934 C. H. Billman & Sons, Shelbyville 7.5 6.0 8.1 60.0 59.0 6263 3564 Geo. D. Rouff, Osgood 8.6 6.0 9.5 60.0 68.5 6263 4571 J. Gienger & Co., Jeffersonville. 3.8 6.0 10.9 60.0 66.5 6263 4967 0. L. Cauble, Pekin 7.9 6.0 9.1 60.0 65.5 6284 19401 J. C. Barrett, South Bend 5.1 6.0 12.5 55.0 54.6 4503 1810 McMahan Bros., Valparaiso 6.2 5.0 7.9 55.0 56.6 4503 2064 C. B. Way, Laporte _ . 6.6 5.0' 8.1 55.0' 54.0 4503 2512 L. Thorne & Sons, New Albany. 7.5 5.0 7.8 55.0 56.4 4503 3092 Edw. F. Goeke Co., Evansville.. 7.0 5.0 10.0 55.0 56.4 4503 3208 C. J. Loyd & Co., Greensburg.. 6.8 5.0 8.2 55.0 59.1 4503 4649 L. Thorn & Sons, New Albany.. 6.8 5.0 9.4 55.0 64.2 4503 4753 McMahan Bros., Valparaiso 5.7 5.0 11.3 55.0 61.0 4503 4947 Sheldon & Wilier, Orland 5.7 5.0 12.2 55.0 60.0 4503 5117 Ohio Valley Seed Co., Evansville 6.2 5.0 8.7 55.0 59.0 5072 2485 John Gienger & Co., Jeffersonville 8.8 0.5 5.6 45.0 52.7 5072 3094 Edw. F. Goeke Co., Evansville.. 8.5 0.5 4.8 45.0 47.7 5436 5104 Ohio Valley Seed Co., Evansville 7.3 0.5 6.6 75.0 80.3 6791 2513 H. L. Graf, New Albany.. 6.1 10.0 18.8 55.0 57.4 6791 2547 H. E. St. John, Albany 5.8 10.0 22.7 55.0 57.2 4155 Pennville Milling Co., Pennville. 7.9 14.0 61.9 6791 4893 W. W. Pearson, Upland 6.3 lo'.o 11.8 5~5".0 61.8 * Not tagged tt Not tagged. Labels furnished 100 1.6 tons returned to mfrs. ii8 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) LABEL Number Sample secured from V Moisture per cent. Crude Fat per cent. Crude Protein per cent. Official Inspection D. Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found Morris & Company, Chicago, 111. Big Brand Meat Scraps 6905 2072 B. I. Holser & Co., Walkerton_. 7.2 7.0 8.3 55.0 57.2 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis, Ind. McCoys Fancy Beef Scraps __ 5312 2327 Manufacturers 6.4 6.0 11.5 50.0 51.0 McCoys Fancy Beef Scraps ___ . _ 5312 2839 Manufacturers 6.4 6.0 10.1 50.0 60.0 McCoys Fancy Beef Scraps _ 5312 4968 O. Ti. Caiible, Pekin 6.3 6.0 10.0 5o!o 53.5 Ranh & Sons, E., Indianapolis, Ind. Ranh’s Meat Meal loi 6076 1893 Goodrich Bros. Hay & Grain Co,. Winchester 5.5 14.3 80.0 78.2 Ranh’s Meat Scraps for Poultry 6077 1603 Abe Bossert, Brookville 6.4 12.4 50.0 57.3 Ranh’s Meat Scraps for Poultry 6077 1891 Goodrich Bros. Hay & Grain Co., Winchester 5.9 12.8 50.0 49.4 Ranh & Sons Animal Feed Company, E., Indianapolis, Ind. Ranh’s Meat Scraps for Poultry 7246 2729 The Indiana Elevator Co., * Indianapolis 6.4 0.0 13.7 50.0 50.1 Ranh’s Meat Scraps for Poultry 7246 3325 Oiner G. Whelan, Richmond 6.4 0.0 12.1 50.0 48.5 Ranh’s Meat Scraps for Poultry i0“__. 7246 4614 Indiana Seed Co., Indianapolis.. 5.7 0.0 6.8 53.0 43.4 Swift & Company, Chicago, 111. Swift’s Special Meat Scraps 4697 2128 Studabaker Grain & Seed Co., Bluffton 5.3 8.0 10.0 50.0 50.8 *Swift’s Meat Scraps . 3083 McCarty Hardware Co., Fort Branch .. 7.6 10.4 48.8 Swift’s Special Meat Scraps 4697 3203 C. J. Loyd & Co., Greensburg.. 6.4 s’.o 10.6 50.0 53.9 Swift’s Special Meat Scraps 4697 3953 ,lohn Dunn, Wolcott 7.3 8.0 12.0 50.0 53.2 Swift’s Special Meat Scraps 4697 4133 The Haynes Milling Co., Portland 5.5 8.0 10.4 50.0 55.9 Swift’s Special Meat Scraps 4697 4240 Nappanee Produce Co., Nappanee 6.0 8.0 10.9 53.0 50.0 Swift’s Special Meat Scraps 4697 4590 Purdue Poultry Farm, W. Lafayette 4.6 8.0 13.7 50.0 50.0 Swift’s Meat Meal 5687 4261 E. P. Welborn, Cynthiana 7.4 6.0 10.3 46.0 52.4 Wnichet Fertilizer Company, The, Dayton, Ohio. Gronnd Beef Scraps 3958 3566 J. W. Miles, Butlerville 9.8 10.0 13.2 50.0 68.6 TANKAGE Adams & Clevenger Fertilizer Company, Lynn, Ind. Onr Choice Feeding Tankage 7093 1894 Berry Bros., Lynn 14.9 15.0 17.6 45.0 48.0 Onr Choice Feeding Tankage 7093 4598 Berry Hros., Lynn 17.4 15.0 8.1 45.0 59.8 Albany Tanking Company, The, Albany, Ind. Feeding Tankage 7382^ 2059 Manufacturers 17.8 5.0 26.9 40.0 53.3 Feeding Tankage 7382 2542 Beach & Summers, Albany 7.4 5.0 17.9 40.0 53.6 Angola Reduction Company, Angola, Ind. Tankage 5358 2555 Wolfe & Bevington, Shipshewana 6.3 8.0 10.9 40.0 49.6 Tankage 5358 2961 E. E. Swiger, Orland 5.8 8.0 9.8 40.0 52.8 Tankage __ 5358 4314 L. A. Hendry & Co., Angola 6.3 8.0 12.1 40.0 52.1 Tankage _ __ 5358 4951 Clare Hanselman, Angola 6.1 8.0 11.4 40.0 52.9 Ballard Packing Company, Marion, Ind. Feeding Tankage _ __ 5682 2381 Manufacturers 6.5 8.0 7.9 36.0 33.9 Blue River Reduction Company, Edinburg, Ind. Feeding Tankage 7488 4584 Manufacturers 5.5 16.0 22.8 40.0 47.1 * Not tagged 101 IGOO lbs. removed from sale 102 4 tons removed from sale and returned to mfrs. TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) LABEL Cavanaugh Packing Company, Muncie, Ind. tPeeding Tankage Feeding Tankage Chicago Feed & Fertilizer Company, Chicago, 111. Magic Brand Tankage Magic Brand Tankage Magic Brand Tankage Magic Brand Tankage Magic Brand Tankage Magic Brand Tankage Magic Brand Tankage Magic Brand Tankage 1°^ Magic Brand Tankage 104 ttMagic Brand Tankage Magic Brand Tankage Cincinnati Animal Food Company, Cincinnati, Ohio. “Porkopolis” Brand Digester Tankaj “Porkopolis” Brand Digester Tank- age “Porkopolis” Brand Digester Tanka; “Porkopolis” Brand Digeste tt“Porkopolis” Brand Digeste “Porkopolis” Brand Digeste Connelly, Clare, Judson, Ind. Tankage Darling & Company, Chicago, 111. Darling’s 60% Digester Tankage- Darling’s 60% Digester Tankage- Darling’s 60% Digester Tankage- Darling’s 60% Digester Tankage- Darling’s 60% Digester Tankage. Decatur Fertilizer Company, Decatur, R. R. No. 1, Ind. tTankage Delphi Fertilizer Company, The, Delphi, Ind. tFeeding Tankage Dewey Bros. Company, The, Blanchester, Ohio. ttDewey’s Digester Tankage LaFayette, Ind. Feeding Tankage Eckart Packing Company, Fred, Fort Wayne, Ind. Eckart’s Feeding Tankage Eckart’s Feeding Tankage Eckart’s Feeding Tankage Number is 'C 1 to 0 7734 3598 ; 7734 4120 ; 6368 1513 : 6368 2342 ' 6368 2531 6368 2865 6368 3693 6368 3986 ^ 6368 4103 6368 4426 , 6368 4433 6368 4740 . 6368 5178 > 6728 1697 . 6728 2827 ) 6728 2927 6728 3340 ?! 6728 3954 } 6728 4472 i 6728 4577 ? 6728 5180 - 6364 3675 . 4734 1547 - 4734 3093 - 4734 3455 . 4734 4545 - 4734 4695 - 4734 5077 . 7438 2095 . 8052 4896 - 7152 2221 . 7322 2933 . 6055 2236 - 6055 2237 - 6055 3957 Sample secured from Manufacturers Harting «fe Co., Elwood The J. M. Dunlap Grain Co., Franklin Louis Hartman & Sons, New Albany Hamilton & Kellner, Rensselaer. Scottsburg Elevator, Scottsburg Judson Creamery & Produce Co., North Judson E. F. Johnson, Paoli Harting & Co., Elwood Windfall Grain Co., Windfall — J. M. Dunlap Grain Co., Franklin Windfall Grain Co., WindfalL- Jas. H. Harper, Sharpsville- John Taylor, Columbus M. M. Walker, Alexandria Davis & Phillips, Oaktown John Dunn, Wolcott E. T. Harper, Sharpsville Manufacturer Little Crow Milling Co., Warsa' Edw. F. Goeke Co., Evansville- J. C. Phillips, Star City H. E. Pitman, Bedford Reed & Co., Argos Edw. F. Goeke Co., Evansville. Manufacturers Manufacturers Rees J. Morgan, Mexico. Manufacturers Geo. F. Nickelson, Fort Wayne- Geo. F. Fogwell, Fort Wayne.. Moisture per cent. Crude Fat per cent. Crude Protein per cent. Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed 1 Found 5,8 6.0 15.8 30.0 34.2 4.0 6.0 17.4 30.0 30.7 6.9 5.0 5.2 60.0 60.5 7.9 5.0 9.3 60.0 59.4 7.3 5.0 8.0 60.0 59.6 6.9 5.0 7.4 60.0 59.3 7.9 5.0 9.0 60.0 59.3 11.9 5.0 4.6 60.0 64.2 10.6 5.0 6.3 60.0 61.3 13.3 5.0 5.8 60.0 57.6 12.8 5.0 5.9 60.0 57.4 9.7 5.0 4.8 60.0 62.6 12.7 5.0 3.1 60.0 59.7 6.4 8.0 12.8 60.0 60.0 , 4.2 8.0 8.2 60.0 55.3 5.1 8.0 13.6 60.0 60.4 5.4 8.0 13.0 60.0 59.3 , 6.4 8.0 11.1 60.0 59.1 1 6.8 8.0 9.4 60.0 62.9 . 7.7 8.0 8.7 60.0 61.2 7.6 8.0 8.2 60.0 62.1 13.4 6.0 22.2 38.0 52.3 r 11.6 o..^ 5.5 60.0 63.0 - 10.3 0.5 4.9 60.0 62.8 . 13.3 0.5 6.6 60.0 61.4 6.7 0.5 7.2 60.0 60.4 9.2 0.5 5.7 60.0 64.8 . 9.2 0.5 3.1 60.0 60.6 20.0 7.0 15.0 35.0 43.3 4.7 12.0 17.8 35.0 45.5 3.9 8.0 14.5 60.0 62.3 _ 19.2 10.0 11.6 30.0 26 8 - 18.8 9.0 10.9 28.0 36.9 - 22.9 9.0 9.2 28.0 38.6 5.9 9.0 14.1 28.0 33.5 t Before registration tt Not tagged. Labels furnished 7 ^ tong removed from sale. Relabeled No. 7974. Rebate. See page 41 1''^ 6 tons removed from sale. Relabeled No. 7974. Rebate. See page 41 Rebate. See page 41 120 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) LABEL Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude Fat per cent. Crude Protein per cent. .*2 ‘0 0 1 .M 0 . s -1 0 rt TJ a 1 0 rt n3 c 1 Elkhart Fertilizer Company, Elkhart, Ind. Feeding Tankage 6504 1606 Manufacturers 4.6 8.0 14.1 44.0 60.3 Einge & Sons, Peter, Fort Branch, Ind. fFpeding Tankage 7749 2909 Manufacturers 8.3 10.0 16.4 25.0 27.0 Evansville Packing Company, The, Evansville, Ind. Stock Feeding Tankage 6855 3100 Edvv. F. Goeke Co., Evansville.. 4.0 10.0 19.9. 40.0 39.6 tt60% Stock Feeding Tankage 7403 2908 McCarty Hardware Co., Fort Branch 7.5 15.0 10.4 60.0 59.2 60% Stock Feeding Tankage 7403 3247 Clint Stroud, Mt. Vernon 7 2 15.0 10 5 60.0 57.3 60% Stock Feeding Tankage loe 7403 5080 The Heldt Co., Evansville 5^3 15.’o 12^0 6o!o 58J Farmers Fertilizer Company, The, Columbus, Ohio. Farmers Digester Tankage 635S 2923 J. W. Dalrymple, Rising Sun 7.9 6.0 5.9 60.0 57.2 Farmers Tanking & Fertilizer Company, Muncie, Ind. fWhitn River Feeding Tankage 7860 4119 Manufacturers 5.7 10.0 17.6 45.0 51.8 White. River Feeding h'ankage 7860' 5339 Manufacturers . 9^8 io!o 15!6 45.0 5o!5 Hancock Fertilizer Company, The, Greenfield, Ind. fFeeding Tankage 7659 2970 Manufacturers 1 2.7 6.0 13.7 40.0 ■10.8 Feeding d'ankage 7659 5296 Manufacturers .. 8.7 6.0 13^8 40.0 43.6 Feeding d’ankage 7659 5326 Ti. R. Fro.st, Greenfield 1L8 6.0 10.1 40.0 51.9 Heppe & Sons Company, Wm., Logansport, Ind. ffFeeding d’ankage 7590 2362 Isaac Breeding, Edinburg 6.7 7.0 10.7 45.0 50.0 Holzapfel, Henry, Richmond, Ind. Feeding Tankage __ 3551 2889 Maher & Davenport, Richmond. 9.9 15.8 28.0 26.9 Feeding Tankage __ 3551 3353 Maher & Davenport, Richmond. 7.1 16.0 28.0 28.1 Hoosier Packing Company, The, Decatur, Ind. ■j-Ta nka ge 7396 2091 Manufacturers 8.7 8.0 16.1 35.0 31.6 Ta nka gpioTa 7396 4201 Manufacturers 4.5 8^0 19.6 35!o 30.9 Hughes-Curry Packing Company, Anderson, Ind. fFeeding d'ankage 7374 1997 Manufacturers 11.6 8.0 19.1 40.0 40.4 Independent Feed & Fertilizer Company, Indianapolis, Ind. Clover Leaf Digester Tankage 7553 3266 Prater-Mottier Co., Terre Haute 8.4 6.0 8.7 60.0 59.3 Clover Leaf Digester Tankage 7563 3480 Geo. W. Graston Milling Co., Dupont _. 7.6 6.0 9.6 60.0 59.6 Joslin-Schmidt Company, The, Cincinnati, Ohio. “Abattoir Brand” Digester Tankage.. 6376 2486 John Gienger & Co., Jeffersonville 6.8 8.0 10.3 60.0 60.4 “Abattoir Brand” Digester Tankage.. 6376 2982 Jacob Finkle, Warren ... 4.8 8.0 12.7 60.0 61.9 “Abattoir Brand” Digester Tankage.. 6376 3584 John Crum, Milan 5.5 8.0 11.4 60.0 59.6 “Abattoir Brand” Digester Tank- })gp 108 6376 4122 W. W. Pearson, Upland .. 4.8 8.0 14.5 60.0 56.9 “Abattoir Brand” Digester Tankage.. 6376 4332 Wisehart Bros., Millville 7.0 8.0 10.8 60.0 59.4 “Abattoir Brand” Digester Tankage.. 6376 4599 Berry Bros., Lynn 5.8 8.0 11.0 60.0 60.8 “Abattoir Brand” Digester Tankage.. 6376 46a5 Jacob Finkle, Warren 8.5 8.0 8.2 60.0 59.5 “Abattoir Brand” Digester Tankage.. 6376 5306 M. A. Donall, Greensburg 10.5 8.0 7.2 60.0 58.5 Kendallville Fertilizer Company, Kendallville, Ind. “Feeding Tankage” . 6488 4986 Manufacturers 9.1 10.0 8.1 44.0 .59.4 t Before registration 3 tons shiijped out of state tt Not tagged. Labels furnished 5 1/20 tons removed from sale. 3% tons 10 c 1 (,)„ returned to mfrs. returned to mfrs. 10’ 880 lbs. returned to mfrs. I2I TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) LABEL Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude Fat per cent. Crude Protein per cent. Official Inspection D. Guar- anteed 1 Found Guar- anteed 1 Found Kenney Brothers Reduction Company, Lowell, Ind. 7192 1777 C. E. Nichols & Co., Lowell 7.3 11.0 13.0 44.0 51.3 Tankage 7192, 3215 J. S. Crawford & Co., Crown Point 5.6 11.0 13.4 44.0 48.6 Tankage 7192 5170 J. S. Crawford Feed Store, Crown Point 5.5 11.0 13.1 44.0 50.1 Kuhner Packing Company, Muncie, Ind. 6406 2118 Manufacturers 4.5 9.0 10.2 30.0 27.2 6406 4116 Manufacturers 5.2 9.0 8.9 30.0 34.1 Manns’ Fertilizer Works, North Manchester, Ind. Manns’ Feeding Tankage 6617 3912 J. W. Strauss & Son, North Mancnester 6.8 21.0 22.4 50.0 49.1 Manns’ Feeding Tankage 7062 5931 J. W. Strauss, North Manchester 6.5 15.0 17.4 45.0 47.8 Meier Packing Company, Indianapolis, Ind. 8075 4924 Manufacturers 5.7 5.0 20.4 28.0 36.9 Montpelier Fertilizer Company, Huntington, Ind. Farmers Commercial Feeding Tankage y 5766 2972 Manufacturers 4.8 24.0 20.9 49.0 48.5 Morris & Company, Chicago, 111. Big Brand 60% Digester Tankage 4224 1563 Jeff Ray & Sons, Rockport 6.6 8.0 9.5 60.0 60.8 Big Brand 60% Digester Tankage 4224 1867 Fowler Grain Co., Fowler 5.8 8.0 9.6 60.0 63.2 Big Brand 60% Digester Tankage 4224 2071 B. I. Holser & Co., Walkerton.. 7.1 8.0 9.2 60.0 61.8 Big Brand 60% Digester Tankage 4224 2636 V. nv Reid, Salem 6.1 8.0 10.0 60.0 61.3 Big Brand 60% .Digester Tankage 4224 2797 Herbert Gibson, Plymouth 6.2 8.0 10.3 60.0 60.8 Big Brand 60% Digester Tankage __ 4224 2955 Nixon & Van Deventer, Attica.. 6.2 8.0 9.4 60.0 60.5 Big Brand 60% Digester Tankage 4224 3012 Richards & Lawson, Shelbyville. 6.6 8.0 9.4 60.0 60.4 Big Brand 60% Digester Tankage 4224 3648 F. M. Campbell, Lexington 7.8 8.0 9.5 60.0 59.6 Big Brand 60% Digester Tankage io^__ 4224 4074 V. T. Reid, Salem . 8.8 8.0 8.3 60.0 58 8 Big Brand 60% Digester Tankage 4224 4401 Wm. Eesley & Co., 0 West College Corner 7.1 8.0 7.9 60.0 59.8 Big Brand 60% Digester Tankage 4224 4511 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., LaFayette 6.8 8.0 9.3 60.0 59.5 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis, Ind. McCoys Choice Hog Digester Tankage 5223 2294 Geo. 0. Antrim, Converse 6.9 8.6 60.0 62.7 McCoys Choice Hog Digester Tankage 5223 2325 Manufacturers 7.6 8.7 60.0 .59.9 McCoys Choice Hog Digester Tankage 5223 2840 Manufacturers _. 8.3 6.9 60.0 58.0 McCoys Choice Hog Digester Tankage 5223 3385 Manufacturers 11.7 5.2 60.0 59.8 ttMcCoys Choice Hog Digester Tankage 5223 3908 Elnora Elevator Co., Elnora 8.7 — 6.8 60.0 60.9 Pearl Packing House, The, Madison, Ind. The Pearl Brand 5015 3537 Manufacturers 5.5 5.0 15.0 37.0' 34.9 Portland Fertilizer Plant, Portland, Ind. Tankage 5629 1773 Manufacturers 12.4 7.0 21.2 40.0 46.1 Tankage n® 5629 4154 Manufacturers 11.0 7.0 18!8 40.0 50.4 Rauh & Sons, E., Indianapolis, Ind. Rauh’s Digester Tankage for Hogs 2097 1489 Harper & Sons, Modoc 7.8 6.9 60.0 61.4 Rauh’s Digester Tankage for Hogs 2097 1505 Ed Dolan, Glenwood 6.3 7.4 60.0 60.8 Rauh’s Digester Tankage for Hogs 2097 1539 Hawley Hall, Lewisville 7.0 8.0 60.0 61.6 Rauh’s Digester Tankage for Hogs 2097 1602 Abe Bossert, Brookville 7.3 7.9 60.0 61.9 Rauh’s Digester Tankage for Hogs 2097 1760 Pennville Milling Co., Pennville. 9.7 6.7 60.0 60.3 Rauh’s Digester Tankage for Hogs 2097 1835 Pierce Elevator Co., The, Union City 6.5 7.5 60.0 60.7 Rauh’s Digester Tankage for Hogs 2097 1892 Goodrich Bros. Hay & Grain Co., Winchester 7.1 8.4 60.0 61.4 Rauh’s Digester Tankage for Hogs 2097 2928 A. M. Armstrong, Letts 8.1 7.8 60.0 60.5 Rauh’s Digester Tankage 3942' 2326 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis.. 7.2 10.5 50.0 56.3 t Before registration no 75 tons removed from sale. Relabeled No. tt Not tagged. Labels furnished 7887 100 % ton returned to mfrs. 122 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) LABEL Number Cample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude Fat -■ per cent. Crude Protein percent. Official Inspection D. Guar- anteed ! Found Guar- anteed Found Rauh & Sons Animal Feed Company, E., 1 Indianapolis, Ind. Ranh’s Digester Tankage for Hogs 7308 2553 Goodrich Bros. Hay & Grain Co., Winchester 6.4 8.4 60.0 60.2 Ranh’s Digester Tankage for Hogs 7308 2822 Amo Mill & Elevator Co., Bargersville 8.5 8.0 60.0 59.5 Ranh’s Digester Tankage for Hogs 7308 2896 Willey Grain Co., W. College Corner 7.7 7.9 60.0 58 6 Ranh’s Digester Tankage for Hogs 7308 30.56 O’Neal Bros., Rushville 9.0 7.0 60.0 60.2 Ranh’s Digester Tankage for Hogs 7308 3326 Omer G. Whelan, Richmond 6.7 9.2 60.0 60.2 Ranh’s Digester Tankage for Hogs 7308 4267 A. Smith & Co., Sheridan 8.5 7.9 60.0 60.0 Ranh’s Digester Tankage for Hogs 7308 4591 Purdue Poultry Farm, W. LaFayette 7.3 7.6 60.0 60.8 Ranh’s Digester Tankage for Hogs 7308 4595 McCarty Hardware Co., Fort Branch 7.9 7.9 60.0 60.0 Ranh’s Digester Tankage for Hogs 7308 4735 Amo Mill & Elevator Co., Bargersville 6.5 8.6 60.0 60.9 Ranh’s Digester Tankage for Hogs 7308 4894 Goodrich Bros. Hay & Grain Co., Gaston 6.1 8.2 60.0 61.4 Ranh’s Digester Tankage for Hogs 7308 5325 Goodrich Bros. Hay & Grain Co., Winchester 8.7 7.5 60.0 60.9 Ranh’s Digester Tankage for Hogs 7308 .5337 Hawiey Hall, Lewisville i 12.0 6.6 60.0 61.8 7518 3327 Omer G. Whelan, Richmond 11.3 50.0 51.0 Roberts, Frank A., Lafayette, Ind. j 7.8 Tankage _ 7029 2852 Manufacturer _ __ i 4.8 12.0 18.2 40.0 61.2 Roberts,, Robert A., Greensbnrg, Ind. Feeding Tankage __ . __ .5602 3223 Manufacturer 43.6 5.0 16.0 20.0 17.6 Feeding Tankage _ _ _ _ __ 5602 3224 Manufacturer 5.8 5.0 13.2 20.0 29.1 Feeding Tankage _ _ .5602 4794 Manufacturer 12.6 5.0 14.8 20.0 35.8 Robey Bros., Winchester, R. R. No. 4, Ind. Robey Bros. Feeding Tankace 7552 40701 Manufacturers 9.0 17.0 19.7 40.0 48.5 Rochester Fertilizer & Tankage \ Company, Rochester, Ind. Pure 'tankage 7070 2186 Manufacturers 8.4 10.0 11.5 50.0 47.7 Pn7-e 'Pankage 7070 3528 Manufanturers 8.6 10.0 13.4 50.0 49.4 Ronth & Company, W. C., Logansport, Ind. Ronth’s Best Feeding Tankage m 3575 2290' W G. Sweet, Royal Center 4.1 6.4 60.0 56.8 Ronth’s Best Feeding 'tankage 3575 4016 Manufacturer 6.9 4.0 69.0 66.9 Ronth’s Best Feeding Tankage 3575 4546 W. G. Sweet, Royal Center 5.9 ___ 4.0 60.0 67.2 St. Lonis Independent Packing Company, St. Lonis, Mo. ttindependent Brand Digester Tankage. 7204 5065 Clint Stroud, Mt. Vernon... ... 8.5 8.0 9.1 60.0 60.0 independent Brand Digester 'Tankage. — 3225 W. H. Small & Co., Evansville.. 8.2 9.3 59.2 Stolle & Sons, Richmond, Ind. Feeding 'Tankage 4312 2883 Manufacturers 5.1 11.7 28.0 36.6 Feeding 'Tankage 4312 3329 Connell-Anderson Grain Co., Richmond .. 5.5 11.7 28.0. 39.0 Stolle’s Feeding 'Tankage 7586 3343 Manufacturers . 5.4 6.0 13.1 34.0 38.0 Snlzberger & Sons Company, Chicago, 111. Sulzberger’s High Protein 'Tankage 112 .5625 1622 Kelley & Son, Fairmount 14.9 8.0 4.3 60.0 67.3 Snlzberger’s High Protein 'Tankage 5625 1794 Geneva Elevator Co., Geneva... 10.5 8.0 8.0 60.0 60.9 ttSnlzberger’s “High Protein” 'Tankage. 7435 2404 Hershman & Son, 'Tipton.. 10.3 4.0 7.3 60.0 64.1 ttSnlzl>erger’s “High Protein” 'Tankage. 7435 2499 0. Gandy & Co., Churubusco... 10.4 4.0 7.2 60.0 62.8 Sulzberger’s “High Protein” 'Tankage. 7435 3470 0. Gandy & Co., Grass Creek 12.0 4.0 6.7 60.0 61.5 Sulzberger’s “High Protein” 'Tank- age 112 7435 3956 Remington Feed & Flour Store, Remington .. 8.3 4.0 12.0 69.0 55.0 Sulzberger’s “High Protein” 'Tankage. 7435 4650 Chas. Kelly & Sons, Fairmount. 9.4 4.0 7.0 69.0 67.0 * Not tagged n- 2400 lbs. removed from sale. Relabeled No. tt Xot tagged. I.,abels furnished 7435 111 600 lbs. removed from sale and returned to 1700 lbs. removed from sale and returned to mfrs. mfrs. Rebate. See page 43 123 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (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 1 Found Swift & Company, Chicago, 111. Swift’s' Digester Tankage 6d 2507 Home Grain Co., LaGrange 7.7 8.0 6.4 60.0 58.0 60 2620 Urschel Bros., Tippecanoe 10.8 8.0 6.9 60.0 59.9 Swift’s Digester Tankage __ 7030 1702 Farmers Elevator Co., Poneto.. 7.0 6.0 8.3 60.0 60.5 Swift’s Digester Tankage 7030 1825 Morrison & Tegarden, Saratoga 4.6 6.0 6.4 60.0 59.7 7030 1847 C V Grnft, Winrhester 5.9 6.0 7.0 60.0 62.0 Swift’s Digester Tankage _ 7030 2129 Studakaber Grain & Seed Co., Bluffton 7.6 6.0 7.9 69.0 62.0 Swift’s Digester Tankage 7030' 2257 Kingman Grain & Milling Co., Kingman _ _ __ 5.7 6.0 6.4 60.0 60.9 Swift’s Digester Tankage 7030 2285 L. E. Greenwood, Galveston 5.0 6.0 6.5 60.0 61.4 7030 3248 Henry Schniu’, Mt. Vernon 5.0 6.0 11.0 69.0 60.3 Swift’s Digester Tankage 7030 3287 Geneva Elevator Co., Geneva.— 7.6 6.0 7.4 60.0 60.6 Swift’.s Digester Tankage 7030 3887 D T.. Trout, T-pp 9.4 6.0 7.1 60.0 57.9 Swift's Digester Tankage 7030 4188 Studabaker Grain & Seed Co., Bluffton 6.8 6.0 7.4 60.0 .59,3 Swift’s Digester Tankage 7030 4285 Moore Bros., Rosston 7.7 6.0 7.3 60.0 60.6 Swift’s Digester Tankage m 7030' 4333 New Castle Elevator Co., New Castle _ 8.5 6.0 7.5 60.0 ,59.9 7030 4485 .John D. Martin, T.afayptte 6.5 6.0 7.1 60.0 60.3 7030 4494 Martin S. Hufford, Sedalia 6.2 6.0 6.8 60.0 60.6 7080 4532 Paul Kuhn Ar, Cn , Rilpy 8.6 6.0 7.4 60.0 57.6 7030 4551 Colfax Grain Co., Colfax 4.5 6.0 8.0 69.0 60.5 Swift’s Digester Tankage 7030 4594 Vincennes Feed & Produce Co., Vincennes _ _ 6.9 6.0 8.1 60.0 62.6 Swift’s Digester Tankage 7030 4625 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis.. 6.0 6.0 9.7 60.0 .59.1 Swift’s Digester Tankage i 7030 4689 Swayzee Milling Co., Swayzee 5.8 6.0 8.2 60.0 57.2 Swift’s Digester Tankage 7030 4750 McMahan Bros., Valparaiso 6.4 6.0 7.0 60.0 63.2 Swift’s Digester Tankage 7080i 4895 Flovd Kirklin, Gaston 5.8 6.0 7.2 60.0 63.3 Swift's Digester Tankage 7030 4939 R. C. McNaughton, Rav 5.9 6.0 7.1 60.0 63.1 Swift’s Digester Tankage 7030 5069 Henry Schnur, Mt. Vernon 5.8 6.0 9.1 60.0 62.1 Swift’s Digester Tankage n® 7089 5184 J. Runge & Co., Richmond 6.6 6,0 9.0 60.0 58.0 Tanking & Fertilizing Company, The, Muncie, Ind. Feeding Tankage _ _ 5626 4118 Manufacturers 9.0 9.0 20.7 43.0 52.7 "Valentine & Company, Terre Haute, Ind. **Tankage __ 4032 Manufacturers 7.7 23.8 29.3 Wabash Fertilizer Company, W’abash, Ind. ' Meat & Bone Tankage 7605 4384 Manufacturers 9.7 8.0 23.4 40.0 57.1 FISH SCRAPS International Glue Company, Boston, Mass. ttRed Star Brand Fish Scrap 7166 5309 Martin & Martin, New Castle... 7.5 2.0 1.9 45.0 47.5 DRIED SUGAR BEET PULP Larrowe Milling Company, The, Detroit, Mich. Dried Beet Pulp 2709 5115 Ohio Valley Seed Co., Evansville 6.9 0.5 0.7 8.0 9.8 ttDried Beet Pulp 2709 5159 Francis Bushore, Valparaiso 9.2 0.5 0.9 8.0 10.5 COCOANUT OIL MEAL Shepard Clark & Company, Cleveland, Ohio. tCocoanut Oil Cake Meal 740k 1910 C. V. Graft. Winchestpr 5.9 7.0 16.0 21.0 22.9 CORN BRAN Akron Milling Company, Akron, Ind. *Corn Bran m 2617 Manufacturers 11.4 7.3 11.5 * Not tagged t Before registration ** Not registered tt Not tagged. Babels furnished 4.5 tons returned to mfrs. on account of poor mechanical condition, 115 800 lbs. returned to mfrs. 115 2% tons returned from sale 111 Corn grits and germ present 124 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) Number Crude Fat -• per cent. Crude Protein per cent. LABEL § +3 Sample secured from Official o . ai PI S a R 0) 'S ^ Is. Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found Billman & Sons, C. H., Shelbyville, Ind. Corn Bran 4743 4792 Manufacturers 9.2 3.0 5.8 5.0 9.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 9.3 9.9 Boonville Milling Conapany, Boonville, Ind. Corn Bran 117 3030 3833 Manufacturers 9.8 4.0 5.9 Cauble, 0. L., Pekin, Ind. Corn Bran m 6129 2576 Manufacturer 10.5 11.1 2.0 4.0 9.1 11.1 10.5 10.3 Columbus Milling Company, Columbus, Ind. Corn Bran m 6903 3468 Manufacturers 7.4 Corn Bran ii7 6903 4715 Manufacturers 9.5 4.0 8.6 Glen Echo Mills, Indianapolis, Ind. Corn Bran n” 4515 2756 Manufacturers 10.9 2.4 6.0 9.0 10.6 Corn Bran m 4515 3396 Manufacturers 10.2 2.4 5.9 9.0 10.3 Graft, C. V., Winchester, Ind. Corn Bran m 3833 1845 Manufacturer 10.0 3.5 7.9 8.5 10.9 Harris Milling Company, Greencastle, Ind. tCorn Bran m 7667 3000 Manufacturers 11.3 3.5 7.5 7.0 10.5 Heaton, E. H., Indianapolis, R. R. No. 12, Ind. Corn Bran m 5932 2730 Manufacturer 10.8 3.0 8.1 6.0 10.7 Corn Bran 117 5932 3446 Manufacturer 6.3 3.0 5.9 6.0 10.0 Corn Bran 5932 4913 Manufacturer 11.5 3.0 5.0 6.0 9.5 Home Mill & Grain Company, Mt. Vernon, Ind. Corn Bran m 2598 3243 Manufacturers 7.4 5.0 7.6 8.0 9.9 Corn Bran m 2598 5074 Manufacturers 9.5 5.0 8.3 8.0 12.4 Kennedy Milling Company, The G. W., Shelbyville, Ind. tCorn Bran m _ 7791 4058 Manufaeturers _ __ 9.1 5.0 7.5 8.0 11.2 Corn Bran m 7791 4786 Manufacturers 7.0 5.0 6:9 8.0 11.6 Martin, Martin & Company, New Castle, Ind. Martin, Martin & Co’s Corn Bran n^. 217 4303 Martin & Martin, New Castle___ 9.0 4.5 7.4 7.5 11.2 Moore Milling Company, R. P., Corn Bran __ ^ 999 1630 Manufacturers __ 10.8 6.0 5.4 8.0 9.2 Nashville Roller Mills, Nashville, Ind. Corn Bran ii7 2568 2937 Manufaeturers _ 9.8 5.0 10.4 9.0 11.6 Norris & Kidtvell, Washington, Ind. Corn Bran 117 7911 5235 "Manufacturers 10.3 3.0 7.4 6.0 10.4 Plainville Milling Company, Plainville, Ind. Corn Bran ^^7 __ __ 3819 2007 Manufacturers 11.9 4.0 8.5 7.5 11.2 Corn Bran 117 3819 3899 Manufaeturers 9.6 4.0 7.8 7.5 10.7 Corn Bran 117 3819 5257 Manufacturers - 11.3 4.0 7.1 7.5 10.7 Schaefer & Schwartzkopf, Columbus, Ind. No. () Corn Bran ii7 476 3462 Manufacturers 11.5 5.0 9.3 8.0 11.1 No. G Corn Bran _ 476 4710 Manufacturers 9.6 5.0 11.3 8.0 11.4 Sims Milling Company, Frankfort, Ind. Corn Bran ii7 6926 3439 Manufacturers 11.0 3.5 8.3 8.0 117 * Not tagged Corn grits and germ present t Before registration 125 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) Number Crude Fat per cent. Crude Protein percent. LABEL 1 Sample secured from I Official OQ c Moistu] per cen Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed 1 Found Smith, D. R., Tipton, Ind. (^orn Bran 1543 2370 Alanufacturer _ 13.9 5.0 8.2 8.0 11.9 Stader, Prank E., Evansville, Ind. Corn Bran 6343 5095 Manufacturer 9.5 5.0 7.6 8.0 9.8 Wright Milling Company, Paris Crossing, Ind. Corn Bran ht 2849 3552 Alanufacturers 10.6 4.0 7.0 7.0 10.9 Zehner Milling Company, Plymouth, Ind. 4205 2794 J. A. Zehner, Plymouth 11.6 2.5 6.8 6.0 10.7 CORN FEED MEAL Acme-Plvans Company, Indianapolis, Ind. ttHomlik 6876 1999 Parmers Supply Co., Spencer... Bloomington Alilling Co., 10.4 3.0 4.8 8.5 9.3 Homlik _ 6876 4212 Bloomington 9.6 3.0 3.6 8.5 8.9 American Milling Company, Peoria, 111. ftAmcn Corn Peed Meal 8095 5352 Hammond & Troncin, Milltowm 9.8 2.5 6.0 8.0 10.7 Anderson, G. H., Seymour, Ind. Corn Peed ATeal 5230 2429 Alanufacturer 11.4 2.0 3.2 7.0 8.2 Corn Peed ATeal 5230 3715 Alanufacturer 11.5 2.0 3.8 7.0 8.6 Badenoch Company, J. J., Chicago, 111. ttCorn Peed Meal 6989 2018 Przybysz Plour & Peed Co., South Bend ___ __ __ 10.6 1.2 3.1 7.0 8.1 ■ftCorn Peed ATeal 6989 3134 George Naumoff, Garv 12.4 1.2 2.0 7.0 6.9 Bailey & Thompson, Prairie Creek, Ind. fCorn Peed ATeal 7785 4031 Alanufacturers 10.7 2.5 3.1 7.5 7.0 Belt Elevator & Peed Company, Indianapolis, Ind. Peed Aleal _ 3322 3393 Manufacturers 12.4 3.7 3.5 8.5 8.7 Billman & Sons, C. H., Shelbyville, Ind. Corn Peed ATeal 3344 3016 ATanufaetnrers 12.9 2.5 2.1 7.0 6 8 Corn Peed ATeal 3344 4791 Manufacturers 11.3 2.5 3.7 7.0 9.0 Boonville Alilling Company, Boonville, Ind. Corn Peed Meal __ 6851 3832 Manufacturers 10.6 2.5 3.1 7.5 8.6 Browning Milling Company, W. A., Evansville, Ind. Corn Peed ATeal .3.537 3128 Manufacturers 11.2 2.4 5.0 6.7 7.7 Columbus Milling Company, Columbus, Ind. Corn Peed Aleal 6934 2517 New Albany Alilling Co., New Albany 13.1 2.5 4.0 7.5 7.9 Crum, John, Milan, Ind. **Corn Peed Meal n® 3582 Afannfacturer 11.2 3.6 8.2 Dickinson Company, The Albert, Chicago, 111. ffCorn Peed ATeal 3616 1848 Will. Harbeck. Valparaiso 12.5 2.5 3.4 7.0 8.3 Emison & Company, J. «fc S., Vincennes, Ind. Peed Meal 4464 2645 Pickens & Brengle, Orleans 11.2 3.0 3.7 8.0 8.5 t Before registration Corn grits and germ present tt Not tagged. Labels furnished % ton removed from sale. Used in com- ** Not registered pounding feed 126 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) Number Crude Fat per cent. Crude Protein per cent. LABEL c 0 ■43 Sample secured from Official w • tn C R a « ’S ^ Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found Fairplay Feed Mills, Linton, Ind. 6503 1753 Dugger Feed Store, Dugger 13.5 2.5 3.4 7.0 8.2 6503 3944 Dugger Feed Store, Dugger 11.1 2.5 2.4 7.0 8.2 Feed Meal 6503 4706 Warford Bros., Trevlac 10.3 2.5 2.7 7.0 10.3 Farmer & Sons, Oscar, Louisville, Ky. **“We Kno” Feed Meal _ 4672 Scottsburg Elevator, Scottsburg Manufacturers _ _ 10.5 2.5 8.2 Forest Park Mills, North Terre Haute, Ind. fOorn Feed Meal 7927 4502 10.1 2.5 4.4 7.5 9.2 Habig Bros., Indianapolis, Ind. Habig’s Feed Meal 3339 3425 Manufacturers _ _ 12.9 3.0 1.8 i 8.0 8.1 Habig’s Feed Meal 3339 4202 Manufacturers ; 11.7 3.0 1.9 8.0 8.0 Hall Milling Company, W. C,, Brazil, Ind. Corn Feed Meal » 5131 5247 Manufacturers __ 11.6 3.0 8.0 7.0 10.3 Hanks Company, Howard H., Chicago, 111. Corn Feed Meal _ __ 6101 4860 Przybysz Flour & Feed Co., South Bend 10.6 2.7 1.7 8.5 7.2 Corn Feed Meal ___ 6101 5228 Standard Hay & Grain Co., Terre Haute 19.8 2.7 3.9 8.5 9.3 Harris Milling Company, Greeneastle, Ind. Harris’ Cracked Corn Siftings Harris’ Cracked Corn Siftings 5139 3001 Manufacturers 12.2 3.2 2.6 8.0 7 0 .5139 3379 Manufacturers 19 9 3.2 3.0 8.0 7.5 Heaton, E. H., Indianapolis, R. R. No. 12, Ind. Corn Feed Meal 5933 3445 Manufacturer _ 12.3 2.5 2.6 7.0 7.2 Lash Flour Mills, Fred B., Farmersburg, Ind. tCorn Feed Meal 7783 4019 Manufacturers 10.9 2.5 2.9 7.5 6.3 Lingeman, Adams & Company, Brownsburg, Ind. Corn Feed Meal 4426 4144 M anuf aeturers 10.1 3.0 3.2 8.5 9.0 Loughry Bros. Milling & Grain Company, Monticello, Ind. ttLoughry’s Feed Meal 7713 3368 Marshall & O’Hair, Greeneastle. 13.4 2.5 2.4 7.0 7.2 ttLoughry’s Feed Meal 7713 3589 T. C. Martin, Lafayette 11.6 2.5 2.3 7.0 7.5 *Meal Siftings 4280' Moore Bros., Rosston _ 10.6 11.1 1.6 7.2 Martin & Martin, New Castle, Ind. tCorn Feed Meal _ __ 7863 4302 / Manufacturers 2.7 3.4 7.5 8.4 Martinsville Milling Company, Martinsville, Ind. Corn Feed Meal _ 5977 4541 Manufacturers 10.6 2.5 3.6 7.5 7.5 Nading Grain Company, Wm., Green^burg, Ind. **Corn Feed Meal _ 3195 Manufacturers 12.2 3.3 7.9 Nappanee Produce Company, Nappanee, Ind. •^♦Corn Feed Meal 122 4238 Manufacturers 10.2 2.0 11.0 * Not tagged ii9 Small amounts of oat hulls, ground weed t Before registration seeds and fragments of corn cobs ** Not registered 120 x/^ removed from sale tt Not tagged. Labels furnished 121 % ton removed from sale to be used in compounding feed 122 175 permanently removed from sale 127 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) Number Crude Crude Fat Protein LABEL .9 Sample secured from <0 4J per cent. per cent. IS P ^ 1 'O *^3 1 ^ 'O '3 IS 0 GQ c m « II 0 rt 1 it ^ 0 rt 1 North Star Peed & Cereal Company, Minneapolis, Minn. 7715 3199 D. M. Blackmore, Greensburg__- Berry Bros., Lynn __ 10.5 5.7 7.7 9.5 10.1 Corn Peed Meal 7715 4604 9.6 5.7 6.0 9.5 9.8 Odon Milling Company, Odon, Ind. Corn Peed Meal _ 5160 3905 Manufacturers 10.1 2.8 4.5 7.0 7.7 Plainville Milling Company, Plainville, Ind. 5162 3903 Manufacturers _ 10.2 2.5 3.3 6.8 7.5 Prater-Mottier Company, Terre Haute, Ind. tCorn Peed Meal 7704 3265 Manufacturers _ 12.5 2.0 3.0 7.0 7.7 Corn Peed Meal _ _ 7704 5230 Manufacturers 11.0 2.0 3.9 7.0 9.4 Rohm Bros., Rockville, Ind. Peed Meal 5336 4499 Montezuma Mill & Elev. Co., Montezuma __ 10.9 2.5 3.9 6.0 7.8 Range & Company, John, Richmond, Ind. fCorn Peed ATpmI 7901 4413 Manufacturers __ __ _ 3.0 7.5 7.8 12.0 2.7 Shine & Company, John H., New Albany, Ind. Star Peed Meal 5907 3707 Manufacturers 13.0 2.5 3.3 7.0 8.2 Star Peed Meal _ - 5907 4045 Parmers Peed Store, Borden 11.7 2.5 2.9 7.0 8.4 Smith & Company, A., Sheridan, Ind. Peed Meal 4001 4264 Manufacturers 11.2 2.5 2.0 6.5 7.7 Sullivan Mill & Elevator Company, Sullivan, Ind. tCorn Peed Meal __ 7777 4018 Manufacturers 10.8 2.5 2.8 7.5 7.0 Wright Milling Company, Paris Crossing, Ind. Corn Peed Meal _ 6235 3551 Manufacturers _ 10.3 2.0 3.3 7.0 7.5 CORN RED DOG FLOUR Krause Milling Company, Chas. A., Milwaukee, Wis. Maizo Corn Red Dog Plour _ 7440 2427 Prgest Woods, Brook 8.0 5.0 7.1 8.5 11.0 Maizn Corn Red Dog Plour 7440 2948 Jacob Portman, Columbia City. Judson Creamery & Produce 9.3 5.0 7.4 8.5 10.1 Badger Maizo Corn Red Dog Plour 7671 3988 Co., North Judson 5.9 7.5 8.4 11.0 11.0 CORN GERM 3IEAL American Hominy Company, Indianapolis, Ind. Homenline Peed 3929 2445 Scottsburg Elevator, Scottsburg Indiana School for Feeble Mind- 1.3 5.0 7.6 17.0 18.3 Hnmcoliup Peed 3929 2904 ed Youth, Port Wayne 4.3 5.0 7.7 17.0 18.2 Homcoline Peed _ 3929 3434 .1. H. Harper, Sharpsville 3.3 5.0 7.4 17.0 18.5 Chicago Heights Oil Mfg. Company, Chicago, 111. “Heights” rnrn Oileake Meal 6819 2001 Farmers Supply Co., Spencer.. _ Branch Grain & Seed Co., 8.1 8.0 10.0 21.0 22.2 “Heights” Corn Oilcake Meal 6819 2173 Martinsville 9.2 8.0 10.8 21.0 18 3 “Heights” Porn OileaVe Meal 6819 2343 J. M. Dunlap Grain Co., Franklin 5.7 8.0 11.1 21.0 23.5 “Heights” Corn Oilcake Meal ^24 6819 2632 0. L. Cauble, Salem 9.9 8.0 8.7 21.0 18.1 “Heights” Corn Oilcake Meal “Heights” Porn OileaVe Meal 7457 7457 2666 2812 P. H. Turner & Sons, Paoli Batchelor & Batchelor, 9.0 8.0 12.6 18.0 20.8 Sharnsville 7.6 8.0 8.3 18.0 18.2 t Before registration 10% tons removed from sale. Relabeled No. 7457 124 5 tons removed from sale. Relabeled No. 7457 128 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (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 Chicago Heights Oil Mfg. Company, ! Chicago, 111. “Heights” Corn Oilcake Meal 7457 2842 Robert Crawford, Crothersville. 9.5 8.0 8.0 18.0 18.6 “Heights” Corn Oilcake Meal 7457 3159 T. S. Nugen, Lewisville _ _ 8.9 8.0 8.1 18.0 19.6 “Heights” Corn Oilcake Meal 7457 3496 P. Wade, Madison 8.7 8.0 10.2 18.0 19.2 “Heights” Corn Oilcake Meal __ ___ 7457 3561 Osgood Grain Co., Osgood 8.9 8.0 10.0 18.0 19.1 “Heights” Corn Oilcake Meal 7457 3649 R. L. Clapp & Son, Marysville.. 8.7 8.0 8.3 18.0 19.9 “Heights” Corn Oilcake Meal 7457 4078 Salem Co-Operative Associa- tion, Salem 8.3 8.0 9.8 18.0 20.7 ^“Heights” Corn Oilcake Meal 4739 Geo. Powell, Pranklin 10.1 8.0 21.1 Clinton Sugar Refining Company, Clinton, Iowa. Clinton Corn Oerm Meal 6788 3471 O. Gandv Co., T.neernp 7.3 7.0 10.7 20.0 22.8 Clinton Corn Oerm Meal 6788 4085 Albert McIntosh, Orleans 6.8 7.0 7.6 20.0 22.3 Clinton Corn Oerm Meal 6788 5164 0. P. Johnson & Sons, Paoli 8.5 7.0 8.6 20.0 24.0 Corn Products Refining Company, New York, N. Y. Diamond Hog Meal 6749 1672 Ossian Roller Mills, Ossian 8.9 9.0 8.3 20.0 19.0 Diamond Hoe- Meal 6749 2199 0. Gandy & Co., Denver 8.4 9.0 9.0 20.0 22.6 6749 2.543' H. E. St. John, Albany 8.3 9.0 9.5 20.0 22.8 Diamond Hog Meal 6749 4339 E. E. Swiger, Orland 8.2 9.0 8.4 20.0 22.6 Diamond Hog Meal 7478 3017 C. H. Billman & Sons, Shelbyville ... 7.7 7.0 8.3 18.0 21.6 Argo Corn Oil Cake Meal 7720 3969 Wiegeman & Zelt, Port Wayne.. 8.0 7.0 9.6 18.0 19.9 Argo Corn Oil Cake Meal 7720 4023 Chas. Johnson, Sullivan 7.8 7.0 8.1 18.0 21.3 Argo Corn Oil Cake Meal 7720' 4874 City Peed Store, Plymouth 7.5 7.0 6.8 18.0 22.4 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis, Ind. Yellow Corn Germ Meal 6429 2709 Manufacturers ... 8.0 8.0 10.1 18.0 21.0 Yellow Corn Germ Meal _ 6429 3384 Manufacturers __ 9.1 8.0 8.5 18.0 21.9 Yellow Corn Germ Meal 6429 3854 J. A. Cartwright, New Harmony 7.2 8.0 9.7 18.0 22.7 Yellow Oorn Oerm Meal 6429 4493 E. T. Harper, Sharpsville 9.0 8.0 9.3 18.0 22.2 Yellow Corn Oerm Meal 6429 4576 S. Y. Hardwick, Montclair 6.5 8.0 10.2 18.0 20.4 White Corn Germ Meal 7220 2708 Manufacturers 2.1 6.0 7.0 19.0 18.2 White Corn Germ Meal __ 7220 3387 Manufacturers .. 2.5 6.0 8.4 19.0 19.3 •ItWhite Corn Germ Meal 7220 4272 Wolfe Bros., Wolcottville 4.3 6.0 7.0 19.0 18.6 Pearson, W. W., Upland, Ind. Pearson’s Meal 7702 4123 Manufacturer 7.9 7.0 9.0 18.0 20.5 Pincoffs Company, Maurice, Chicago, 111. Pinco Brand Yellow Corn Germ MeaL_ 6729 3574 Akron Milling Co., Akron 6.5 8.0 15.6 20.0 19.7 Pinco Brand Yellow Corn Germ Meal.. 6729 3630 New Albany Milling Co., New Albany 5.3 8.0 13.9 20.0 19.3 Pinco Brand Yellow Corn Germ MeaL_ 6729 4645 New Albany Milling Co., New Albany 5.7 8.0 10.0 20.0 24.4 Simpson, H. E., Indianapolis, Ind. Simpson’s Corn Oilcake Meal __ 8005 5165 C. P. Johnson & Sons, Paoli 6.3 9.0 10.7 21.0 22.4 Simpson’s Corn Oilcake Meal 8005 5205 Salem Co-Operative Associa- tion, Salem 4.6 9.0 10.7 21.0 22.8 Union Starch & Refining Company, Edinburg, Ind. Union Corn Germ Meal 2237 4713 Newcomb & Whitehorn, Columbus 4.8 8.0 13.0 18.0 19.5 CORN GLUTEN FEED Chicago Heights Oil Mfg. Company, Chicago, 111. “Prize” Corn Glutenfeed 7266 4176 L. A. Walker, Bedford 9.5 1.0 2.3 23.0 20.9 Clinton Sugar Refining Company, Clinton, Iowa. Clinton Corn Gluten Peed 5452 4773 Roper & Brown, Hobart 9.6 3.0 2.1 23.0 24.4 Corn Products Refining Company, 1 New York, N. Y. Buffalo Corn Gluten Peed. 5.530 1780 Paul E. Raasch, Crown Point... 1 11.4 1.0 l.S 23.0 28.3 Buffalo Corn Gluten Peed 1914 Thomas Stoudt, South Bend i 9.0 1.0 1.8 23.0 26.2 * Not tagged tt Not tagged. Isabels furnished 129 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) LABEL Number Sample secured from Moisture 1 per cent. Crude - Fat per cent. Crude Protein percent. is ‘0 0 Inspection D. Guar- anteed § 0 h Guar- anteed 'a a 3 Corn Products Refining Company, New York, N. Y. Buffalo Corn Gluten Feed 5530' 2637 V. T. Reid, Salem 1 10.2 1.0 1.4 23.0 26.6 5530 3040 McMahan Bros., Valparaiso 1 9.7 1.0 2.0 23.0 24.8 5530 3426 C. M. Barlow, Kokomo 8.5 1.0 2.1 23.0 25.7 Rnffnln Corn Glnten Peed 5530 4775 R. W. Miller, Valparaiso 9.4 1.0 1.1 23.0 24.6 Buffalo Corn Gluten Feed 5530 4776 C. & W. Reiners, Valparaiso 9.1 1.0 2.3 23.0 24.3 Buffalo Corn Gluten Feed 5530 4777 C. & W. Reiners, Valparaiso 10.5 1.0 2.4 23.0 24.5 Douglas Company, Cedar Rapids, Iowa. 6932 3045 B. A. Gott, Wheeler 10.3 1.0 2.0 23.0 24.5 ttDouglas Corn Gluten Feed 6932 3267 Prater-Mottier Co., Terre Haute 8.1 1.0 2.1 23.0 24.6 ttDouglas Corn Gluten Feed 6932 3554 Wright Milling Co., Paris Crossing 10.0 1.0 2.4 23.0 25.4 Douglas Corn Gluten Feed 6932 4183 Studabaker Grain & Seed Co., Bluffton 7.7 1.0 2.1 23.0 25.6 6932 4430 Arthur S. Cecil, Selma 8.0 1.0 1.8 23.0 24.6 Douglas Corn Gluten Feed .. 6932 4529 Lingeman, Adams & Co., Brownsburg __ 9.9 1.0 1.7 23.0 23.7 Douglas Corn Gluten Feed 6932 4855 Comer-Scearce Co., Mooresvllle. 8.2 1.0 1.8 23.0 24.7 Union Starch & Refining Company, Edinburg, Ind. Union Gluten Feed 559 2715 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis.- 7.2 3.0 4.1 24.0 24.5 TTninn rjlntcn Ppcd 559 4733 Manufacturers 8.8 3.0 3.1 24.0 23.2 CORN GLUTEN MEAL Corn Products Refining Company, New York, N. Y. Diamnud Corn Glntpn Mpal 6979 1944 J. C. Barrett, South Bend 9.2 1.0 1.3 40.0 44.8 Diamnrid Corn Glntpn Mpal 6979 3217 J. S. Crawford, Crown Point 8.0 1.0 0.7 40.0 48.6 ffDinmnnd Gnrn Glntpn Mpal 6979 3838 C. D. Paxson, Elkhart 9.1 1.0 1.4 40.0 44.8 HOMINY FEED MEAL OR CHOP American Hominy Company, Indianapolis, Ind. ttHomco 125 4265 1750 -W. P. Hopkins Co , Dugger 10.1 7.0 6.3 9.5 11.0 Homco Feed 6716 2234 Crabbs I^ynolds Taylor Co., Crawfordsville 9.0 7.0 7.5 10.0 11.0 Homco Feed — 6716 2628 Salem Co-Operative Associa- tion, Salem 7.8 7.0 6.2 10.0 10.7 Homco Feed 6716 2792 W. T. Besspr. Greeneastle 8.1 7.0 6.8 10.0 10.4 Homco Feed 6716 3099 Edw. F. Gopke, Evansville 7.1 7.0 9.2 10.0 9.7 Homco Hominy Feed 7614 3433 •T. H. Harper, Sharpsville 8.9 6.0 6.5 10.0 10.4 Homco Hominy Feed • 7614 3924 Jesse .Johnson, Cutler 5.8 6.0 7.2 10.0 10.2 Homco Hominy Feed 7614 4142 Clarence Masten. Amo 7.5 6.0 7.7 10.0 10.4 Homco Hominy Feed 7614 4190 Studabaker Grain & Seed Co., Bluffton 7.3 6.0 7.2 10.0 10.4 Billman & Sons, C. H., Shelbyville, Ind. t+Hominy Feed 4336 4793 Manufactnrprs 8.0 7.8 8.0 10.7 12.1 Blair Milling Company, The, •Atchison, Kans. Blair’s Hominy Feed 6154 3654 V. J. Hardv, Lexington _ 7.6 6.5 7.3 9.0 11.1 Blair’s Hominy Feed 6154 3656 W. R. McClanahan, Otisco 7.9 6.5 7.1 9.0 10.2 Chicago Heights Oil Mfg. Company, Chicago, 111. “Prize” White Hominy Peed 6732 4081 Freed & Lewis, Campbellsburg. 8.1 7.0 7.5 9.0 10.0 “Prize” White Hominy Feed 6732 4083 Campbellsburg Exchange, Campbellsburg 8.7 7.0 7.0 9.0 9.8 Eberts & Bro., North Vernon, Ind. ttEberts Hominy Feed 6366 3479 North Madison Mill & Elevator, North Madison __ _ _ 1 9.2 7.0 7.3 10.0 10.1 Eberts Hominy Feed 6366 3483 Manufacturers _l 8.5 7.0 6.9 10.0 ' 10.0 tt Not tagged. Labels furnished 125 This feed was shipped through Miesenhelder Bros., Palestine, 111., to the W. B. Hop- kins Co. 130 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) LABEL Eberts Grain Company, Nabb, Ind. Homing Meal Hominy Meal Hominy Meal Edwards & Loomis Company, Chicago, 111. Hominy Eeed Elevator Milling Company, Springfield, 111. Hominy Feed Hominy Feed Emieon & Company, J. & S., (Baltic Mills), Vincennes, Ind. Hominy Feed Hominy Feedi-^'’ Homing Feed Evans Milling Company, The, Indianapolis, Ind. Hominy Feed Hominy Feed Hominy Feed Hominy Feed Hominy Feed Ewing Mill Company, Brownstown, Ind. Hominy Meal Hominy Meal Hominy Meal Gienger & Company, John, Jeffersonville, Ind. Hominy Feed Hominy Feed Hall Milling Company, W, C., Brazil, Ind. Hall’s Hominy Feed Hodapp Hominy Company, Seymour, Ind. Hodapp Hominy Feed Hodapp Hominy Feed Hodapp Hominy Feed Hodapp Hominy Feed Hodapp Hominy Feed Hunter & Company, O. L., Chicago, 111. Calumet Hominy Feed Kern & Sons, John B. A., Milwaukee, Wis. Eagle Hominy Feed Kidder & Company, F. L., Paris, 111. Peerless Hominy Feed Peerless Hominy Feed Peerless Hominy Feed J’eerless Hominy Feed Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude Fat per cent. Crude Protein per cent. OflScial 1 Inspection D. Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found 4460 2468 Charlestown Milling Co., Charlestown 8.4 7.5 7.8 10.0 10.3 4460 3550 Wright Grain Co., Paris Crossing 8.1 7.5 7.9 10.0 10.2 4460 3652 Manufacturers 8.2 7.5 7.6 10.0 10.6 5415 2786 Marshall & O’Hair, Greencastle. 8.8 6.5 9.5 8.5 12.1 2514 3559 W. P. Neel, Holton i 8.0 7.5 7.8 10.0 10.5 2514 3667 Charlestown Milling Co., Charlestown 8.0 7.5 7.7 10.0 10.4 4482 1721 Home Mill & Elevator Co., Carlisle Jet. _ ! 7.2 8.0 9.5 9.1 10.8 4482 3746 G. Eberhardt & Son, Dale 8.0 8.0 7.6 9.1 9.9 8046 5267 W. D. Hampton, Worthington.. 9.9 7.0 9.3 8.0 11.6 20 2798 Herbert Gibson, Plymouth 8.0 7.5 7.7 10.0 10.5 20 3481 Geo. W. Graston Milling Co., Dupont 7.2 7.5 7.0 10.0 11.1 20 3520 J. A. Bock, Argos 8.3 7.5 7.1 lO.Q 10.6 20 3737 E. J. Chambers, Mays... 8.5 7.5 6.9 10.0 10.7 20 4042 National Military Home, Marion 7.9 7.5 7.5 10.0' 10.9 296 2833 Manufacturers 7.2 7.5 7.6 9.0 10.1 296 4148 Manufacturers 7.2 7.5 6.7 9.0 9.6 296 4726 R. W. Wrope, North Vernon 8.2 7.5 8.8 9.0 11.0 1887 2-^3 Manufacturers 8.1 7.0 7.9 9:0 10.5 1887 4678 Manufacturers 7.4 7.0 10.2 9.0 10.9 3064 2040 Manufacturers 11.0 6.5 5.3 9.5 9.6 2642 1538 Hawley Hall, Lewisville 8.4 7.5 7.6 10.0 10.3 2642 2437 Manufacturers 7.4 7.5 7.7 10.0 10.0 2642 2722 Habig Bros., Indianapolis 7.2 7.5 8.2 10.0 10.4 2642 2869 Hawley Hall, Lewisville 8.3 7.5 8.2 10.0 10.8 2642 3688 Manufacturers 9.0 7.5 7.3 10.0 10.2 4417 4867 Farmers Elevator, Monticello... 8.1 7.0 6.7 8.5 10.1 6552 2789 W. T. Besser, Greencastle 7.9 8.4 8.6 10.4 10.7 2449 1889 Chas. A. Neff, New Paris 9.1 7.5 7.8 8.5 10.9 2449 2050 Ola Chambers, Jasonville 9.2 7.5 7.5 8.5 10.4 2449 2642 Campbellsburg Exchange, Campbellsburg 9.5 7.5 7.7 8.5 10.2 2449 2778 Paul Kuhn & Co., Clay City 9.9 7.5 7.5 8.5 10.3 i 2 Ga (500 lbs. withdrawn and used by agent Corn bran, germ and meal from yellow corn TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) LABEL Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. Crude Fat -■ per cent. Crude Protein percent. '3 0 1 0 . m a I 'O 0 rt 73 1 1 Krause Milling Company, Chas. A., Milwaukee, Wis. 5101 1492 Paoli Milling Co., Paoli _ 9.3 6.0 7.3 10.0 11.9 Badger Hominy Peed 5101 2947 Jacob Portman, Columbia City. 9.2 6.0 7.1 10.0 11.0 Badger Hominy Peed 5101 3489 North Madison Coal Co., North Madison 8.4 6.0 6.3 10.0 10.2 Louisville Cereal Mill Company, Louisville, Ky. Hominy Meal 2020 4670 Scottsburg Elevator, Scottsburg 8.4 7.0 8.5 9.0 10.5 Mead Johnson & -Company, Evansville, Ind. fMead’s Hnminv Peed 7760 3682 M nnnf nptnrprs 8.8 6.0 7.7 10.0 10.3 Medora Mill Company, Medora, Ind. tHominy Peed 7572 *>831 Manufacturers 8.2 5.0 7.7 8.0 10.4 National Peed Company, St. Louis, Mo. “Hominy Peed” 3020 1532 A. B. Mosher & Co., Columbia City 9.6 7.0 9.8 10.0 11.7 “Hominy Peed” 3020 4080 Campbellsburg Exchange, Campbellsburg 8.9 7.0 7.9 10.0 10.7 “Hominy Peed” 3020 4089 .Orleans Mill & Elevator Co., Orleans 7.9 7.0 8.1 10.0 11.0 tt“Hominy Peed” 3020 4293 Hammel Milling Co., Fremont.. 8.1 7.0 8.5 10.0 10.8 Noblesville Milling Company, Noblesville, Ind. Hominv Chop 3309 2198 Macy Milling Co., Macy 8.0 3.5 10.0 9.5 11.2 Pfeffer Milling Company, Lebanon, 111. ttPfeffer Milling Co. Hominy Peed 2617 3657 Clem C. James, Lexington.. ... 8.1 8.0 8.5 10.0 10.5 Quaker Oats Company, The, Chicago, 111. Yellow Hominy Peed 127 3053 2042 City Peed & Fuel Co., Brazil 9.6 4.0 7.2 9.0 11.8 *Yellow Hominv Peed 127 3076 Chas A . Steele , Princeton 9.1 7.8 11.1 Suffern-Hunt Mills, Branch American Hominy Company, Decatur, 111. Hominy Peed 5153 1625 A. B. Cohee & Co., McCordsville 9.1 7.1 6.9 9.3 10.4 Hominy Peed 5153 2522 New Albany Milling Co., New Albany • 8.0 7.1 7.8 9.3 11.1 Hominy Peed 5153 3375 Marshall & O’Hair, Greencastle. 8.7 7.1 7.6 9.3 10.6 Hominy Peed 7479 4145 Lingeman-Adams & Co., Browmsburg 8.0 7.0 8.3 10.0 10.7 Hominy Peed 7479 4189 Studabaker Grain & Seed Co., Bluffton 7.8 7.0 7.4 10.0 10.3 Hominy Feed 7479 4360 Wellington Milling Co., Anderson 7.6 7.0 7.8 10.0 10.8 COTTONSEED FEED American Cotton Hull & Fiber Company, The, Memphis, Tenn. “Cyclone” Cottonseed Peed 4971 1739 Turner & Robbins, Shelburn 8.2 3.0 3.7 20.0 21.5 Tennessee Fiber Company, Memphis Tenn. Creamo Brand Cottonseed Peed 4952 4907 Perry Harky, Huntertown 8.0 4.0 4.2 20.0 19.7 * Not tagged t Before registration tt Not tagged. Labels furnished 127 Corn bran, germ, grits and meal from yellow com and corn germ meal. Returned to mfrs. 132 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (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 a 1 COTTONSEED MEAL 1 i j American Milling Company, Peoria, 111. Amen Cottonseed Meal 128 5617 1469 (Jpo. Stppklpy, trpndahville > 7.5 8.0 6.8 1 41.0 1 39.0 Ameo Cottonseed Meal 120 5617 2024 W. P. HaySj TCnknmn 5.2 8.0 6.5 41.0 38.7 ^Cottonseed Meal 2013 University of Notre Dame, Bartlett Company, The J. E., Notre Dame 8.2 — 6.9 ... 42.9 Jackson, Mich. Michigan “Parmer” Brand Cotton Seed Meal 5484 1826 R. P. Linn & Son, Union City.. 6.7 7.0 7.4 41.0 43.5 ♦Michigan “Parmer” Brand Cotton Seed Meal 1837 Edward Warren, Union City 7.1 7.1 42.2 Michigan “Parmer” Brand Cotton Seed Meal 5484 1838 C. S. Pierce & Lester Arthur, Michigan “Parmer” Brand Cotton Winchester .. 7.1 7.0 7.1 41.0 42.2 Seed Meal 5484 1839 Edward Curtner, Union City 7.5 7.0 6.9 41.0 40.8 Michigan “Parmer” Brand Cotton Seed Meal 5484 1840 C. S. Pierce & Lester Arthur, Michigan “Parmer” Brand Cotton Winchester 7.5 7.0 6.9 41.0 40.8 Seed Meal 5484 2503 Home Grain Co., LaGrange 7.6 7.0 6.4 41.0 40.8 Michigan “Parmer” Brand Cotton Seed Meal 5484 2564 Switzer & Wolf, Howe 6.7 7.0 6.8 41.0 41.7 ++Bartlett’s Jersey Parmer Brand Prime Cottonseed Meal 7249 2560 P. A. Waker & W'm. Bowman, ttBartlett’s Jersey Parmer Brand Prime Middlebury 6.8 6.0 6.9 38.5 38.6 CottonsPAd Meal 7249 4937 T. T. Perris, Pleasant T.ake 7.7 6.0 6.4 38.5 38.5 Bartlett’s Jersey Parmer Brand Prime Cottonseed Meal __ _ 1 7249 5202 Sheldon & Company, Angola... 7.1 6.0 6.9 38.5 41.7 Bartlett’s Jersey Parmer Brand Prime Cottonsppd Meal 7249 5283 Suckow Co., Pranklin 7.5 6.0 6.2 38.5 38.0 Brode & Company, P. W., Memphis, Tenn. Owl Brand Cottonseed Meal _ _ _ _ 4840 1506 Wallaee Milling Go., Dale 6.4 6.0 7.1 41.0 40.4 ttOwl Brand Cottonseed Meal i^o 4840 1524 S. P. Trembly Co., Columbia City 7.0 6.0 8.8 41.0 38 5 Owl Brand Cottonseed Meal 4840 1540 Harry E. Heck, Lewisville 6.3 6.0 7.3 41.0 40.5 Owl Brand Cottonseed Meal 4840 1857 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., Lafayette 1 6.6 6.0 6.2 41.0 41.0 Owl Brand Cottonseed Meal ; 4840 1871 Valentine Valentine, Pranklin 1 7.1 6.0 6.7 41.0 42.0 Owl Brand Cottonseed Meal 4840 2241 C. E. Bash & Co., Inc., Huntington 7.7 6.0 7.0 41.0 39.2 Owl Brand Cottonseed Meal 4840 2281 Bryant-Dowd & Co., Hebron... 1 7.3 6.0 6.6 41.0 42.1 Owl Brand Cottonseed Meal 4840 2282 Tapp & Bridwell, Bloomington. ! 8.2 6.0 6.0 41.0 41.0 Owl Brand Cottonseed Meal 4840 2333 W. E. Lowman, Mulberry 7.4 6.0 6.3 41.0 41.1 Owl Brand Cottonseed Meal _ 4840 2396 Wm. Marr, Cnlnmbns * 6.7 6.0 10.2 41.0 42.4 tfOwl Brand Cottonseed Meal ; 4840 2474 Wm. Metzger, North Manchester 6.1 6.0 7.3 41.0 41.0 Owl Brand Cottonseed Meal 4840 2639 Salem Milling Co., Salem 6.7 6.0 6.6 41.0 42.8 Owl Brand Cottonseed Meal _ 4840 2753 W. A. Jones, New Lebanon 7.1 6.0 6.2 41.0 40.2 Owl Brand Cottonseed Meal . 4840 2902 Edw. P. Goeke & Co., Evansville , 6.3 6.0 6.8 41.0 40.3 Owl Brand Cottonseed Meal 1 4840 2953 Jones Bros., Attica . 7.2 6.0 6.2 41.0 40.6 Owl Brand Cottonseed Meal i 4840 5204 A. E. Hollowell, Orleans i 7.0 6.0 6.5 41.0 40.1 ttOwl Brand Cottonseed Meal ! 4840 5271 Chas. Coulter, Prankfort 6.7 6.0 9.2 41.0 43.9 Dove Brand Cottonseed Meal. 1 4885 1502 James K. Mason, Bentonville 5.3 6.0 6.4 38.6 41.3 Dove Brand Cottonseed Meal ' 4885 1783 J. S. Crawford, Crown Point... I 6.6 6.0 6.2 38.6 39.5 Dove Brand Cottonseed Meal 4885 2233 J. S. Crawford, Crown Point. ._ j 6.4 6.0 6.3 38.6 38.8 Dove Brand Cottonseed Meal 1 4885 2283 Bloomington Milling Co., Bloomington _. 7.1 6.0 6.0 38.6 39.4 Dove Brand Cnttnns;eed Meal 1 4885 2571 0. T;. Canble, Pekin 7.6 6.0 6.7 38.6 40.5 Dove Brand Cottonseed Meal..* 4885 2843 Kiest Milling Co., Knox ■7.4 6.0 7.8 38.6 39.0 +fDnve Ttrand rinttonsped Meal i 4885 4121 W. W. Pearson, Upland [ 7.3 6.0 6.8 38.6 37.2 Dove Brand Cottonseed Meal 1 4885 4572 Bryant-Dowd & Co., Hebron 8.0 6.0 6.9 38.6 39.8 Dove Brand Cottonseed Meal ! 4885 4618 Indiana Seed Co., Indianapolis.. I 6.6 6.0 8.6 38.6 38.1 Dove Brand Cottonseed Meal 4885 4637 Probst & Kassebaum, Indianapolis 6.5 6.0 6.9 38.6 40.7 ♦ Not tagged tt Not tagged. Liabels furnished 128 2% tons removed from sale. Relabeled No. 718{>. Rebate. See page 41 120 21/4 tons removed from sale. Relabeled No. 4885. Rebate. See page 41 180 17 tons removed from sale. Relabeled No. 4085. Rebate. See page 41 181 Rebate. See page 41 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) LABEL Number Sample secured from Moisture i per cent. Crude Fat per cent. Crude Protein per cent. Official Inspection D. Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found Erode & Company, F. W., Memphis, Tenn. Dove Brand Cottonseed Meal 4885 5037 Fisher Fisher, Nabb 6.2 6.0 6.1 38.6 38.4 Dove Brand Cottonseed Meal 4885 5084 Edw. F. Goeke Co., Evansville.. 6.8 6.0 7.3 38.6 39.0 Jay Brand Cotton Seed Meal 7902 4560 W. D. Hum Milling Co., New Salisbury 6.0 5.0 6.3 36.0 35.8 Jay Brand Cotton Seed Meal i32 7902 4567 Marengo Milling Co., Marengo.. 7.4 5.0 6.3 36.0 34.6 ttDove Brand Cotton Seed Meal 8009 4737 W. E. Jackson, Greensburg 5.9 6.0 7.0 38.6 38.6 ffDnve Brnnd Dnttnn Seed Menl 8009 4738 Harry Pavy, Burney 5.9 6.0 7.9 38.6 38.6 Dove Brand Cotton Seed Meal 8009 5043 Porter Copeland, Markleville 5.6 6.0 6.6 38.6 40.1 Dove Brand Cotton Seed Meal i33 8009 5083 Heldt Co., Evansville 6.7 6.0 6.9 38.6 37.1 Dove Brand Cotton Seed Meal 8009 5097 R. J. Follett & Co., Carmel 5.8 6.0 7.2 38.6 39.3 ttDove Brand Cotton Seed Meal 8009 5150 Svfers & Heck, T.ewisville 5.4 6.0 6.4 38.6 37.5 Dove Brand Cotton Seed Meal 8009 5171 Charlestown Milling Co., Charlestown 6.6 6.0 7.1 38.6 40.9 Drive Brand Cotton Seed Meal 8009 5176 McCoy Bros., Liberty 7.2 6.0 6.6 38.6 38.6 8009 5220 Karl Seherscel, Bedford 6.4 6.0 7.0 38.6 40.5 ttDove Brand Cotton Seed Meal 8009 5240 Theodore McCabe, Pendleton 6.0 6.0 6.8 38.6 39.6 Dove Brand Cotton Seed Meal 8009 5321 J. C. Phillips, Star City 5.9 6.0 6.6 38.6 39.3 Dove Brand Cotton Seed Meal 8009 5327 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis.. 7.9 6.0 6.7 38.6 39.7 Buckeyet Cotton Oil Company, The, Cincinnati, Ohio. “Buckeye” Prime Cottonseed Meal 5534 1616 Guy E. Davis, Lebanon 6.6 6.0 7.7 38.6 41.5 “Buckeye” Prime Cottonseed Meal 5634 2168 Phillip Dorner Sons Co., Frankfort 6.4 6.0 6.8 38.6 39.5 “Buckeye” Prime Cottonseed Meal 5534 2951 E. F. Haynes, Avilla 6.3 6.0 6.5 38.6 38.2 “Buckeye” Prime Cottonseed Meal 5534 2952 Ellen Eldridge, Kendallville 6.3 6.0 6.5 38.6 38.2 “Buckeye” Prime Cottonseed Meal 5534 5177 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., ' Lafayette 6.2 6.0 6.5 38.6 39.5 Burnett Company, The Wm. A., Louisville, Ky. ttBurnett’s Prime Cotton Seed Meal 7160 5269 J. K. Wagler, Montgomery 6.2 6.0 7.0 38.6 41.2 Campbell, C. L., Little Rock, Ark. Double Hump Camel Brand Cotton- seed Meal . _ . 7937 4547 •Tav Grain Co.. Mulberry 7.1 6.0 7.3 41.0 42.8 Campbell & Company, C. L., Little Rock, Ark. Cottonseed Meal ^34 8031 4954 G. Wolff & Sons Co., Hamilton 5.9 6.0 6.5 38.5 36.1 Chicago Heights Oil Mfg. Company, Chicago, III. “Prize Brand Cottonseed Meal 6347 1584 C. E. Paxsnn, Elkhart 7.4 6.0 7.6 41.0 43.3 “Prize” Brand Cottonseed Meal ^35 6347 1623 A. B. Cohee & Co., McCordsville 8.4 6.0 7.2 41.0 38.0 “Prize” Brand Cottonseed Meal ^36 6347 2638 Salem Co-Operative Associa- tion, Salem 8.3 6.0 6.8 41.0 38.2 “Prize” Brand Cottonseed Meal 6347 2820 Milford Grain & Milling Co., Milford _ 8.9 6.0 8.0 41.0 41.5 “Prize” Brand Cottonseed Meal 8000 5138 Jerome Bartholomew, Kouts 5.3 6.0 7.8 38.5 40.2 Choctaw Sales Company, Kansas City, Mo. “Choctaw Quality” Cottonseed Meal and Cake __ 6802 2311 Granville Moodv, Moodv 6.8 7.0 7.2 43.0 43.7 “Choctaw Quality” Cottonseed Meal and Cake 7176 2863 W . C . Rose , MeCovsburg 6.6 6.0 6.1 43.0 44.2 “Choctaw Quality” Cottonseed Meal and Cake 7176 2864 Granville Moody, Rensselaer 6.0 6.0 6.1 43.0 44.8 “Choctaw Quality” Cottonseed Meal and Cake 7176 3888 D. L. Trout. Lee 7.8 6.0 6.6 43.0 45.8 Choctaw Standard Cottonseed Meal and Cake 137 7177 1641 Granville Moody, Rensselaer 7.3 6.0 6.9 41.0 36.4 tt Not tagged. Labels furnished tons removed from sale. Relabeled No. 132 19 tons removed from sale. Returned to mfgr. 7.307. Rebate. See page 41 133 6% tons removed from sale. Rebate. See i®” Rebate. See page 41 page 41 Rebate. See page 41 134 sy- tons removed from sale. Relabeled No. 8144. Rebate. See page 41 134 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (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 Cottonseed Products Company, The, i j Louisville, Ky. 1 Prime Cottonseed Meal 7103 1748 Board of Trade Peed Store, Linton 9.0 6.0 6.8 38.0 37.8 Prime Cottonseed Meal _ 7103 2523 New Albany Milling Co., New Albany ___ 7.3 6.0 6.8 38.0 38.0 Prime Cottonseed Meal __ 7103 3567 Studabaker Grain & Seed Co., Bluffton 9.1 6.0 7.2 38.0 37.8 Prime Cottonseed Meal 7103 4648 New Albany Milling Co., New Albany 8.8 6.0 7.4 ; 38.0 37.9 Good Cottonseed Meal 7981 5155 R. E. Hayes, Campbellsburg 7.1 6.0 7.6 36.0 40.1 Good Cottonseed Meal 7981 5167 Heise Bros., Orleans 7.2 6.0 7.7 36.0 38.5 Davis, S. P., Little Rock, Ark. i Good Lucie Brand Cottonseed Meal 6671 1601 G. & H. Walters, Co., Brookville 6.7 6.0 9.6 41.0 41.1 Good Luck Brand Cottonseed Meal ___ 6671 1675 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., 1 South Raub 7.4 6.0 7.2 41.0 40.8 Good Luck Brand Cottonseed Meal ___ 6671 2004 Trafalgar Grain Co., Trafalgar. 8.3 6.0 9.4 41.0 42.4 Good Luck Brand Cottonseed Meal ___ 6671 2235 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., Lafayette 6.5 6.0 6.9 i 41.0 42.3 Good Luck Brand Cottonseed Meal ___ 6671 2303 Nichols Bros., Denham 6.5 6.0 7.3 41.0 41.6 Good Luck Brand Cottonseed Meal ___ 6671 2315 W. A. Cooper, Markleville 6.1 6.0 7.8 41.0 43.4 Good Luck Brand Cottonseed Meal ___ 6671 2331 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., 1 Lafayette 1 6.2 6.0 6.5 41.0 40.9 Good Luck Brand Cottonseed Meal ___ 6671 2346 Valentine & Valentine, Franklin 6.3 6.0 7.2 41.0 41.1 Good Luck Brand Cottonseed Meal ___ 6671 2394 Phillip Dorner Son’s Co., 1 Frankfort 6.4 6.0 7.4 41.0 41.7 Good Luck Brand Cottonseed Meal ___ 6671 2409 E. V. Temple, Frankfort 1 6.2 6.0 6.7 i 41.0 41.6 Good Luck Brand Cottonseed Meal ___ ! 6671 2413 H. C. Vestal, Montezuma 6.9 6.0 7.5 41.0 40.8 Good Luck Brand Cottonseed Meal I 6671 2419 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., i 1 Wingate 6.6 6.0 7.6 41.0 42.2 Good Luck Brand Cottonseed Meal ___ 1 6671 2640 0. L. Cauble, Salem 6.9 6.0 8.2 41.0 42.6 Good Luck Brand Cottonseed Meal ___ 6671 2719 Oscar Hart, Sanburn 8.0 6.0 7.1 41.0 42.3 Good Luck Brand Cottonseed Meal ___ 1 6671 4863 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., 1 Lafayette ___ 1 9.3 6.0 7.7 41.0 41.9 Good Luck Brand Cottonseed Meal ___ i 6671 4944 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., 1 Lafayette i 7.0 6.0 7.6 41.0 42.1 Good Luck Brand Cottonseed Meal ___ 6671 5056 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., 1 1 South Raub 6.3 6.0 7.2 i 41.0 40.7 Good Luck Brand Cottonseed Meal ^38 6671 5058 Robert Jaques, Lafayette 7.8 6.0 7.3 1 41.0 38.9 Good Luck Brand Cottonseed Meal ___ 6671 5189 Robert Jaques, Lafayette 6.5 6.0 7.7 41.0 44.6 Good Luck Brand Cottonseed Meal ___ 6671 5270 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., Lafayette __ 6.6 6.0 6.4 41.0 41.9 Veribest Brand Cottonseed Meal 7432 2360 W. C. Hall Milling Co., Brazil... 6.1 6.0 7.2 1 38.5 39.8 Veribest Brand Cottonseed Meal 7432 4028 W. C. Hall Milling Co., Brazil... 7.1 6.0 7.5 38.5 38.5 Veribest Brand Cottonseed Meal 7432 4466 Hamilton Like, Monroe City 6.6 6.0 6.0 38,5 38.4 Veribest Brand Cnttnnseed Meal 7432 4548 Jay Grain Co., Mulberry 7.2 6.0 7.6 38.5 39.7 Veribest Brand rinttnnseed Meal 7432 5161 Gus Jacobs, Wanatah 6.0 6.0 7.8 38 5 40.3 Veribest Brand Cottonseed Meal 7432 5197 Wilbur Doddridge, Centerville... 6.7 6.0 5.2 38.5 37.7 Veribest Brand Cottonseed Meal i39___ 7432 5301 Henry Helmich, Greensburg 7.0 6.0 6.2 38.5 36.6 Dixie Mills Company, 1 East St. Louis, 111. 1 Anchor Brand Cotton Seed Meal i*3___ 7537 3484 Eberts & Bro., North Vernon... 8.2 6.0 7.7 38.5 37.1 Anehor Brand Cotton Seed Meal 7537 3829 J. W. Wilkinson, Boonville 8.4 6.0 8.2 38.5 37.7 Early & Daniel Company, The, Cincinnati, Ohio. ttPrime Cotton Seed Meal 5476 2897 Fred Miller, West College Corner 7.5 6.5 6.7 38.6 38.0 Prime Cotton Seed Meal 5476 3647 The Early & Daniel Co., Aurora 7.0 6.5 6.4 38.6 36.2 East St. Louis Oil Company, National Stoek Yards, 111. Illinois Brand Cotton Seed Meal i*2___ 3429 2837 Vincennes Feed & Produce Co., East St. Louis Brand Cotton Seed 1 Vincennes .. ... 5.4 7.0 7.0 41.0 41.0 Meal 1 6258 1468 George Steckley, Kendallville 6.1 6.0 9.0 38.5 42.1 tt Not tagged. Labels furnished 138 Rebate. See page 41 130 Rebate. See page 41 1*3 1% tons removed from sale and used in com- pounding feed 1*1 % ton removed from sale and returned to mfrs. 1*2 Relabeled No. 7091 135 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (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 1 Found East St. Louis Cotton Oil Company, National Stock Yards, 111 . East St. Louis Brand Cotton Seed Meal 6258 1580 Goshen Milling Co., Goshen 6.7 6.0 7.9 38.5 39.7 East St. Louis Brand Cotton Seed IVIenl 1*3 6258 1807 Purity Bakery Co., Linton 7.6 6.0 6.4 38.5 34.2 East St. Louis Brand Cotton Seed Meal 6258 2838 Vincennes Feed & Produce Co., Vincennes __ 5.3 6.0 6.8 38.5 40.4 East St. Louis Brand Cotton Seed Meal 6258 5024 J. W. Emison, Cerecelius 5.3 6.0 7.1 38.5 41.0 East St. Louis Brand Cotton Seed ATpnl 1** 6258 5153 Suckow Co., Franklin 7.1 6.0 6.0 38.5 37.2 East St. Louis Brand Cotton Seed Meal 6258 5213 The Purity Bakery Co., Linton. 5.6 6.0 6.9 38.5 38.9 East St. Louis Brand Cotton Seed Mpnl 1*5 6258 5338 T. S. Nngen, T,ewi.«!ville .. 7.4 6.0 5.5 38.5 37.7 Illinois Brand Cottonseed Meal 7091 1494 George I. Neptune, Thorntown.. 6.1 6.0 7.2 41.0 40'.5 7091 1495 Caleb 0 . Brown, T.ebanon 7.2 6.0 7.6 41.0 41.1 Illinois Brand Cottonseed Meal 7091 3383 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis.. 6.4 6.0 6.7 41.0 42.0 Eberts, H. F. H., Little Eock, Ark. Milko Brand Cottonseed Meal 7428 2550 Goodrich Bros. Hay & Grain Co., Winchester 7.5 5.5 6.6 38.6 37.7 Milko Brand Cottonseed Meal 7428 4059' Goodrich Bros. Hay & Grain Co., Winchester 6.4 5.5 7.3 38.6 38.3 Milko Brand Cnttnnsppd Mpal 7428 4569 Goshen Milling Co., Goshen 7.0 5.5 6.2 38.6 40.1 Milko Brand Cottonseed Meal 7428 5193 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., LaFayette 6.8 5.5 6.9 38.6 40.6 Milko Brand Cottonseed Meal 7428 5285 Studabaker Grain & Seed Co., Bluffton 6.2 5.5 6.3 38.6 40.1 Edinger & Company, Louisville, Ky. Cotton Seed Meal 7921 4955 Salem Co-Operative Associa- tion, Salem 6.2 6.0 6.9 41.0 41.1 Edwards & Loomis Company, Chicago, 111 . Cottonseed Meal 7138 2601 Nappanee Produce Co., Nappanee 7.2 6.0 7.6 38.5 39.9 Eldred Mill Company, Jackson, Mich. ttCusto Brand Cotton Seed Meal **0 8125 5183 Paul V. Brooks, Greens Fork... 8.1 5.0 6.7 36.0 33.8 Gusto Brand Cotton Seed Meal **'^ 8125 5324 W. F. Parks, Kitchel 8.3 5.0 5.8 36.0 31.1 Feeders Supply Company, Kansas City, Mo. “Equity Brand” Cotton Seed Meal i*®. 6167 1619 The Farmers Mill, Huntingburg. 7.0 6.0 8.6 41.0 38.2 “Equity Brand” Cotton Seed Meal i*®- 6167 1676 Wm. Raff, Conrad 8.1 6.0 6.9 41.0 39.0 “Equity Brand” Cotton Seed Meal 6167 1677 J. J. Lawler, Pogue 7.6 6.0 7.5 41.0 40.4 “Equity Brand” Cotton Seed Meal 6167 1678 J. J. Lawler, Pogue 7.2 6.0 7.1 41.0 40.1 “Equity Brand” Cotton Seed Meal * 0 *. 6167 1709 J. J. Lawler, Dyer ... 8.0 6.0 7.5 41.0 39.7 “Equity Brand” Cotton Seed Meal 102. 6167 1710 J. J. Lawler, Dyer 7.9 6.0 8.0 41.0 40.0 “Equity Brand” Cotton Seed Meal 10®- 6167 1862 J. J. Lawler, Morocco 6.7 6.b 7.4 41.0 40.4 “Equity Brand” Cotton Seed Meal ^0*- 6167 1863 J. J. Lawler, Morocco 6.6 6.0 7.6 41.0 40.4 “Equity Brand” Cotton Seed Meal 6167 2204 J. J. Lawler, Rensselaer 7.4 6.0 8.0 41.0 40.6 “Equity Brand” Cotton Seed Meal 6167 2205 J. J. Lawler, Pleasant Ridge 7.8 6.0 6.7 41.0 45.6 “Equity Brand” Cotton Seed Meal 6167 2206 J. J. Lawler, Pleasant Ridge 6.3 6.0 6.4 41.0 48.4 “Equity Brand” Cotton Seed Meal *00. 6167 2207 J. J. Lawler, Dyer 6.9 6.0 7.1 41.0 39.4 “Equity Brand” Cotton Seed Meal 6167 2222 Wm. Raff. Conrad . 7.6 6.0 8.3 41.0 40.6 “Equity Brand” Cotton Seed Meal 6167 2527 J. J. Lawler, Pleasant Ridge 6.0 6.0 6.6 41.0 47.1 “Equity Brand” Cotton Seed Meal 6167 2678 J. J. Lawler, Fair Oaks 7.4 6.0 6.0 41.0 45.1 “Equity Brand” Cotton Seed Meal 6167 2679 J. J. Lawler, Fair Oaks 6.7 6.0 6.0 41.0 44.2 “Equity Brand” Cotton Seed Meal 6167 2680 Wm. Raff. Conrad _ . 6.1 6.0 6.3 41.0 45.1 “Equity Brand” Cotton Seed Meal 6167 2681 W. Raff, Conrad 6.5 6.0 6.2 41.0 45.0 “Equity Brand” Cotton Seed Meal 6167 2682 J. J. Lawler, Fair Oaks 6.4 6.0 6.1 41.0 45.0 “Equity Brand” Cotton Seed Meal 6167 2763 W. A. Meloy, Argos 5.7 6.0 7.9 41.0 43.1 “Equity Brand” Cotton Seed Meal 6167 2764 J. M. Romig, Argos 5.7 6.0 7.9 41.0 43.1 “Equity Brand” Cotton Seed Meal 6167 2765 Geo. R. Mvers. Argos : _ 5.7 6.0 7.9 41.0 43.1 “Equity Brand” Cotton Seed Meal 6167 2959 D. L. Trout, Monon 7.1 6.0 6.0 41.0 43.6 tt Not tagged. Labels furnished 1^3 1 ton removed from sale. Relabeled No. 7459. Rebate. See page 41 Rebate. See page 41 Rebate. 'See page 41 Rebate. See page 42 Rebate. See page 42 19 tons removed from sale. Relabeled No. 7413. Rebate. See page 42 1*0 Rebate. 150 Rebate. i®i Rebate. i®2 Rebate. 1®3 Rebate. 10* Rebate. 100 Rebate. See page 42 See page 42 See page 42 See page 42 See page 42 See page 42 See page 42 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (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 Goodrich Bros. Hay & Grain Company, Winchester, Ind. Magic Cottonseed Meal 7317 2060 Manufacturers 6.7 6.0 7.0 36.0 36.0 Gronauer & Company, Gus, Memphis, Tenn. Globe Brand Cottonseed Meal 6872 1493 Panli Milling Cn , Panli 6.5 6.0 7.0 41.0 40.4 Globe Brand Cottonseed Meal 6872 2245 Gustav Wolf & Sons Co., Hamilton 6.7 6.0 6.9 41.0 41.0 Globe Brand Cottonseed Meal 6872 5312 C. F. Cattrnn, Wcstvillp 5.6 6.0 7.6 41.0 40.8 Hewitt, C. G., Montgomery, Ala. Puritan Brand Cottonseed Meal 7441 2457 Farmers Elevator Co., Laketon. 5.9 6.5 7.3 41.0 41.7 *Cottonseed Meal 2473 Dow Bush, Urban a 6.1 7.2 40.9 Humphreys, Godwin Company, Memphis, Tenn. Dixie Brand Cottonseed Meal 5064 1535 Thomas Nugen, Lewisville __ _ 5.9 6.0 7.4 41.0 42.6 Dixie Brand Cottonseed Meal 5064 1592 Geo. E. Bordner, Bristol 7.3 6.0 7.0 41.0 42.3 Dixie Brand Gottonseed Meal 5064 2250 Walter Cook, Veedersburg 6.9 6.0 7.4 41.0 43.4 Dixie Brand Cottonseed Meal 5064 2687 The Lemon Milling Co., Bedford 7.7 6^0 6^4 4L0 42 .’6 5064 2717 Frank Owen, Bedford _ _ 6.7 6.0 6.1 41.0 40.8 Dixie Brand Cottonseed Meal 5064 2814 C. W. T^ee, Sharpsville 6.4 6.0 6.6 41.0 43.0 Dixie Brand Cottonseed Meal 5064 2815 C. W. T.ee, Sharpsville 7.2 6.0 6.6 41.0 41.9 Dixie Brand Cottonseed Meal 5064 2868 T. S. Nugen, Lewisville 6.0 6.0 8.9 41.0 44.0 Dixie Brand Cottonseed Meal 5064 2910 Judson Creamery & Produce Co., North Judson 6.2 6.0 8.4 41.0 43.0 Dixie Brand Cottonseed Meal 5064 2932 J. W. Corya, Hope 7.9 6.0 7.5 41.0 42.1 Dixie Brand Cottonseed Meal 5064 4958 Salem Milling Co.. Salem 6.0 6.0 6.9 41.0 41.8 Forfat Brand Cottonseed Meal 7116 1638 Butcher & Duncan, Oakland City 7.7 6.0 7.4 38.5 38.1 Forfat Brand Cottonseed Meal i®® 7116 2751 Indiana Seed Co., Indianapolis.. 6.8 6.0 6.6 38.5 37.7 Forfat Brand Cottonseed Meal 7116 4465 Vincennes Feed & Produce Co., Vincennes 6.7 6.0 7.9 38.5 38.7 Forfat Brand Cottonseed Meal 7116 4803 R. L. Ader, Clayton 6.1 6.0 6.8 38.5 38.5 Forfat Brand Cottonseed Meal 7116 4933 G. I. Neptune, Thorntown 7.0 6.0 6.1 38.5 38.8 Forfat Brand Cottonseed Meal 7116 4934 G. I. Neptune, Thorntown 6.9 6.0 6.7 38.5 37.9 Forfat Brand Cottonseed Meal i®® 7116 5135 Butcher & Duncan, Oakland City 6.0 6.0 6.2 38.5 36.4 Forfat Brand Cottonseed Meal ^®® 7116 5142 E. W. Masters, Sedalia 6.1 6.0 6.3 38.5 37.3 ■porfat Brand Cottonseed Meal 7116 5208 H. E. Pitman, Bedford 5.8 6.0 6.2 38.5 38.9 Forfat Brand Cottonseed Meal 7116 5209 H. E. Pitman. Bedford 6.0 6.0 6.7 38.5 38 0 Forfat Brand Cottonseed Meal i®® 7116 5302 H. L. Beall, Clarksburg 6^2 6!o 7!o 38.5 36.9 Danish Brand Cottonseed Meal 7178 1860 Frank Vanatta, Fowler 6.4 5.0 8.3 36.0 36.4 Danish Brand Cottonseed Meal 7178 1861 W. J. Smith, Fowler. .. 6.8 5.0 7.8 36.0 37.7 Danish Brand Cottonseed Meal 7178 4562 Geo. E. Bordner, Bristol 7.0 5.0 7 4 36.0 36.7 Danish Brand Cottonseed Meal 7178 5246 W. C. Hall Milling Co., Brazil... 7.2 5.0 6.3 36.0 37.9 Danish Brand Cottonseed Meal 7178 5303 J. G. Miller, Greensburg. 7.3 5.0 7.1 36.0 36.2 Danish Brand Cottonseed Meal 7178 5304 Hugh Taylor, Greensburg 7^3 5.0 7.5 36.0 36.5 Imperial Cotto Milling Company, Chicago, 111. Imi>erial Cotto Brand Cottonseed Meal 7099 1591 L. B. Puckett, Muncie 8.5 6.0 7.0 41.0 43.0 Imperial Cotto Brand Cottonseed Meal 7099 2259 Gideon Gerber, Craigville 7.1 6.0 6.6 41.0 41.6 Imperial Cotto Brand Cottonseed Meal 7099 2264 Roper & Brown, Hobart 7.3 6.0 6.7 41.0 42.0 ttimperial Cotto Brand Cottonseed Meal 7099 2270 J. P. Lockwood, Keystone 7.6 6.0 6.5 41.0 41.2 ttlmperial Cotto Brand Cottonseed Meal 7099 2313 L. B. Puckett, Muncie 6.8 6.0 6.4 41.0 39.2 Imperial Cotto Brand Cottonseed Meal 7099 2314 L. B. Puckett, Muncie ... 6.7 6.0 7.5 41.0 41.8 Imperial Cotto Brand Cottonseed Meal 7099 2330 Arthur Cecil, Selma .. ... 6.6 6.0 6.8 41.0 40.9 Imperial Cotto Brand Cottonseed Meal 7099 2456 Haynes Milling Co., Portland... 6.5 6.0 7.4 41.0 43.9 Imperial Cotto Brand Cottonseed Meal .. 7099 2824 H. C. Click, Elizabethtown 7.2 6.0 6.8 41.0 37.3 Imperial Cotto Brand Cottonseed Meal i®2 7099 2826 Eberts & Bro., North Vernon... 7.2 6.0 6.8 41.0 37J^ * Not tagged iso Rebate. See page 42 tt Not tagged. Labels furnished Rebate. See page 42 Rebate. See page 42 1% tons removed from sale. Relabeled No. 157 Kel)ate. See page 42 7307. Rebate. See page 42 158 i2y> tons removed from sale. Rebate. See i®^ 2'%, tons removed from sale. Relabeled No. page 42 7307. 137 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) LABEL Number Sample secured from Moisture per cent. , Crude Fat per cent. Crude Protein per cent. 'S O 1 QO a 1 'O efl ^ O a 1 1 u rt « O c3 ns § Imperial Cotto Milling Company, Chicago, 111. ttlmperial Cotto Brand Cottonseed Meal 7099 2930 Earl Garten, Burney 7.5 6.0 6.3 41.0 40.2 ttlmperial Cotto Brand Cottonseed Meal 7099 2935 Hillis & Toten, Pair Oaks 6.4 6.0 7.8 41.0 44.2 ttimperial Cotto Brand Cottonseed Meal 163 7099 3511 Chas. W. .les.sup, Madison 8.1 6.0 7.0 41.0 37.2 Imperial Cotto Brand Prime Cotton- seed Meal 7150 1668 Studabaker Grain & Seed Co., ttimperial Cotto Brand Prime Cotton- Bluffton 8.2 5.0 7.2 38.5 39.C .seed Meal 7150 1878 Chfts. D. I. a kin, Parr 7.8 5.0 6.0 38.5 34.4 ttlniperial Cotto Brand Prime Cotton- 7150 1879 Obas T). I, akin, Parr 8.0 5.0 5.8 38.5 33.7 Imperial Cotto Brand Prime Cotton- 7150 2309 ,1. S. Mineh, Ohalmers 6.9 5.0 7.4 38.5 37.4 Imperial Cotto Brand Prime Cotton- seed Meal i®^ 7150 2646 Orleans Mill & Elevator Co., Orleans 8.2 5.0 6.2 38.5 36.8 Imperial Brand Cnttnn.seed Meal 7307 2130 Geo. W. Taber, Bluffton 7.0 5.5 7.0 36.0 36.7 ttlniperial Brand Cottonseed Meal 7307 2165 Marguard Slipher, Moran 7.0 5.5 6.5 36.0 35.3 7307 2310 ,1. S. Mineh, Reynolds 6.3 5.5 6.7 36.0 32.5 Imperial Brand rinttnnseed Meal 7307 2332 ,1. S. Mineh, Chalmers 7.0 5.5 8.7 38.0 33.5 ttlniperial Brand Cottonseed Meal 7307 2410 R. V. Thompson, Dana 6.4 5.5 6.1 36.0 35.5 ttimperial Brand Ontt.nnseed Meal 7307 2411 M. P. Collier, Dana 6.4 5.5 6.1 36.0 35.5 ttimperial Brand Cottonseed Meal 7307 2800 Wm. Erwin & Son, Bourbon 7.6 5.5 7.1 36.0 35!6 7307 2811 TiOuis S. Sift.as, Tipton 8.2 5.5 6.5 36.0 37.3 I+Imperial Brand D'nttnn.seed Meal 7307 2817 ,1. C. Erwin^ Inwood 7.6 5.5 7.5 37.7 Imperial Cotto Milling Company, Peoria, 111. ttimperial Cotto Brand Prime Cotton- seed Meal 4881 2317 A. S. Thomas, LaPontaine 7.7 6.5 6.7 38.6 38.4 Imperial Cotto Brand Cottonseed Meal 4929 2122 Wm. Gerber, Bluffton 6.3 6!o 7!o 41.0 40.3 ttimperial Cotto Brand Cottonseed Mealf 4929 2569 Ray Taylor, Lebanon 6.8 6.0 6.4 41.0 41.5 ttimperial Cotto Brand Cottonseed Meal' 4929 2570 Orville Taylor, Lebanon 6.8 6.0 6.4 41.0 41.5 Imperial Cotto Sales Company, i Chicago, 111. ttimperial Brand Cottonseed Meal 8091 5179 Geo. C. Wood. Windfall 8.0 5.0 7.6 36.0 35.9 tjlmperial Brand riottonseed Meal 8091 5249 Ralph Moss, Clay City 8.3 5.0 6.6 36.0 37.6 ttimperial Brand Cottonseed Meal 8091 5250 W. J. Hall, Clay City 8^0 5^0 6.8 36^0 36!o ttimperial Cotto Brand Prime Cotton- seed Meal 8093 5157 St. Marys Academy, Notre Dame 6.4 5.0 7.2 38.5 38.5 ttimperial Cotto Brand Prime Cotton- seed Meal 8093 5158 University of Notre Dame, ttimperial Cotto Brand Prime Cotton- Notre Dame 6.2 5.0 6.5 38.5 40.3 seed Meal 8093 5188 Roth Bros.. Rensselaer 7.1 5.0 9.0 38.5 41.9 ttimperial Cotto Brand Prime Cotton- seed Meal 8093 5194 R. A. Parkison. Moodv 8.5 5.0 6.7 38.5 40.5 Imperial Cotto Brand Prime Cotton- [ seed Meal l 8393 5195 R. A. Parkison, Moodv _ 6.2 5.0 5.4 38.5 39.8 Imperial Cotto Brand Prime Cotton- - seed Meal 8093 5238 G. C. Arbogast, Selma. 6.4 5.0 7.5 38.5 40.4 Imperial Cotto Brand Prime Cotton- seed Meal [ 8093 5239 G. C. Arbovast. Selma 6.3 5.0 7.6 38.5 38.3 ttimperial Cotto Brand Prime Cotton- seed Meal 8093 5291 W. 0. Talbert. Wabash 6.1 5.0 7.9 38.5 39.6 Johnson, H. N., Athens, Ga. Prime Cotton Seed Meal 7740 5034 W. R. McClanahan, Otiseo 5.6 6.0 6.9 38.6 39.6 Cdtton Seed Meal 8061 5210 Bloomington Milling Co., ' Johnson & Company, W. B., Bloomington * 6.3 5.5 6.1 36.0 36.1 Memphis, Tenn. Supreme Brand Cottonseed Meal i®®___ 6930 2458 John Doty, Marion 6.6 7.0 6.7 41.0 33.7 Supreme Brand Cottonseed Meal i®® 6930 2459 Harvey Bragg, Marion 6.6 7.0 6.7 41.0 33.7 Supreme Brand Cottonseed Meal i®'^... 6930 2460 John Dotv. Marion _ 6.6 7.0 6.7 41.0 39.7 Imperial Brand Cottonseed Meal 6931 2265 Prater & Mottier, Terre Haute. 7.0 6.0 7.0 38.0 1 40.1 Imperial Brand Cottonseed Meal 6931 2359 Paul Kuhn & Co., Riley 6.2 6.0 7.3 38.0 ! 42.2 Imperial Brand Cottonseed Meal. 6931 5290 A. L. Wheeler, Mooresville 1 6.9 6.0 7.1 38.0 39.3 Imperial Brand Cottonseed Meal 6931 5332 1 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis.. 6.4 1 6.0 7^5 38! 0 1 39!4 tt Not tagged. Labels furnished Rebate. See page 42 163 tons removed from sale. Relabeled No. i®® Rebate. See page 42 7307. Rebate. See page 42 ^®’^ Rebate. See page 42 164 4 3/^^ tons removed from sale TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) LABEL Number Sample secured from Moisture percent. Crude Fat per cent. Crude Protein per cent. Official Inspection D. Guar- anteed Found Guar- anteed Found Keeton & Company, J. P., Atlanta, Ga. t“Southern King Brand” Cottonseed Meal 8398 5154 0 . L. Caiihle, Salem 5.1 6.0 9.1 38.6, 38.7 Lanier Bros., Nashville, Tenn. Jersey Brand Cottonseed Meal 5537 2829 Wesley Miller Plour & Peed Co., South Bend 6.9 6.0 6.1 38.6 38.0 Jersey Brand Cottonseed Meal 1 ®® 5537 3320 John Runge & Co., Richmond.. 6.9 6.0 7.0 38.6 35.7 Lovitt & Company, L. B., . Memphis, Tenn. T.nyit Brand Cnttnn.seed Meal 6238 1500 Gpn P. Wngmpr, -Tasppr 6.6 7.5 6.9 41.0 41.5 Lovit Brand Cottonseed Meal 6238 1575 The PTpldt Cn., Bvansyillp 7.4 7.5 6.5 41.0 42.4 Lovit Brand Cottonseed Meal 6238 1872 Suckow Company, Pranklin 7.1 7.5 7.8 41.0 44.3 1909 Acme-Evans Co., Indianapolis.. 6.8 6.7 39.5 Lovit Brand Cottonseed Meal ^®® 6238 2306 Hawley Hall, T.pwisvillp 6.7 7.5 6 8 41.0 40 4 T.nvit Brand Cottonseed Meal i70 6238 2987 Calvin Stout, Clayton 7.7 7.5 6 5 41.0 40.5 Memphis Brand Cottonseed Meal 6849 1781 Paul E. Raasch, Crown Point... 7.7 6.0 6.0 38.6 38.2 Memphis Brand Cottonseed Meal 6849 1782 Paul E. Raasch, Crown Point... 7.9 6.0 7.0 38.6 40.1 Memphis Brand Cottonseed Meal 6849 2232 Luebcke Bros., Crown Point 6.3 6.0 6.4 38.6 37.4 Memphis Brand Cottonseed Meal 6849 4628 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis. 6.9 6.0 6.0 .38.6 36.7 Memphis Brand Cottonseed Meal 6849 4806 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis. 6.3 6.0 6.8 38.6 39.7 Memphis Brand Cottonseed Meal 6849 4851 A. L. Wheeler, Mooresville 6.4 6.0 6.9 38.6 40.1 Memphis Brand Cottonseed Meal 6849 5057 Pred Slinkard & C. M. East, Worthington 5.5 6.0 5.7 1 38.6 39.1 Mpmphis Brand Cottonsppd Meal 6849 5168 Wm. Steeb, Crown Point 6.5 6.0 5 6 38.6 38.8 Memphis Brand Cottonseed Meal 6849 5211 Harry Matlock, Bloomington.^.. 5.9 6.0 6.2 38.6 38.6 Memphis Brand Cottonseed Meal 6849 5217 Studabaker Grain & Seed Co., Bluffton 6.6 6.0 7.0 38.6 41.9 Memphis Brand Cottonseed Meal 6849 5241 J. S. Minch, Chalmers 6.6 6.0 5 3 38.6 39.0 Memphis Brand Cottonseed Meal 6849 5244 Jos. S. Minch, Chalmers 6.3 6.0 5.3 38.6 38.8 Memphis Brand Cottonseed Meal 6849 5286 Studabaker Grain & Seed Co., Bluffton - 6.8 6.0 7.3 38.6 40.8 Memphis Brand Cottonseed Meal 6849 5298 Haynes Milling Co., Portland 7.1 6.0 7.0 38.6 36.6 T nvit Brand Cnttnnsppd Mpal 7460 4492 E. T. Harper, Sharpsville 6.2 6.5 8.2 41.0 43.0 T.nvit Brand Cottnnsppd Meal 7460 5284 Siipknw Cn., Pranklin 6.7 6.5 7.1 41.0 40.8 Macdonald, J. M., Cincinnati, Ohio. TCinpda Primp Cnttnnsppd Mpal 6761 1574 E. P. Goeke Co., Evansville 6.9 6.0 7.1 38.6 39.4 T\ inpda Primp Cnttnnsppd Mpal 6761 1744 .T H T.ponard, Snllivan 7.5 6.0 7.2 38.6 39.5 ttKineda Prime Cottonseed Meal 6761 2421 W. J. Loy, Columbus 6.5 6.0 6.7 38.6 39.9 ttKineda Prime Cottonseed Meal 6761 2440 Crothersville Peed & Grain Exchange, Crothersville 7.6 6.0 6.7 38.6 39.4 Kineda Prime Cottonseed Meal 6761 2528 Louis Hartman & Sons, New Albany 6.1 6.0 7.3 38.6 40.8 Kineda Prime Cottonseed Meal 6761 2534 M. A. Conroy, Jeffersonville 6.5 6.0 7.3 38.6 38.7 Kineda Prime Cottonseed Meal 6761 2551 John Gienger & Co., Jeffersonville 5.7 6.0 7.5 38.6 39.6 Kineda Prime Cottonseed Meal 6761 3661 M. A. Conroy, Jeffersonville 7.4 6.0 5 8 .38 6 35.2 Kineda Prime Cottonseed Meal 6761 3695 Hodapp Hominy Co., Seymour. 7.1 6.0 7.3 38.6 38.9 Kineda Prime Cottonseed Meal 6761 4262 Ed. P. Goeke Co., Evansville 6.4 6.0 8.0 38.6 39.5 Kineda Prime Cottonseed Meal 6761 4668 Louisville Cement Co., Jeffersonville 7.8 6.0 6.6 38.6 39.1 Kineda Prime Cottonseed Meal 6761 5054 Milltown Milling Co., Milltown.. 5.6 6.0 7.9 38.6 38.0 Kineda Prime Cottonseed Meal 6761 5076 Edw. P. Goeke Co., Evansville.. 6.2 6.0 6.4 38.6 38.4 Kineda Prime Cottonseed Meal 6761 5173 J. Gienger & Co., Jeffersonville. 7.5 6.0 6.7 38.6 38.5 Kineda Prime Cottonseed Meal 6761 5174 M. A. Conroy, Jeffersonville 7.3 6.0 6.9 38.6 36.9 Kineda Prime Cottonseed Meal 6761 5328 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis.. 6.2 6.0 8.1 38.6 39.8 Kineda Prime Cottonseed Meal 6761 5329 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis.. 6.0 6.0 5.8 38.6 40.0 Kineda Prime Cottonseed Meal i"^® 6761 5330 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis.. 7.4 6.0 6.1 38.6 36.2 Macado Cottonseed Meal - 6891 1626 Oaklandon Grain Co., Oaklandon 6.1 6.0 6.7 41.0 41.2 * Not tagged t Before registration tt Not tagged. Labels furnished 1 ®® IVfj tons removed from sale 1®® Rebate. See page 42 1^® Rebate. See page 42 10 tons removed from sale. Rebate. See I)age 42 Rebate. See page 42 11 tons removed from sale. Relabeled No. 7580. Rebate. See page 42 174 g 1 / 2 ^ tons removed from sale. Returned to mfr. Rebate. See page 42 176 7 ®/io tons removed from sale. Relabeled No. 7973. Rebate. See page 42 1"® 10 tons removed from sale. Rebate. See page 42 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (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 ttMacdonald, J. M., Cincinnati, Ohio. Macado Cottonseed Meal 6891 1768 Haynes Milling Co., Portland— 7.4 6.0 6.3 41.0 35 7 Macado Cottonseed Meal n® 6891 1873 J. B. Harrell & Son, Shelbyville 7.2 6.0 6.7 41.0 39.5 Macado Cottonseed Meal 6891 1996 Union Crain & Feed Co., Anderson 7.6 6.0 6.4 41.0 42.2 Macado Cottonseed Meal 6891 2305 Paul V. Brooks, Greens Fork... 7.6 6.0 7.6 41.0 41.3 6891 2336 Sueknw Co., Franklin 8.0 6.0 7.9 41.0 40.5 Macado Cottonseed Meal 6891 2711 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis.. 5.5 6.0 7.3 41.0 42.6 Macado Cottonseed Meal 6891 2712 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis.. 5.4 6.0 7.3 41.0 43.2 ttMacado Cottonseed Meal 6891 2929 Wm. E. Jackson, Greensburg 7.7 6.0 7.5 41.0 41.3 6891 2931 Harry F- Pa,vy, Burney 7.5 6.0 6.3 41.0 42.3 Macado Cottonseed Meal 6891 3090 Ziliak & Schafer Milling Co., Haubstadt _ 7.5 6.0 7.7 41.0 40.5 Macado Cottonseed Meal 6891 3146 Ohio Valley Seed Co., Evansville 6.5 6.0 8.2 41.0 41.0 6891 3151 Heldt Co., Evansville 6.5 6.0 8.2 41.0 41.0 ttMacado Cottonseed Meal 6891 3166 Rosenberger, Klein & Co., Evansville 6.3 6.0 7.8 41.0 41.0 Avon Cottonseed Meal 7973 5172 New Albany Milling Co., New Albany 6.7 5.0 6.5 36.0 37.4 Avon Cottonseed Meal 7973 5196 Goodrich Bros. Hay & Grain Co., Winchester 6.3 5.0 6.4 36.0 36.9 Avon Cottonseed Meal 7973 5206 Salem Co-Operative Associa- tion, Salem 6.5 5.0 6.9 36.0 39.2 Avon Cottonseed Meal 7973 5214 Board of Trade Feed Store, Linton 6.6 5.0 6.2 36.0 36.1 Avon Cottonseed Meal 7973 5215 Board of Trade Feed Store, Linton 6.7 5.0 6.5 36.0 36.5 Avon Cottonseed Meal 7973 5331 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis.. J 7.3 5.0 8.1 36.0 35.9 National Feed Company, St. Louis, Mo. Cotton Seed Meal 3324 1548 Elmer Shook, Columbia City 6.8 7.5 7.8 41.0 44.1 Nothern, W. C., Little Eock, Ark. Bee Brand Cotton Seed Meal 3563 2968 A. 0. Haynes & Son, Modoc 6.1 7.0 6.8 41.0 44.4 Butterfly Cottonseed Meal and Cake 11 ® 6525 1486 Goodrich Bros. Hay & Grain Co., Winchester 7.3 6.0 5.9 39.0 37.5 ttButterfly Cottonseed Meal and Cake- 6525 1827 Ned Odle, Ridgeville 6.1 6.0 6.7 39.0 39.7 Butterfly Cottonseed Meal and Cake__ 6525 1828 Ernest Spiders, Ridgeville 6.1 6.0 6.7 39.0 39.7 Butterfly Cottonseed > Meal and Cake 180 6525 2799 Amo Mill & Elevator Co., Whiteland 6.9 6.0 7.1 39.0 38 0 Butterfly Cottonseed Meal and Cake__ 6525 2967 A. 0. Haynes & Son, Modoc 6.4 6.0 6.7 39.0 43.7 Butterfly Cottonseed Meal and r:ake 181 6525 4980 Sweitzer & Wolfe. Howe 6.6 6.0 7.0 39.0 37.8 Butterfly Cottonseed Meal and Cake__ 6525 5281 Kraus & Apfelbaum, Osage Cotton Oil Company, Fort Wayne 5.7 6.0 7.6 39.0 40.2 Kansas City, Mo. Silo Brand Cottonseed Meal and Cake 8032 4891 C. D. Laken, Parr 7.0 5.0 5.5 38.5 40.5 Planters Cotton Oil Company, Dallas, Texas. tPrime Cotton Seed Meal and Cake i®® 7463 2169 Sedalia Elevator Co., Sedalia... 7.4 6.0 6.0 43.0 41.7 Ralston Purina Company, St. Louis, Mo. Winner Prime Cottonseed Meal 6909 1470 Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., Reynolds 7.5 6.0 6.4 38.6 39.7 Winner Prime Cottonseed Meal 6909 2144 Polks Sunlight Farm, Greenwood . 7.3 6.0 6.9 38.6 38.4 Winner Prime Cottonseed Meal 1 ®® 6909 2942 Marion Soldiers’ Home, Marion. 7.2 6.0 8.2 38.6 35.1 Winner Prime Cottonseed Meal i®i 6909 4044 National Military Home, Marion 7.3 6.0 6.6 38.6 37.2 Winner Prime Cottonseed Meal 1 ®® 6909 4184 Studabaker Grain & Seed Co., Bluffton 6.8 6.0 6.0 38.6 37.6 t Before registration tt Not tagged. Labels furnished I 1% tons removed from sale. Relabeled No. 744.3. Rebate. See page 42 Rebate. See page 42 10 tons removed from sale. Relabeled No. 7317. Rebate. See page 42 Rebate. See page 42 Rebate. See page 42 1®- 31/10 tons removed from sale. Rebate. See page 43 1 ®® Rebate. See page 43 i®i Rebate. See page 43 1 ®® Rebate. See page 43 140 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (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 ra c 1 Ralston Purina Company, 1 St. Louis, Mo. Winner Prime Cottonseed Meal is® 6909 4782 Zionsville Milling Co., Zionsville. 7.8 6.0 6.7 38.6 1 35.4 Winner Prime Cottonseed Meal 6909 4935 Thorntown Grain Co., Thorntown 7.4 6.0 6.8 38.6 1 37.2 Winner Prime Cottonseed Meal 6909 5245 Harrison Smith, Terre Haute 7.7 6.0 7.2 38.6 [ 36.4 Texas Cake & Linter Company, Dallas, Texas. Sunset Brand Cottonseed Meal and riraePed Cake 7035 1499 Gen P WagnPT, .Tasppr’ 6.1 6.0 7.7 41.0 41.0 Texas Cake & Linter Company, ! 1 Dallas, Texas. 1 Sunset Brand Cottonseed Meal and i Cracked Cake 7035 1588 A. 0. Haynes & Son, Modoc 1 7.6 6.0 6.9 41.0 38.9 Sunset Brand Cottonseed Meal and 7035 1589 .Tnsiab Meeks, Parker 7.0 6.0 6.9 41.0 39.7 Sunset Brand Cottonseed Meal and j 7035 1590 R. S. Arbogast, Selma__ 8.1 6.0 6.3 41.0 44.5 Sunset Brand Cottonseed Meal and 7035 1963 R. S. Arbogast, Selma 8.8 6.0 5.9 41.0 42.1 Sunset Brand Cottonseed Meal and i 7035 1964 G. C. Arbogast, Selma 8.9 1 6.0 5.9 41.0 42.1 Sunset Brand Cottonseed Meal and Cracked Cake 7035 2312 Uhl & Snider Milling Co., Connersville 6.6 6.0 6.4 41.0 38.2 Union Seed & Pertilizer Company, Argenta, Ark. ^American Red Tag Cottonseed MeaL__ 2995 R. J. Spencer, Marion 8.0 6.4 38.5 ^American Red Tag Cottonseed Meal.— — 2996 Jesse A. Ballard, Marion___ __ _ 8.0 6.4 38.5 Union Seed & Fertilizer Company, New York, N. Y. “American Red Tag” Cottonseed Meal 6210 1977 Omer G. Whelan, Richmond _ _ 7.4 7.0 6.9 38.5 39.9 “American Red Tag” Cottonseed Meal 6210 5118 W. H. Small & Co., Evansvuie.. 7.3 7.0 6.4 38.5 39.4 Number 7 Cotton Seed Meal 7711 4643 L. Hartman & Sons, New Albany 6.9 5.5 7.0 36.0 37.8 Number 7 Cotton Seed Meal 7711 4667 John Elrod & 0. L. Cauble, Pekin 7.1 5.5 7.1 36.0 35.8 Security Brand Cottonseed Meal 7993 5132 John R. Goyer, Kokomo 7.7 5.5 6.1 36.0 36.9 Security Brand Cottonseed Meal 7993 5185 J. Runge & Co., Richmond 7.7 5.5 6.3 36.0 37.0 Security Brand Cottonseed Meal 7993 5218 J. H. Williamson Co., Muncie_._ 7.1 5.5 6.7 36.0 37.1 ttSecurity Brand Cottonseed Meal 7993 5272 Gas City Elevator Co., Gas City 7.9 5.5 6.3 36.0 36.0 Security Brand Cottonseed Meal 7993 5333 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis.. 7.4 5.5 6.9 36.0 36.6 Security Brand Cottonseed Meal 7993 5334 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis.. 7.5 5.5 6.9 36.0 37.1 COLD PRESSED COTTONSEED Chicago Heights Oil Mfg. Company, Chicago, 111. “Prize” Cold Pressed Cottonseed 7002 1475 Farmers Grain & Supply Co., Camden 7.5 6.0 9.4 25.0 22.9 “Prize” Cold Pressed Cottonseed 7002 1498 Reutepohler Hardware Co., Davis, S. P., Little Rock, Ark. Huntingburg .. . 7.7 6.0 10.7 25.0 21.6 ttStandard Brand Cold Pressed Cotton Seed 6272 4463 John Cofer & Frank Utt, Bruceville 7.8 6.0 6.3 26.0 29.3 Feeders Supply Company, Kansas City, Mo. Equity Brand Cold Pressed Cotton Sppfl 7080 1572 T.ee Shrader, Greentown 8.7 6.0 9.2 20.0 26.5 Imperial Cotto Milling Company, Peoria, 111. **Cold Pre: sed Cottonseed 1982 University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame 7.2 ___ 8.8 —■ 26.0 ♦ Not tagged *♦ Not registered tt Not tagged. Labels furnished 18C 2% tons removed from sale. Relabeled No. 81i)8. Rebate. See page 43 187 ly, tons removed from sale 188 14% tons removed from sale. Used by owner 180 Rebate. See page 43 190 2% tons removed from sale. Relabeled No. 7034. Rebate. See page 43 101 1 7/20 tons removed from sale. Returned to mfrs. TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (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 Mississippi Delta Planting Company, Scott, Miss. Acme Brand Cold Pressed Cottonseed. 6125 2526 De Lars Thompson, Eensselaer. 6.1 7.0 8.0 23.0 24.7 Acme Brand Cold Pressed Cottonseed. 6125 3075 J. W. Emison, Vincennes 8.6 7.0 7.7 23.0 23.3 Acme Brand Cold Pressed Cottonseed. 6125 4892 C. P. Moody, Moody 8.8 7.0 9.6 23.0 25.1 Acme Brand Cold Pressed Cottonseed- 6125 5156 University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame 8.2 7.0 10.9 23.0 25.0 ttAcme Brand Cold Pressed Cottonseed- 6125 5201 Oliver Smith, Parmland 6.7 7.0 6.7 23.0 28.0 BREWERS’ DRIED GRAINS Berghoff Brewing Company, Port Wayne, Ind. ttBerghoff’s Dried Brewers Grains 1516 4597 Indiana School for Peeble Mind- ed Youth, Port Wayne 5.3 6.0 8.2 25.0 24.1 Edinger & Company, Louisville, Ky. 8036 4973 G. L. McCutcheon, Borden 6.0 5.0 6.3 25.0 28.0 Evansville Dried Malt & Peed Company, The, Evansville, Ind. 6384 1599 Pred Niederhaus, Stacer 6.4 5.0 7.9 24.0 33.3 6384 3149 Manufaeturer.s 5.9 5.0 8.0 24.0 30.6 6384 5096 Manufacturers '. 4.4 5.0 7.5 24.0 30.1 Goeke Company, Edward P., Evansville, Ind. “Uncle Sam” Brewers’ Dried Grains 6949 3095 Manufacturers 8.2 5.0 7.1 24.0 30.0 Interstate Peed Association, Detroit, Mich. Interstate Brewers’ Dried Grains 8040 4820 McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis.. 6.9 6.0 6.2 24.0 27.1 ttinterstate Brewers’ Dried Grains 8040 4831 C. B. Cook Co., Greenwood 6.6 6.0 5.9 24.0 31.4 Interstate Brewers’ Dried Grains 8040 4852 A. L. Wheeler, Mooresville 6.6 6.0 7.0 24.0 25.1 Jones Company, J. H., Louisville, Ky. Big J. Brewers Dried Grains 7724 4647 New Albany Milling Co., New Albany 8.3 5.0 5.8 25.0 25.1 Big J. Brewers Dried Grains 7724 4828 Valentine & Valentine, Whiteland 6.6 5.0 7.0 25.0 24.7 Muessel Brewing Company, The, South Bend, Ind. Muessel’s Dried Brewers Grains 5292 1948 J. C. Barrett, South Bend 7.2 6.1 7.0 24.0 27.9 Mnps .fl c fl Cd ed erials axe 0 to 0 'fl V.O 0 OJ 0!2 0) U1 Id cn tn OP bfl tn OP Is s fl'® * fl a|i '® bM i g tn .S ij-a .M h fl S U) „ « C ^ S “ rO ^ - S W w rt 0 a cn 0 a “cn - OP OP sd ^ c £ sa) .9 ‘H »*fl 'o .5 Q> 4J a--9 .-a d OP a meal .2 c 'd CP ipal ingr column but no sed as t bran, iny fee al, oat c^lf 3. 3119 3119 alfalfa meal, al, glut 4664 Princ: n this < present clas ^ S 2 2 0 S tn Q Q tn OP -o a Q ^ 0) - TO j/j 0 CQ cd -i g « tin: ® - .'0 B ^ 10.0 I 1 1 10.0 i 10.0 l i 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 16.0 <3 CO 0 ; Cd CO 0 0 Ci Ci 00 <3 CO 0 "2 fl flg puno^ (N CN (N (N 0 id csi (N rH CN 01 (N c-i c^i (N CO 0 paa:;u'3 10 0 10 to 0 10 in in in 0 in in in in in in in 0 ^ OP a -anno CO 00 (N c4 (N rH • cc W « QJ ^ g S)>S S bi> . S Qj o £ oj o cj^oSiJci^gS ^C3 W35 . S 2 .ti P PP > M-3^ ■B&g ■g «c« ■9'a X O c O Sh lSj CU Ph O o:> 0 u rH CO Ci 0 CO •rtH CO CO C^ 00 CO rH CO ooLomcoooooo^ co»-HCOini>orHcO CO CO ^ 5 cd i ^ CO 00 rH CO (N CO .2 Q . W'O*^ 2 ® N g w C 95^ O -fl 0.2 s =11 :o .C !3 4J OT ^ M “ O 03 «5 gM o o OJ cu a Et| fcH o OJ OJ fl.2 o O 9 0'S? 9 S CO Mp fl 03 O 03 « cj ot: c P C 3 fl 9 M c 'O'O D a> ai C CJ ^ fcaT cf^ 2 iJ t>0 o SW- 03 i x: 1 jfl x: -C 1 ^ 1 ^ ^ 1 ^ 1 'O 1 'O 1 'fl! xd oi 1 a> 1 3 9» <3 gc g<3 g. .JS lv^ 0 ^ ‘ - -- ” — >2 00(20 OB ^ C 42 P p a ^ a a » w a S a -a y y y y a rv aa'sSfi» a a a c ;a coco w u a bDy y a ic? £“S 5* '^'2.9 +j —g a 2 a M ^ -M 5 y oO “a CO » a (u a a a LO CO Tt< d i-i P COCOCO <1> (3 CD «0 CD ^ y ft M M '«'a:a 5 ^QQQ a . ^ w to CO O y “ -u y y y — — M a a a ■w .-a c a a a a o ■— -rH CO a a a U cococo ^ “ 12 S> O y S' erf a y y d C a ® -2 ^ _ to" 2 ii a 5 a a: 3 a y a sh a 3 w ts bx) P be "" >3 • 'W d) . •*-> ® CO o m oj feUeo fl - a di K o a .ft -3 3 U CO w wl 0 -1“ -; ta fci CD'S.- p -M .2 os <^^ - a — ca 3 CO y .2 tci 2 So -d ” a y -2 to" -3 y " to 2 » £ o w * -3 -9 S ® 2 c M y o a be be O '•S «l| M ^ y a 6e ns a y y r a ^ ® CO in 00 02 > — to to 2 a a SI a a CL > t> a 005 OO-S d! a .. 'i' W ° ^ E 5g ^ C-> •mC /2 sa ^ • w o^a . ^' o ri - ww - * 0^25 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J oO i 1 1 1 1 G 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 i d E 1 0 1 VJ % cc ■ , 0 G C 2 .a — as £ s ^ S r: 2 < ^ 2 s ^ o oM ^ a” 2 ^ ci^dsa 2 ^ £:-3: ^ I y ~ CL > <5 O PEh t 2:.2 ftd^ tl w oQ-( 42 1 ' a2 50 Ss rt 0 ^ ^ S oO—i 2 ^ a 02 a .S X3 Wch^W^ a P CJ 43 y olz; > a” O O g .Sip; a o o o wm^ « y y to a 2 S S dS o o g o IS (M CO CO CO i-l o c? 5 10 (N CO CO (N §3 3 SI ) 00 00 00 00 00 00 ( in in 10 in 333S S SSS S S a a ft s O S 3 C 3 y y a la bo bo xa o o SWP >=12 2 a a a y y y •S3 IH tH y y y 3 3 Bcoco ;-( (h y y MM a a IPPh o o O O a a *<<1 ^ (4 t4 (h t-i Qp d; d> ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 0000 o y y y a a a a <^<;< 3 c a a a 000 y y y a a a << 5 < to y I y -aP ft a y y d! M y y y 3 f^CO a •^3 'C S CU CU OJ ^ a a a o o PPPP W y y y y y 3333 3 COCOCOCO CO a a y y 3 1 . 03 bo bon o od ww^ Qi S S o S SEh Jh t) a 0 . a a-.- ccccE-i tt Not tagged. Labels furnished Relabeled No. 7833 208 2700 lbs. removed from sale 212 g tons removed from sale. Relabeled No, 7833 210 3 12 / 2 Q tons removed from sale. Relabeled No. 7834 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) 148 ■S-a * 2 3^ c fl ^ .2 s sr - ® * ^ fi 3 M tO^ fi ” W — < -3 S « a) fl w t>D cj ^ J- H 05 M 'B ^ u O K! W W pS CO . bfl ^ .S ' ft S ^ 2 o 2 B-§QQfl|Q 01 B W to M d M i»_,a)333d3 C 'B p, lJ 0vO d u C '-^ bC-3 ^ (D W Bl CO 00 .-H M ^ jH M O O P B bJD d to CO to 1 SgB^S ^ nd ^ bD ^ ^ ^ Q Q Q M O to' *5^0 333 O 'B FQ hi - ^ 3 3! d tao ® t- to (0 to y to § ^-Bi^ ^ 1 p |i§| ^ 43 iS 3 .S i 1^" 3 s H Oh Ph >■3 1 1 B! J 1 1 cl .. 3 Q d 0 2 n £2 a B £ c 1 0 B 3 0 3 32 OJ r/) 3 0X3 3 0 ’3 c-i -S ceP ) o t- Q ^ 3 t: a ra 3 ^3 0 ^ a to 'B Ph ■2 ? a . 4 3$ — OPW-Q^ i-id S p P! 3 ' a 2 1 o llald o “ t>.S2^ 73 rF- 2 XB 3 2 f 2 " ^ oiwgo . P5 ap^ ^ ^25 . a . S • PIfSp 3 ip •a uopDadsuj IBioyjO 00 05 04-1 00 13 t£ 05 ^ S t3 ' CO c© CO to CO O CO I 00 00 00 < §§ S8 S I3 s s ^ 2 ' 0 B! 1 1 1 1 FQ 73 TO 473 1 TU 1 1 1 1 1 1 ;-« i i i£ 1 1 1 i a B3 ' ' 'J® p P p 55 ® 05 ® ® 05 05 05 05 o; QJ> rp 473 ^3 U SH .a ® B3 ® ^ ^ Q,^ ^ 0,1 0; a,' <1^ 477 TJ bef^ PPPP Ph OJ a> 0 ? q; OJ c3 a> 0 QJ t+X ,§ P .P pppp 3 3 3 a ^ ^ >5 >5 >5 >i ppp-^ >> >i >>i:; 1 S 5 >5 2^--S ^ ■< '3 ’3 ’3 3 .a .a .a <1 '3 33 0 3 i^P PPPQ ft 3 3 3 _ c3 C3 a 2® PPPBp ' p' a ® ® ® 05 ® 0 ft ppp ^ Ph ;i^ >5 >5 >5 >5 >4 . 3 a 0 OJ a a a a ® ® ® ® t- tH tH Sh a a* Sh 0 0 000 ^ 0 0 05 0 a 0 c) ^ a ^3 X? 0 3 4C 473 XJ TO td 3 3 3 3*^ M M y 2 ® ® ® ® a 3 a a 0 3 s 2 2 2.2 g g 3« £5 c;> 0 0 c-> ^f! ^ ^ ^ M-d biD bJD .-M d OJ r| -'di'« O «] u PB ‘ >>dJ d w C d srp 5 ^ “ « > 1 1 1 1 1 1 O) 1 1 h i I 1 1 ® 1 1 0 |0 Id 1 S3 6 0 d 1 1 1 1 0 |o i.a 1 c3 ^ 1 i|s i 1 S' 03 1 1 03 •. 1 l^P 6 1 1 0 1 0 p d w 0 > 6 1 ^ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 > G 03 > '> w d d > P ® 6 0 I ^ ;0 d 1 P ' 2 1 d 0 d 1 d d ^>> 1 w 6 ■3 !» d 0 1 'd jo ! d 1 1 - 0 t* p 'n 1=3 1 >> 1 <^ >> d io ® =3 1=3 1 1 >> ' d lIgS i i ttrta t-i d d 03 dO 02 .. .a ^ 1 £ 03 1 ! CO a 1 ;h ^ 1 03 q; ! CC 1 03 03 a 1 G • It! d 'B'> ‘l? t4 c ^ « O) . «/2 t> «2 Ph 72 ^ ^ . tH fl <0 d; d --< > ^ c3 x3 .22 ft] 2 a O d d Wo d d d ■+J 4^ 4— > WOO d d d G d d SSS 0 >■ > C3 c3 9 C3 Q.^’ <13 O) G ;-3 cc CO S t-. fcH 0-00 OgWM w 4j 0^ Qj £ •S wp -P d oW Q) O P d d t^O So ^dl o d OP — H O) O o- p p < 1 ; d ■ M d d ^ o|" O a> S-t Cd 44> sa.22 *03 a 03 cz p ^ I s § ^ d p "o -Q -a -c d d < >< d c! fe .a ^ ^ .2 p 'c ^ ^ O o C ''^ G .^3 03 .G S s oP o .2 ft p p p ft . OJ ..d CO g .W a'S.a ® d "S d^ tio o •j: ft p tt Not taggred. Labels furnished Principal ingredients identified 150 .a ^ re 3 y y puno^ 2 0 a 0 £ y ^ ft paa:ju'B -anno ® ft ft re a puno^ y ft paa:juB -aeno •:juao aad ean^sioi^ A ^ a|§ .2-1 U 3 s aj fl'S •g ieeS ■- -w r. ® 2 C S eS ^ OD cn c ft ' d '8 'S o § ® ® ^ c c o ai !C +;> to fi'-S c c 5 fl S^5 00 nd o ss oTM I ft 2 c D C S -tJ iS 3 -w C d in ® ba. ft c H . X OJ 03 . ^'8 a 0 d +j y reredreisj^screft y.MftS'a 4 jyyp +j y 0 W 0 J 3 ™redftc.ftrftp ;rre+-Prec.Sdiio P H ^ ■^QQ P w aj 0) a cj U1 aa^ g d aj- 3d £ » ► 05 ' i IC 10 10 m 10 10 10 m •a uoi^oadsui I^PUJO y" 1 ft” 1 0 1 •2 1 05 re • ' ^ ■ft M 1 ^ 0 •^0 l-i >Po I™*®- i red y P y 0 ^ y oT 1 0 -jj CZ2 1 QJ 1 y g s a j y y a " ! . re go W O )-HWI "ft ^ -I-’ -'t: ■■— tn'^M Q C+i (^•«re ft™ coSScdoS ^ 2t> >>P3 «q reo Mc 3 .ftOj^O. p p 02^^^4jfey O <^Oa K>^Md ;2; ;2; o o QP p a .Si 5 ® re re « -S " 5 WW|re|2| t«“ oi g, re ^ cc ^ o o S'x; M aB^^nS'^ a a” SI®? "|»=2«a jfflp Wcc^ >, _■ 'ft 4 ^ ™ ft: &fl „ ft ft •-J 'o P S . 00 . d . ft ^ ;2;:2;0PP3PW § rH rH CO gr:ig^§S?3?2!d O Ci CO O r-i I— I rH rH rH (5 a> cu O) a> a> _, g® ftSj ' 7 ; ^ ""a "to U) p rs a CD P 0^ d ft ^ S P |b a.& o re op t^ft ft o .ft o II O I5I tt Not tagged. Labels furnished 213 17 ^ tons removed from sale. Relabeled No. G215. Rebate. See page 41 o lx 0) CC (« 03 M :r 'w bx) " c 152 - ^ c , a I stci •S s o * C g C3 J s-^ ©a 1) £ £ 0- 5^ * Oi h ■M ,0 00 o . g S -Q ^ © ai M »© <2 M “ is c 03 s © 0) r© <1^ © © g W ^ -W g" >1 g 03 00 00 C5 C5 ^50 o3 oq (M •g SQ^PP 5 02 C^ W W ^ cti O c3 03 .. c3 c) (1) OD ^Ss£ss i« a c<3 O 03 c3 O mo mm o3 S © S <5 'a "5 © >*-( to « a - ij © o g 0 a ^3 „- 2 ppp Pg CO P d w ©—.©©- S 2 S S £ o3 " o3 c3 O m mmo ^sc: puno^ paa:}UB -anno - . © © o £ £ s s a o S d oS d , Oijmmm m< GO ir:) ic 1-1 CO o o3 ^ O T-H 1 -H i-H >000 00 O Oi O Ci ^3 p cd puno^ (M Cl 00 00 01 I (M (M <>J CO ' p 33 :;uB -JBno LO iO 10 10 no •;uaD aad aan:>stoj;\[ 1 a d la N « , !-i --■ I'a , - m - o .2 _ I o ic: cs _^SSo&j ! ^ ^ ^ ^ g r'^ axj'^^ issigi°:si:: jSSsIfeOS „ . >. dtn tH a 53 5 ^ ccg a •-5 ©^a3l bfloJ’PQ S S a ^ ^ .o^2^o-g • n ^ a I-, . d . S 71 ) s 7r r^) uj; 5? •e'“ . Sd&z a d o !>. d a © © p "a > 4 J d CO > > M 2 ^'S s ^ r - .-g o a 6 o a O bfl'®© rg a <13 ,i< o _ i«5«s E o So W ®3 u, rO 0=8 rH'3 >> a^ d O^M a « -o rn |g| 5 S i'-p.li!«-'s^ OPh r/i'a a CO a • a Oh ;0 ^ g § W >;g © “ d w ^ fl P . o da-^ «.2 £:g' •Q uopaadsuj PPUJO 3002 4510 3581 CO 4275 3294 3608 4029 4308 00 CO 1511 3052 3098 3488 4210 5126 3177 3296 4621 5236 7048 7048 (M 10 CO 0 s 4233 6753 6753 6753 6753 10 10 LO 0 00 00 CO ^ X^ X^ J> (M CO 0 0 X^ g 10 0 0 Ci Oi Ci Tff LO LO LO 10 10 0 (31 10 10 6871 w 7977 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 lilt 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 till 1 CO I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 i I i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 ( t 1 1 1 -O © © 1 ^ 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ^ I § ! ! 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ^ "O 'XJ 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 till ‘p I 0 1 1 1 1 < 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! a 1 1 f 1 1 'q ^ -S o Qj >> d ^ d © CO ^ Xi dO •aP . » ■i’ d ^ |P S a ^ 3 as « no sa o -o © © p; 'g a o d -t^ a.-; ^ a a CO o O 2 r-t ^O rt d o © © SS.ti cy a> <0; a> \ 1 >1 >J >> °X3X2iOjO 00 o O O O ^aaaa ^ m M m m tH 3 o o c O o o o o CO CO CO CO © _c3 a G Id •g 3 3 5 5 jd © © © © fi Q 5 5 ft QJ O • ftftfift -o •M mpc, W o « a 5 a §.==* a % -I CO ft T© t; Td 'O "O © © © © © ft ft ft ft ft © © © ^ © 33333 "P c a p c p cj cj P P 00000 aaaaa 00000 X 'y. ‘R 'S S55S5 o CO CO o «-• CO o JM O CO CO c3 P 11 o ^ ;2 s Q< 153 >=i .!2 ° S o U Bi _r 2 w -d g c 0 ) d ■? a> S “ o s5 A - to * C (1) ” S g (D 'd ^ w fd g .S g^ . 5 ito to . w - 2 s - ^ n 3 0 ) « d •g gS:ti frt ^ !d I 'd 0 ) o d ^ d 3 - V s ,2 i 2 < 1-1 B o 1 > U 5 g be (£ 0 ) 0 2 *=^ CO cc IH i toQ •“ g d to d d d -0)

O CO f- la be • g to «D(mct>«d7:; oo co d d d d - d CO CO CO CO d tg 72 UO lO QQQQiSSfl P o k,'

d O) O *- 5'-5 n a r-i ' 2 ^ I S sa k o dQ § be fee Sh tH d d d! Xi to to ^ O O 'tJ dCO CC ^5 c 3 ^ 03 C 3 PW dp §d . d 3 o s C 3 Eh ^ ft a T 3 >i gg a r| CO fcs^ W ^ o £;. 2 i be a t® d P ^ t-i o O d I ® ts a f-i o : 3 ri lO ’Wa d • ^ cot " o ao ti.5 Hd 'O oa § m^bi _ be a 'H.aa o-a !-i Sh O d of> si ^ rA I CO CO CO CO c 10 10 03 00 05 00 CD lO x>* oq ^ CO o 00 OOOiOi-HO 1>(M rH COCO’^'^'^ ^lO 00 CO lO CO CO ! CO CO CO I I I LO LO 3 o < i>. : LO LO i CO CO ' LO LO ; ft 0.2 aaftao. •~ .d- o o o o o O 4J dj d3 d; d! dJ ^ gooooo ^.a o o o o o ®« "'O'a'a'OTd a d d d d d >>D X XX 'w' p d d d d d a Eh E-i E-i H o fp d a§ d g 03 O CO -«w w a O ru t 3 a d g n 3 .b 5 d So o pH O O wa d d aa d d a -a a ^ .ap m d aw w CO m" =« d a u_' d t-j d . fl >>'C a=p 6§2 offl 2 .“-a a <1 M fcH fp o d y ^ >. >>a d ft ft-g 03 03 03 03 03 CO CC C« C« 03 o o o o o aaaaa >>>.>>>>>> ^ C3 ^ CS C3 ft ft ft ft ft d d O O aa d d ^ O - aaa 621 'ii^ c 3 G ^ G ^ 0-3 d d d 'i.S be d rd P be'-' d Ph a O O 1 aa d d aa tt Not tagged. Labels furnished 215 1900 lbs. removed from sale. Relabeled No. 4606. 1800 lbs. returned 211 % ton removed from sale. Relabeled No. 7784 to mfrs. TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) 154 ^ -S & c .S S Is 0^ ^ c .12:^ U 2 s S'® I (D -m W O 5 C.S s s o o o 5 3 a o ^ eo 5 o’® be Cl c . 5 S 1 1 1 1 ■“ g • :^: 2 s tn ^ U +-> 2 CU ^ o !h a ft y o Cl U y '13 o a -is - c W'*^a>WL. ^ FS ^-> O c 5 !5 .S g 3 u O O S rt ■::; rt ' QqQQ - y 0 ) y £ SpSS P d ;;? cj ni O M 02 M >-' C2 y fd c ^ (P {m (1) o ^ w O .a c id o y 2:: ?: -d £ “ s y ft _ y ' w . 45 tn y r. Ul .Z i 3 ° 2 bi'C! - y 1 d (M “c6j ■ iH'“" — I— T o) ^ .£ -d “ P o y C " ram I d oc O id- rt C; — r t- o G i bC » *= c ! . tH *-. y 5- ci (- C i y o w bfi— o cj O .2 -W . o d: -S W ft^ d to d oa ■" d do^ d d • •S^d^^O -d d^ . 'M CO 1 >* (M 01 10 uo 10 'd'd y y y y ; o o ■aa is o a y y pR " § is .2 O g d r d d oaa '3'^.s d a a 'd y 'd 'd y O O §aa MMM as D 2037 155 C> Oi CS PQ PQ 0) .fi -d e 3 o d bo 0) bo^ o C d 0) h, 0) O : ^a: 3.Q d m I bi) ^ .s S s 0) w w y T}^ Oi C 5 05 Ci CD rH T-t rH r-( ^ M ID ID to LD PQQOQP d d -O csi W W s- X -a d — . ID LD d o o to C'J cq m P P (U tJ. CO to CD d C ftfcS) o ftS^ 01 o 0.-1 U O! 0 ) 0 ) 3 d d a a; d 01 o ^ a a TS s3 < o d d c c c -d 'd (j- .a .2^ d d ^ bX) ^ d "a d bxi a o ^ 5 ^ ■“ 2 - 5 o M ^ ^ ^ «.a-“-2 C . 1= d 01 to d > t- oJ l> CJ o W W - CO 2 'd d 'd 5; d d d d o o d ^ d a h to ^ to rd 9.9 11.1 10.0 11.3 10.4 8.8 10.2 25.0 22.3 13.3 17.4 ’^i>-ocqcqr-- gq o’ ^ CO ^ ^ 23.9 22.3 23.6 16.0 16.2 15.8 16.5 16.0 16.2 0 C> C5 0 0 0 C5 CD 0 to 0 000000 to to iq . CO \ to rH 00 to cq (o cq ^ 05 ^ cq iq to cq 00 tq 00 cq cq Cq rH CO CO CO cd Tt 1 td cd cd td id ^ cd id id cd J>^ id id id to to to to to 0 0 C5 0 0 to iq iq to to to to iq iq iq 0 cq 0 cq 0 0 T-i’r-; nH nH CO CO id id ^ 'di ^ tJH tJH Hji TJ1 Til id id id id id id to CD rH cq rH cq to 0 05 rH 00 iq cq iq cq tq t- cq cq 00 cq Ttj 00 (J5 to CO CD* J>^ 05 05 cq •£1 cc S S s _r^ a og o ^ o bD • bjO n o o ^.a.c >■ .S a d •«ai« d fe ° o a jd '^d to P a d d-d di o Ph d Ph d o' o fl -a o«2 g o W2 '■j'S P cJS d te Xh O d § Sd.2 M d d d dddd 'r^ ' buO d §5 -ll® o-^W 0‘=3 „ a ® OP C5 OP W tH r 3 m “0 o d d ^ a . o 6 ^ OO o d a- §0 p ^ d d o "S >> ^ O Sh fl 00 o 5'SSo P S b£.ti •ld‘^11 SS'g'S a d d sd i=i TJ .d O CD -u <(Ui4 P m 'O d d 2r§- «o; I Oi I o o I CO D1 05 00 05 00 ^ lA CM ' O to 05 00 I rH T—i CO to > 00 O 00 O to CO 00 (N (M (M 5^ S I to-J 3? pie's rp ^ o ^ Cb ID D1 to (M C^J (M (M (M OP . 02 C« W S g 4^ W CO jh ^ o o o .-S d 3 ; S'.tJ.'P.'p d roO'a'O'o ^ d O) QJ CU 3 ^ cu OP a> ^ ^ gPPpH S . 2 |MdM I :§ 000 P Pt . T3 a'ss ® i2 Ph oj'O tJJ^ d a p X ^ o bx) a 2 d p d 0 .2^1^ p^ ^•Sd CO cf. ^ dO <^ ia§ li'^ dps P M d 00 Q d d p P ^ OP OP OP OP < 1 ^ OP OP OP ^ 'P ^3 d d d d _ ^ SJPPPfi'S pH ^ ^ ^ ^ d ^ d d d d HH .a.al sl’i ^ d d p, a p, a o Q Q c» cc CB OQ pq ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ fl ca a G a G p . 2 . 2 . 2 . 2 . 2 . 2 .2 G (KS ^ ^ ca G G Cl G G G G G qp qp qp qp OP qj G G G G G G G G ' ^ra ■TJ Ph S X d M Wo "d 'd'd P P P o 00 p p Sh (-1 d d P P IQ T3 '3 d d d d d d PhPhPh bX) bX) bX) 000 WWW XXX III 000 "d "d W P P P o o o p p p Sh Ph fn qp qp q> p p p WW as 60 d "d P P. O O I tt Not tagged. Labels furnished 216 Relabeled No. 7650 TABLE rv — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) 156 * s WJ 03 ■s & c s « .S S 1 'sll 5 ® e ->*03 .5 « c — V. 2 ^ h c a ^ ^ 05 CC 4i . bfl cs <=> _fl « ->-' 0 ) 0) to o S ■J o ^ c _| d ^ 4 , -d '>=: S 33 . C _ — « oj oj 'C “ ^ d -« d s 0 ) 4 -.^ 0 ) W g>.S d c: rO G 3 ft

P o § S lls n 3 2 O m X k o 42 "3 C C S p p 'd o o.S uu CO J c d a !_■--& o o ^ ® S « m- . to" j d y ctJ ^ O d O --I .-d _ C o C •- « ^ d o a o CO u u c S ^ • 'd ^ ftdJ _a d +j y p 5 -d “ '1 y y y ;3 C ^ « u •. « d 3 S::! M d ' CB k I y ’ d ^ ' 0^5 . X 1 ” - ^ 5 3 -Si to rd d fd ^ d » -j-i - " I 3 3 bJ3 o 2 y S Sc Odd o 3 y C S SS-S u i y o c 3 ^ y C o O => 3 e 3 ioii d -j d «w d CD S il « •d d d,g 3 C 3 S 3 9 d ^-' o "d <2 y P H — ■ to O <\ d ^ 2 I M to Q . y s s o d O'® d-d d dS y y 3 o d 3 sh puno^ CO Irt -41 paaijuB -aBn 0 " o 'H'S d 2:2 " 0^3 puno^ p 38 :>U'B -JBno 10 (M 10 CO o c>j o m •;u 9 D jad aanijsio]^ •a uoiijoadsuj PPUJO § -d -d dl ci o o s s X X y y SS G G y y WK 35 i-i 00 CO T-l CO in k ^ 02 _m ^ 3 a 3 2 , 2 GO C3 ■SgS^ 9 ■'5 P 2 bx) o o WM aa <3 d d) 9 9 d O a> ^ -cS X ^ Sh 3 9 ® S p W 3'd 2 3 'd'd fthH q; a> o O 3 y y d a “ “ •G 2 o o MW S S 5;5 ^ a y y 1 -^ G 35 o C 3 C 3 y y d d 5 G d ., 4 ^ X « (k (in 6 m g'M 22 30*0 G a o . Q-d O M bflM 3 I 'S'S Sh QP OJ 0 J O) a s >< X G 3 3 d cs •S«|| S M« 157 t Before registration 21s 160O lbs. removed from sale. Relabeled No. 7326 and returned to tt Not tagged. Labels furnished mfrs. 217 9 17/2^ tong removed from sale. Relabeled No. 7782 210 tons removed from sale. Relabeled No. 7775. Rebate. See page 42 iS 8 -d m’-O D 73 +J 3 cj Sh [b puno^ paaijuB -JBno puno^ paai^uB -aBno •;u30 aad aanijsioi^ •a uoi^toadsuj I^paJO « Q S 2 d 3 -g •A 9 ^ d.9 323 « typ'd -a s o ,3 O o «2 S •. o; § s ft ” oK =3 ^ qM *— « ^ ■“3 s d d I ^ oq ^ cq c^q Csi Q g w si QgQQQ Q QQ W d M c^ c^ ^ (M ^ o ^ o 0 (V 3 s^ s s a 3 •-: 3 3 3 w <1 M w w 33 o Ph o ■3^ ^ is fcjo 33 0.0 Wm <2 3 'O n S f 3-73 CCS M o<«l .CO^ C CO W N > ° ss o 3 S-go 2-^3 h h o U jH a, 3 d o SX3 3 ^ 3 ^ ° 6 30 3 3^ '3 "3 M • • O < 3 a 11:3 t> > « oW X s w o pH Ph a> 0 ? "33 d 8=8 o o wa s s 3 d o o coco (>> >J 3 3 3 3 d d COCO I a i o ' • s « oj 13 "^ < (-! W >: w w O O? O) wapH o ® ® a “ ^ s o o -saa ^00 “33 ' ^ ^ O 'z^ d 'dr^ «Ph O) Eu a> b S •sW a 3 O aj S 3) 0) aj a a - o s o a^ sa o . 5I oa 3 o C3 ^ C? a a o O c 3 aa o “"a 2 ft . s-g O^ o o aa o o a a "3 ”3 j 10 ca OD 05 oi oq 05 11.5 11.4 13.6 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 Q CD 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 Oi 06 0 0 0 0 CD CD j 0 rH rH rH CD Q 05 05 rH rH 1-H rH rH ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ rd rH 00 CO 10 rH 0 rH 00 c-q CO m in X CO CO 10 HiH CO CO Cq CM CO oi CO rH q oq 0 LO 0 0 10 10 0 CD CD 0 , 0 0 CD CD 0 0 0 0 0 CN CO c 4 cq <>q CN cq 1 Oi rH* r-^ c 4 c 4 Ci 00 0 00 rH rH Ol CO CO 00 00 C (N C 5 0 f-H CO j> 10 10 C^l rH oi CJO CO 06 CO CO 0 rH rH i-H rH ,-. 1-^ r-i I— 1 I-l I-^ T-l I— 1 (N » S"S“S5” CO (_ w d d o OT O M t- ^3 -r cs ^ ° . o - O ^ S d H "S 2 2 ”5 - •;5 >^o S 0) 5i O d ZS^toCC^SC^jiC, - d . ^owo> d 01 c 3 S 5 4-. •9 d ^ g 01 -d d 01 OJ c ® bi’g ^-d ^ >> ^ (P c o •£ ^ S -4 o^ -p o {S ^ CO ~ g ^ d S 2? dCt- ^ h d g 'd 5 d _ 2 o , 2?8 ^ fl ,r4- ® ^ o§c.5c5^^ awo'doo-iiSo o u §3 dW a 6* . “® 2 ^ S 2 W «H ^ -M £§ -4 ® ^ be 0) 17 (B .5 C T3 o 'd o S y « ®'® tg W CO ^0) 'f d to o d Q O a; W'd y o Sgfl i5 ® o be £.3 d a o y -O ".3 o .S tiS t® (D 8£ “ O °! s CO -r: PH <1^ £ ® ® £ o43C d u M (N > ® £^ w o CB y _-+j S£d d o to M O <£ >» ^il y d “ CO o d £ CO CO 'S --S y ® £ gS £ o J3 -M d U 02 y CO S y to to -dis y o y c to C ° d W to d *>® o.£ o g o ^ rH <>] 10 cq 0 0 CD 12.2 23.0 21.5 9.8 25.4 10.1 05 / 05 11.3 cq 10.4 CO CD 05 10.0 9.3 09 rH 00 06 11.1 roi 9.8 CO CO CO 0 0 CD CD 10 p 0 p 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 y> 0 0 p Ci 0 0 05 CD cq CD cq 0 t-H 01 06 06 s CD 0 rH 0 0 0 0 geo CD 0 rH 0 CO CO CO 0 CD cq CO 1 — p p p P CM p P eq cq cq p cq cq rH cq CO CO CO ^ CO cq csi (03 cq cq cl CO d cq cq 1 >- J>; J>- 0 CD 00 00 p iq p p p p p p p p p P 0 p p p rH* cq' CO co’ co’ CO CO CO cq cq cq cq 05 06 tZ) cq tg d 'Th cq eo ,-4 .-t rH rH rH r-H rH t-h rH '. M g> R ! o3 d 1 £^ > I >i4J a> I y o p: lOQ y M I 02 3 ► C3 «« 0^4^= •sa >*1 § § ^ -g - ^ ^.SgW r M ^ o l4il a d £ ^ rv pH-g CO 0 32 a go ^ (V 4-» 32 >. ss A. L. .0 2 0 Ray Geo. 1 1 1 1 1 i -d i I 1 1 1 1 1 1 CQ 1 0 ’n ‘n >. 1 pH 1 Q? 1 £ 1 £ d d 0 1 S I n pp W 0 .S2 1 d ' 6 6 0 03 Q-i 6 'P d •r d 6 0 0 Q hM Q s -C “ d bo "y d Ph % G P4 6 Q £u) P O) t/2 fl d Jessup, CO CO f2 r5 GO d3 y .•S+i Ph ti ^ . -'O 'd'd S 3 dpH S&d a4 ® d do-® O ‘-I •dU 3 3 d d Ph Ah Ph Ph Pi 'd y y to y tH ^ d-= go O fe S o oo d d ti Ch d 3 PhPh a ^ S dJ o„- d Opo to 4, P ^ S)Q y 33 .33 4^03: d > M S y t4 O O So W ; CO y to y o Ph dO-d I d « d y ro -gSS odCD o o W-M CO y CO to y to oPh o d X d y '- ■ SS ' O O y t2 ' o ' o •d^33 -d y to y to y y y 00 y Ph o Ph o Ph ►4 ^4 ^4 >1 O'aO'ciOto^'d - y y y X d X d X iiTs £§ o o “ to ^ ® aj s§§ O fq o «(-( 33 y PP QS 3 bfid .2-^ 5 “ § d .2 oMa y Mt d ^ d g^ d PI m.2 SOd 33 tH P PPh 2182 2435 3689 2339 1471 2211 5106 1686 1 4984 i 1939 2176 1820 2044 2043 2671 ; bs7 3502 41.51 4^9 3358 2688 4172 3254 5830 5830 5830 6265 6902 7033 7033 7043 7868 4831 4831 4997 4997 5610 5610 5610. 5610 .5610 5610 5747 5787 5787 6019 O C3 §w O g * Not tagged 221 1500 lbs. removed from sale. To be used by agent ft Not tagged. Labels furnished 222 500 lbs. removed from sale ““3®/io tons removed from sale. Relabeled No. 7251 2235 tons removed from sale because of conflicting guarantees TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) i6o 1 ’S- i « fl c ^ 'E ^9 a> 3^3 1 = o w I If?. o (C S >-i be 0) O 3 +J O 4-. - 3 C TO o S S 3 O u wo °9 p ^3 H bD^ W 0) .+i TO TO “ O 3 (4 be 2 '“ ' ^ S .s ® ° 1^ 3 3 3 3 9-3 9 C C 'J' W W W •d 35 c *5 _ '3 ® ^ 5^9 99 3 • • • ■ftaS 3 3 p-^cucici S^-3CT.a>C5 '^p. N M W cc eo CO ^^QQQ^S TO-f|gp-CQQ d'^TOTOTO3'd’;; 2 S 333 4-> 3 3 3 9 £ S S “5333 WWW! 3! bit ^ d 3 3 +j9Sgg'*j333 S’^i 3 ® 3 SS££ OTO'd3 0 0^33 o xTiinm 3 ■*^ ®.5 3 ■73 3 3 29® r ^ >-i ^ 2 . punoj; pa9:^UTj -jBno 'V +J d d puno^ paatjuB -aunr) *:ju9o aad 9Jn:^SIOI^ •Q uot^oadsui o9 coO ^pT 35 o •■p o o« ^ . 3 OJ O ^ Ai ^ O fl ^ ^ ,*'"' 35 ft 31 3J I -r; » I a 23 '3 035 )P5 3 I 3 - m m § 3 “5 ^ 2=3 . 03 ™ CO fe'ft'C'ft l> O c p i-j Ah '~' Ah ’ ft 3P^ O M ft CO S 3 d 3 G 3 p .2 a 3 9^ ft 3 c o O LO O !>• (M (M Ci t> < 10 i:^ ( CO '^ © -O a . '*^ " £ il i- Cfi rj t, “ . ^ ”-g Q P co'-ji g a '" - © bo uri-gCt^rtO® OO.Sajooaa u mu m m © rt 2 «r'^ 5 -M ^ a^c; ^ .'O.S 05 05 'd ° rg © " CO to © ja g © d MM© C "g Q Q C m'^ « “ SS°'3-0PO 0^:2 S) s s £ ® ® £ os oj o o a a o m m u O “ bi 9.9 .^9 •d a ®| 5 g fi 0" W ^ . !-> 0 CO o ;2 c Jl 9 £ bo co” S ii O -0^ ^ lO S fH “ _: bi) - ^ ^ QJ ^ rH O nd © M d .g ■d © CO -d © 3 S ” d © S g*5 o oS ■d 5 . o o C © CO © rH“M[ScO^Co|2 Sii c o.^|d 1 S .,-.CflOCOao5>0-..rt u o bo © di; 2 9 "1 » O 1-1 CO iH C^ ^ +j ^_) O o3 d oS c3 S " a? ' . . . . ^ . CO CO CO CO eg eg cq cq c^ 'ti ft 5 Q- p p Q Q co' Pdl o o a u © © © © BBBB -g ^ a ®< .5 a, d <5 bo CO "^ © 00 ® ' lO lO t>» 05 05 groi molai s D ] rom 1 ats, 1 ses, s U2 d PP t/1 w c3 ° ^ 0 cd cd £1 w a; >> - .a 0) V C u Q BB -< CO U 0 Tfl CO ) m lo CO o CO CO CO eg eg LO lA T3 ^ s ai CO © 3=8 §-=8 g- W*^ S w .2 M .S a o'§o^ i 1 1 V •SS .52 00 ft 0 . .2 > a Tj 1 *3 03 SS a a 0 w c O' 5 cd iia 03 2 *2 M is o © gcH Wo W W do oo-g o 8«8 d t>> o o o OO d © o ca a ® a o CO is a GO © w © 0(5 w i o'i-S idji H ^ d -2 o : o s ra' ® 9^=!g » gss ^1 Ss'-^lg cs P^^g.2 5 . . o JIh ^ Q^J2;0M O? o a ^ gs o°^ O CO CO g >.<5 ^ 'S G'-g ^al a: .a cq OP) ^ OJ fH a> O p a © .2 d _a ! a o'^ >o ■ W P CO r-* 0 Cs i> Tti eg 3253 3929 5225 2714 4631 5216 3664 4844 4876 2143 3362 3495 3894 5106 3277 00 GO 2422 2225 3975 § 3200 1 0 rH 0 0 CO CO CO 0 CO CO ^ CO ^ ^ i 10 1 0 CO eg 0 0 I— 1 t- 0 Oi 10 0> Oi C5 0 00 01 10 1 i>*i> i> i> 1> 1>» J>- uo ift in m in t- CO CO cp CO GO I 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 I 1 i 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! N ! 1 1 1 1 Oi &j "^Sgl i2 ^ a w =3 2 , -a O d tH.2 ©CO woS'g § a g g © © © © WW coco g g © © PP 'g'g' ^ Ul ^ .2 .2 .2 222 'S 'S ^3 O O t) X XI Oi I .' «S- a - P g d _P a a © g g gg © © © © © © © © p P P P & b b QQPQ © c3 cj o ’© '© '© ’© £ a. - a .1 O ' O * . • I g >5 < © P ' oS . xs ■ a eS P ** d ft ft ft a® tH g o CCa2C/2COffl cS OS ( CJ4 » ^ conflicting guai'antees. Relabeled No. 8160 2263300 lbs. removed from sale and returned to mfrs. 221 Relabeled No. 7754 Principal ingredients identified 162 ■g'd * O t- Z- ’C 39 4J S-d •g Ml d ■^+a -OS g B c 8 Ib^ *b -2 •S O « TJ (U (U B-B « puno^ pa3:juB j -anno j puno^j p9^:^u•B -anno s 1= 0 , c m 0 ) C a 2 'd s ^ bX) ^ CO ^ CO (D O 0) a a a cS cj rt mmxa -d t '3 0 o e “ (D g CQ W M ^ Ti §1 - 05 Pi <1> «i^ P W ^ rt . r5 "3 ^ c 5 S: c y ci B cJ --dCO w y to S B d o , 05 . i a £ I d o W D £ d a O «5 rt u w • • —T » ^ ^ <=* ® ijj M ^ d -M ® 05 a d d P M ^ U2U} 45 -a . £^»-r£ cd I • • o ^ o O t>, CO C'l iQQ £ , 42 ao c ^ e £ X5 ^ rt ?o B o a5 d ^ be d^-9 05 22 d iBa K* O 05 O s .21 +J o o ^ W ^ -S d y ® b' d£S 5 od o!>c . 1-0 5-0 S a o> € 9 g B ft ^9 d O 05 qS 05 d 0 CO d d 43 0 CO 0 CO d d <=8 43 « B g tl, d B d 02 B y 1^ - h-1 _y 73 ^ B B^S O y 45 ^ Is >> l>.^^ 9§Bg B2 S 02 O k o o rH Ci (X) 00 inpgjO CO ^ o o 00 10 10 in (M -Tf -Ti (M e- 1 ^ 'St o m Q be 'o >i.S SW> P 4 | , O-d «2 S Ch re 'iH d « M be be ss d S S 9 S§ g fcU) bJ] ^ SSd 05 M 05 ft ft ft d d d C^«W IS a sa w w OJ C3 c4 o^ so 03 tzi a> ^ ’S'S ca CS WPh .52 “S d'^ d 73 ft d a O y O “ ^a O) c/} >» dS fit d73 M ® a “ O d aa a B o C p-'S meal, molasses, salt 0.5% 1 63 ^ -S) •M CsJ POP P (P (D

(p -d ^ S” C X S d c ' CP 'd <0 d ' d : Ilf: o bC(N ” i S » .a 3 “ c ^ i5 o bg^ w d d C23 2:! g>^ d d a 73

CO C£> P PP CO CO CO 'in ft W o; ^ 0^ 5 g d CO p (P 3 a d CO

(p S2 '

k> >> W CD ^ ft’d P ^ dp 3 d.a^dS 3 a-3 g .3 rS, d O O d o ^ 3.S 3d: S P CJ 33 ^ (P . bx) O 'd o O ^ d C -3 d <3 o Sh P a 3) d-d d Elh d d S _ jJ d s 33 a ^ CO s ^,a 03 d r.- a. O P X ^=5 J g’ Ph HP 2-S ^ a 2533 3407 3702 4641 4981 LO CO 4075 2634 4076 4960 00 •0 2940 3257 4112 Ift 0 'tH 1 (O CO 10 CD o\ 4114 4134 1779 3047 3046 4778 5423 CO CO CO 01 (M (M 'rtl 0 i 0 f2 0 Lft CO 0 00 I CD CD 00 CD I 1 r-t i-q iO l5) y—^ r-H i-H Ift 10 0 Ift CP )0 LO Ift LO 10 10 x:^ 1> J:^ 10 1> 10 ■ftd ft o; a ^ p^ ftP O 3 Og d§ IS si -cft: 'O oj CD p p p ppp >.>/>» a a a o o o Odd o o o

X)gr7^ P P P >/ !>> PP d d be be 3 3 COCO d o d ..X 0.2 p 3^P o “ o td _ m .d be’P .a "S .agaw |.a^>, S ri *-* o-ag« pO dfi s H p ^df^d^d^d c/r.2 »r.2 c«'.2 c«^2 s^.S7^.a-s.a-s w 0 0 !>. .2 d d o fid p (2 SP 0 ...0 d O d O d fi 3 fi d fi p p a> ft [Xi 0 ^ dS 1 1 2 S ^ efifi 1 1 CU O) o) a> o'"* " '§3?^ a 3 .a |fi 0 d p P >>>/ d" d =3*^

a +^t> d .2 2 a a d d d P d fifi PP 1 H 0 PM P H P H X- tt Not tagged. Labels furnished 22745^4 tong removed from sale TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) 164 'S "C PM 2^ T! ^ P §■3 5'S’^ 0,0 o *S ' h c a . M r3 tH 2i p cj S -K “ J W (V d o 0) ^ d d CO 4) X P d C «C ” J3 3 “ . B ^ _, ce "0 0 0 O O , -M 4_» -M 5 C H ,_ — . -i ^ dsH CJ Ol 5t> > rH 4 .Spq fit: cu S! ^ §§! ^ C- !>• o CO o n 3 0 "'| o a o •= d =:a 2.2 93o ._.'X2 3 B A o O d d a § O o-< ^ 3 -o O fi al «is 0^0 •2 03 B ^6 O) dJ ^ «ia afi.a d d S3 1 65 * Not tagged ft Not tagged. Labels furnished t Before registration 228 goo lbs. removed from sale. Relabeled No. 7845 ♦ Not registered 229 loo lbs. removed from sale and returned to mfrs. TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) i 66 Is V Its c ^ I §9 I I p C3 1 1^1 3 2 .2 ®5 fl p-H *2 S tH fi ft :* 5 a 4J y o * ra a y *,4 ^ y g t- g o 42 g St y 43 O '- gyft T C d ^ I ? oJ ^ o a-S •2 33 - 2 ^ a ^ I ” g a ^ a a 2 y 2 2 a y +4 ||iJ <1 y y g ” of a be y a £ ■a 33 ■ g-E- M Q O M t - s - yt - ^ O y ^ O ^ y to - s g W a 02 CO pa3:juT3 -jBno puno^ p^^:^UB -aeno •:;U9D jad ^ant^SIOI^ a CO Mo r!S ft O 1 1 33 a ^ 1 ft I S' 1 O ;h O d Q 3 02 1 pin C3 OJ a o8 rr- g a y tD 44 O C3 a g pq S Q C« Q2 ^ [H C.'B g •a uoiioadsui I^PUJO a ro ft a >> li“ cj lS w O 9 . 2 03 a W « >, o g a CD Ph a — S a p tn O a^ ,44 ^ 33 y o p 44 £i 2 c -a iz: fi (D ,Cd- “ <13 C ' ^^ - M 'd 3 .a s o o — ■ d o t. -d a a bt 2 ;o O O 3 « .a ^ r1 ?: S ■sa C 3 d — ;h £! >>73 3 C ao -d ^- ^ uaD jad aan:»sioi^ 2 “ ^ ^ O 73 ‘>*.2 •a uoi:;aad8ui IBPSJO g:^ g o >■ a « C3 ft a o O O ^ m73 ^ 03 C3 61^ IB d 33 ^ 0 2 «ft G K« ' ^ CO ^ . «2 0 'p ^ "2 o'-^s 2 tU)^ GC g.O .25 •- G ^ buo ftP .^0 2 C/i [tJ CO d ft 2 ^ 0 ft ft P5 m'|rH •. ^3 O ^ |3gi - >>— — ,2 3^ d 33 C3 O O a ^ ^ d ^ 2 o-g,c .So go 3 (k ft '3 a o Oft ft o5 Ui M - IB O’® d bo IB Odd ^.2 a feft 3 ft OJ=l d d 33 C» a ft a o 06 dg 3 , '5 •” ft o 3^ 3: 33 is 'd 73“ 73“ IB IB IB ft ft ft fH >1 fH -d d -d ts i= is 0 0 0 33 33 33 0 0 Q 3 3 3 ft ft ft O o d 2 q c3 » ’r -G (go ft q cc n G q G *r^ »G *1 ^ pG pG sO 3O sO ft ft ft 1- ft >> IS Ml ^ ft f-, U1 G M-T a> a> 2" •Sco a IB M d - bflft ™ 2 O d y ft ^ >> >>^ IB 33 ft 5 d 9 dft c» o a 08 oTiJ g^ft ^.2 3 3^.2 Opl 3 3 O o 169 ** Not registered , 230 900 lbs. removed from sale tt Not tagged. Labels furnished TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) li 0) "S-O * a«i I si 4 ) P'S ^ Mei ¥ « u a ft "S ^ M o p > ^ u s " « ^ a< . t>a IS o o o --d O (U a” . p g 3 *1 w CO)" -m" o ® rt tC -t; a a ^ gs« a 5 5 ^ M c .7: w C C fl L. O O a cj £ = r V ^ c p 'CJ X ® o fl : c X rt ^ fcn rH : « o *. E: -o c o ^ lo^Q e 5c^ l«°’S Isll P c ^ p; ® O < 1"73 4J- ® .rt ^ 02 m p: ~ O fi d C (1) W ^ O) iS" *3^ d s s g di ^ ® x* ® -C c “ c o ^ ° • S t> OJ p-^ iJ.S p ■d y y puno^ 1— uB -jBno CO CO CO CO •:;uaD aad ^Jn:^slox^ a a a p 1? a> 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 o a 1 1 >-. >> G a cd c3 .5 a> t-i ‘n C3 << '0 w ' ^ ^ cc 1 cc 1 ( a i CC 1 ;- , 1 p p C3 > -C ; 5 o c c3 c: 1 c i cc ) c. [ ct I o5 oa (D > i X! ; o p ! p i £ ! E i oo gw ea B-i i-s p 1 p ! F ; c: ! S ! c: 1 ^ I WM ^ § •a uopaadsui in CO rH i-H ir^ m CO CO a ! o 1 '2'g : (12 P P^l-ld 1 1 1 1 ■rJ S’ ' ' 3 1 1 P 1 1 S' ' ! S '2 ' O g^ ft d 02- ^ £ 33 H . y “'a ta n 5 o « O d bfl y .9 ^ ft ft c3 1 a » ^ -- P'S ^ a> . G 1 1 ra P w „>wo y p o 3-2 Oftf?^ '^ft «3 d p y a w d a> « ft (3 y y 'P§§ u O •ilg ^ o zz ^ O tH t ^ "o (H G y S w a i § «W •g o p Cl pO o ftp n W w W o Q g g ^ s > Qi P'l.ti PQ So y cc O >> >. —> -i2> o o ^ iH p p cc cc 02 cc I7I t Before registration % ton removed from sale. Relabeled No. 5600 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) 172 S a S c ^ III sees - ® * C c CS a oi® •s « ^ .2 fir 5*' 4 - aj h e ft <0.5 c TJ OJ 0) 3-^0 puno^ s'® “S “i ^2 O*^ 5 cd X ^ £ ri 5 o 4i •** S-o ^ cj y O *J- . y u ft fe-S S P 'D y '3 ^ w y iS 'O cj y y * . 'd tc cs y cs C y . U y y O W ® ".S y fi . s y ® ^fr-CS ^ M *- tb "5 M Clj rrt TO M o ^s 15^ ^ 5 d) c.) (D ■♦-’ 4:1 3 ^ ^ ^ .3 y .s » 3 's X c^ 3 ^ c ^ s-sisQ w 3 y TO 3 d y ® .t: ® 5 3 3: > .3 5 fi ^ ^ s o s'® si § 3 I ^*0 c O .3 3 '6 yS to ^ a t-> y |2 O .M c o 3 S S^ " y ® s 3-0 .3 B 3 "^ 5 ® o s «.o 3 CC y cS M 32 .A. 3 w 3! 3 ? iT 3 3 CO eo TO< ” IQ to CM CO y 3 «o to C 3 w w 00 03 !3 II toW X pa9:^u’B -jBnf) punoj p^^::^u•B ® -a^no CO CO CO CO CO CM CM CO CM •;uao aad ^an:^SIOI^ 33 33 TO 00 W =3=3 r N N K 33 "3 o 2 9 u 33 33 fO y ^ ^ CCM 3 3 TO TO r 6 5 ^ .^30 o 'O 33 33 3 o [TO y 02 yW TO ^335 g 3 O ® 002 PM 02 O 3 3.S 3 y y "9 go o g 3 3 33 y y o d d 00 O' TO TO 00 2S o§ O O 00 =3 =8=3 IQ IQ IQ 3 3 3 o 00 d do •a uoi^oadsuj lePHJO S JO JO S CO CO sss Ci CO LO CO CO CO CO CO CO § g o o WiQ « y s Pn .3: y o2 1-1 y d: li A-> pq CO =3^ y ^ 20 - W a 3 »«aa ^.25 SoS 33 X 0.9 yg CO ^ 0.9 OpH 3535 a 9 o o 00 IQ X3 CD CL> P«Pci .9 02 .90 ^ iJX) “o .9 3 g ■o 9 « o OS I £ 1 "■ 3 3 O* O' 05, 02 'O -o 3 3 3 3 o PM o 3 « o M Ph p^02 Ph '5 TO02 § .0 ft 03- as " 00 TO ^.3-^ ft - .3 32 ^03 ^.9 3 tJ]0 o y ^ Ph pqm << Od'g'g aS TO TO >> XSTi TO ^Tto § a|®“ 0^-0 -o O S y y OJ OJ >1 O o y '§!»52 TO 00 o pH Ph >»■>>>> 3 3 o o PM PM -O TJ 3 3 TO TO -a IQ 3 TO TO £ 02 ^02 -TO W O . >> y ca 9 ^ 3 O “PM «3! ® a s p o Winchester, Ind, 173 I® -d fl 4) «r cs aj -u o w d 0) ° fci C * S'® a ^ & 2 1||E “ +? ^ (h ® Cc u fi ra C C'5 ® O O 3 53 U O to g XJ o o ■ I V 3 y a ta t ;3 43 y G o 51 ® 3 3 Q SS y 3 m >H y (m O y o y to y ‘2 y 3 y ao t-* ft « c s -^.3 PG 3 G- a*7 3 3 3 3 y y y 2 G " ” S’ y g y 3 a o ^ «.9 - o H «3® . a ^ ^ • riiJ „ c ■^■' 2 ■ ’ ■ ' to to . P 3 3 — in CO 2 03 ca ” y y a"S S — 3 3 W rn 10 10 10 00 G C30 a 3 pq tiZ tH 3 G 3 y tH 2 ® PG y Eh 3 1^ « o ®o to 'G ■<0 “'O O 'ESm G O O 3^ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 f « i I 1^=^ 1 1 la 1 f rs I 1 I 1 3-0 w ) O g 2 ' ^ pH +J CO ^ y 2 S g'So a .2 « y— y DO 'si a p 3 4062 4068 4366 3792 3145 3144 4838 2975 1766 4137 1764 4136 2075 0 05 Cl CO 1949 2443 3264 4616 .I^ CO o^ g S 10 J>* 10 10 0000^ CD CD 05 10 10 0 i i Cl d CQ Cl 0 CO 0 CO CO 0;» *£33 2oo 'O . h2 P o ® -S D fcujD a to G y -o yO c 3 2 3 0« ^ G ^ o ^ 3 I . O o'~' ^ 'Sg aS .S >■ • -rr. ^ l>pq 'S S. 3 CC w lOQ^ I W M ' 'DDEh W 3 QJ l-'S a o £ O o y Ot^Oi y s-i 08 Gy y 'Sw l^§ o W w 3 D ft • ^ §^9 o .0 ^ y Q. tao+j 55 ” 1^0 y .Q 3 r; P> 3 y *-i -d O'O o o o o DD >> G G SgP>^ 3 G ft 3 -d -d 2'“' a P o M 2 £ “ ^ a a go p 3 .2^§§ O G O O o o DD O ^3 3 3 3 3 Wffl 3 3 y y a a 3 3 3 3 o o 3 3 Qi-H 3 O -O y y .Q-g-Sf s Sd “ y.2 « £ O 3 y o .SEhm -o ^ 3 t~ t Before registration 232 ton removed from sale. Relabeled No. 7807 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) 174 T3 O S '•M § CO % c 3 'C .S X 3 s|i 1 fl « c ^ S&jK - 5 i* C 0) c 3 r z: - “ 0) S •- S^.jSs -M cc -J* : d 0) i rt w •S o , - OJ SI ^ - c o < 1 ^ o w a a 43 JS CZ o P 3 . fcc^ ::;- c w ‘5 ^ d a r = C 3 OS-O O 4) S 1' ' a !! 5C ” ^ S 22 2- 5 «' “ o 4s; pg p 4, S I* C! 43 2 rt -3 0) O' ^ OJ d d a> 0) 43 43 U tH tC 5 o - o 4, . ^ S3"i-ja^'33';: :=g«e ^ SM 4) 45 , 3 o*-e Oi P- ®.a c 'tJ a> o -g « r*3 Jh S-l '^(a g, pnno^ O l-H poa^uB -JBno n3 +3 3 3 s-i puno^ paa5,uB -JBno *:iuaD aacJ Dan:^stox^ •a uot^oadguj a> a; Jh Sh ^ n P P I? o ^ o O Q ^ CO CO 03 <1^ CO ^ ' c3 ;h C53 O i> LO o o t^ 10 (M CO 00 O s § 8 § l^PUJO o 00 o LO CO O I- S 3 d - t-,a^ 3 -_ cc w a «l§ o 2*13 O S 3 a d 3 3 d ea- 5'^ c i 1 1 1 1 1 1 d 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 y tU 1 1 1 •M d ines, Ind. itch Feed 0 a 1-1 3^ P 0 t-H q; -Ph g>s d ^ CO C3 3 bC n:; :S® C C ® ssi^ a a . o o 5'3 « U © « . “ s a a ^ a O ^ >-< ^ ^ a; > ■“ ^ 2 1 . . a >> 2 g I- O 2 .-a — >> y .a © ° g ■nd .« j d © g d a: p . ^ “ iJ- w t. c . d 'd c © ■u a ^ © -^ o © c rrt •'^ CO CO CO CO W ^ tH q; qj) US ^ a a fl c3 c3 §§ CO OJ $H ^ ^ r2 £3 S CO CO ■rs -a S © tVj y ^ Si O — ® ■S- d G ft © . O ® ■r) oPh t>. ® d !h G y G.Si r © 3a gMo «l§ Q .2 .2 ©«« S --a o S-£^ O G rt eg £ ® y 03 ^.S K O 03 r- © G © S Oy >> © 0 -M G « O © g: G 33 C3 .9 ft « 9 o 6^X3 £ ft 9 o O . •a S a .© ft ft i >> o . 0-0 33 i"i cc ® ^ G3 GJ ft 9 O o he'd 2 «3 © G c ® ftftO g*^g: ?? > a .S2 m G ^ rl tH -o ti 0 0 dftft G d 3 03 >-0 ;9 ^ 2 <3 © G m S 0 3; © y 9^2 U ^ y oM=£ « PM 1 c» 2 W d 00 0 ft O •i -o „ o >. o G ft G . ft O rl^l . 9S-~ o_^o -or'* “ S'* 'C 22-2 ^ o ft « ft ftW-r^ ft >, >i 0 0 0 0 3 0 G d -0 ft ft -d 'O G d 9 0 0 Ph ,a 0 © © ft ft bo a 03 © * Not tagged 232 a ton removed from sale. Relabeled No. 8090 tt Not tagged. Labels furnished 232 b is/g^ ton removed from sale. Relabeled No. 6534 t Before registration TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) 176 Is'S * ^ ^ M s^i e ^ -2 C ^ s 4i Srs ^ iteS ® 2 c c « ® S-S ®— 2 CJ ® ■** « « c-2 c a Uj m CD ^

2 a® S i; °-s^ . y 2 2 O ” ^ c prf ,- CC ® ,S V > ™ d .•^1- c d c “ ” ^ ® tH n ® I' o ?3 ” ® I » cS > oj 'C ^ OJ (U C ^ > a; CO 1> I> M puno^ paai^uB -aBtio puno^ G rt paat^uB -jBno m 10 10 m *:^ua^ aad ajn:^sioi^ I ^ o : a. 1 “ O og 1 O |0 §" 1 =^ \g^B ' g 6 g)y^'S S ;2 So -S S rt 9 ^.•aS > rS fl 0 io|"i Sq ^ bfi r !»2 _ a-d . q.O>m 5 & -Pi o^g> WSH ►P o.a Q. C3 CO . .„ § 1 S-|^. 2 dO-S g’o:aa' 9 >‘bDG §05 >* 5^.2 g .2 .So .-au 0,0 a ‘5 c3 C3 G y G y G3 t>x)-G bO OTj O'V c:S.-a CO y • 2 'O W =8 m CO ' =3 2 C-l S y .a ^'2 y G Henry W. T. W. T y y S 0 G 's > Chas. y G ■So 03 •a uoi:jDacIsuj CO LO ^ ^ CO Oi S 5 : 10 (M (M C<1 CO (M C<1 CO S ti CO CO C» qj 1 Cl ' a “ ' k“ ; CD ^ 1 ^ rrt 2 omp Ind. teh , GG 0 y 1 y i_j y : g^ph U -. P g: ^y S=«2 .>:« " s . CO Sh ^ a> 2 i ; s 3.a QJ ^ 5; ; .aog p 1 5 Ah Ah P Q^'C'V rv, CJ ^ GJ CJ c3 c3 c3 c c a (PiShPi 'O TJ c? > c3 .-go G ► Oh : 0 0 O • +-> y GG IS +-> '-'l-l tH S 42 o las y ^ S)in“ O S 5r Sh ^o 2 § W0 CC IM ICC IS _ s _ s _ asa.?as„s gSgCgHSu, ^o^o-go-po OQ cc c» Ah 177 w 'd . D r- S a ^ X w o « Q P oi ?lg > rj t> 01 QP QQ Q PQ*p Q pQ S « S s rC bn ^ O 3 ” X> 3 (U (3 S-. 3 u ^ “ C oJ O ,3 P P o ^ ^^pp P PS P W Ul S ^ 3 3 3 3 "3 c c •> O' 3 3 > mm 3 3 (B 3 'd (B 3333 a x; 3 a 3 “ 3 m> m n3 :d ^ « a « +S CO S M CO CO "o£ peg “ "a M5 3 333 S S ^ •3' HO CO CO CO CO ^ I d >> S 5 40 O CQ 3 oW 40 r > o s C3 > d 3 ~ " 3 C 3 M OM oSi O • ^ jJ . f^cn ^ ^ 3 d *-5 O S5 !> .S d ” “ 3 3 3 M =14 0 «M PO > ! ra O 3 3 td O ^ 3 JM - -'o ^ 3 >> ' g ^ g d 4j g 2 5 !>0 3 « g g§ S« d3 . ^40 ^ W • 000 W P p !pl s 1 2976 3406 2365 3268 ! 3467 4173 2348 00 rH LO CD CO CO 2697 3541 3629 2704 4861 1687 1705 3610 3870 2917 3124 3279 3869 x>- 3363 3 S3 4208 2918 1 d 02 3 3 3 3 O-p .S .3 "3 ’3 t4 !h 00 3 3 3 3 d d Q '^3 02 3 " 3 ^ ^ 00 O ^ 40 40 40 4-1 3 3 3 3 d d 3 3 PP Bd._ >>9 4^ d a g 3-3 o P M Sd^ ad ^ s2-^ m M o o dd II d d 3 3 3 3 P P d d 3 3 dd QO dd ;-l t4 WP a? a? IZ 'H 3 3 PP 00 ^ P d d o o dd a a d ,.^ ^ 'P .52 2; 3 d ’5 P P ^Sdd ^ M o o M o-p ° d £ o 000 oo 40 40 40 40 40 d d d d d 000 00 ddd dd ddd dd O? 'O CQ a> oj CO CO 0? CO w E|| III 1 ) .s^ - o ® 1 B « 2 'S'^ © S 0 ) X ^ (D a - 3 d»a © c ■r ® "S tt! 3 a si| ° O « -g ^ 0 * c w y-l '««®'3 C “ ': 3 ® c S ®? © ^-'® • - 3 -2 r© 3 © ^ (i, © ^3 2 © ^ C -M s 0 “ puno^ pa9:;uT3 -jBno © 5(2 ft puno^ paar^uB -a^no •:)uaa jad ajn:^sioi^ T-H Ifb • (>1 1-H C> O ft ft! 75 CO “ ij o O © © 02 CO 3 t: 3 73 'ft fcxi'ft bjo 33 c tuo ft I s-p a ft o ft o 0000 o ft! O ft! © © 3 3 ft ft as*. =3 __ ft ft ft ^ C3 2 3 3 3 3X2 gft! gft> •a uoi;^Dadsui I«PlUO -ft a © ►> o ft [*< _- o O o ^ ^ r T 3 O W baft! to •III 3 « (ft O 1 t=^ I ftX! a^ o « ^co o ^ W O P c o l§ 1 1 1 1 >1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 (ft 1 1 1 1 i 1 'd t 1 ©*" 1 1 1 1 1 1 Id a ! i -ftr,^ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 to S © ! 1 ^ 1 0 rO 0 ? (ft fit, © a 'ft 0 ® 0 - g >» ' ^ ” d H D &u C ►-H n>H o' ^ 0 A gas ft] ' t^'ft 1 ^ ! 1 ^ 8 s © ^ > 5 ^ w M cs ^ 'M ft © " ■aa g ft > * ©^ O 3 (ft '-I rc» a ftP^ CO t-i ft fQ 'ft ^ a Ip aa 3 £ ft a -ft. O ft £ 00 © ®.ft © ft O (ft - 3 c3 h-i © ^ a X a 02 (ft CS a a ft s a CO >> Ei © ft (ft (ft 0=3 'ft © .«2 W-S (ft a CO ©ft'-' Sft 'ft .3^ ft'ft O 3)^2 =3 2 'ft wheat, sunflower seed, charcoal 179 g (U *i y ri r s y y 3 ^ y- 3 4 -r'P! o y 'O 5-^ « P c" ® S - o y ^ C o > - ° - I 2 ft S s gS|l d • ^ OJ 0) - w o > 0) fl rC 3 > “ y 'S o ' t <^> © «H if ^ ® fi ■“1 §|j! .... .o| i 1 1 = 2 S >. S iJ ” C tT cS C S tc ^ gM ri C'S eS £5 £ C'^ c o i: ri ^ 3 y O oS u “ o o . +j y ^ *jr ri S 3 > oS y 2 y S y £! -3 £ - iD'l 2 * '3 * ® y s^' M ttl d 'd 5 ^ > . o >, y r-T (m <]) rt y ^ Ui .. y y y 33 3 b> .3 33 w ^5i y ri O ' y i ao 53 00 3 M ^3 ^ y y § i " !^+i 2 a y — as ^ i rt 32 ^-d ; . y ‘ o y 2 * y Frt . > y “ 35 ^ •2S 1 33 > ’C ^ y 2 a p. ■'3 3 fc," * 3 tC -d aj (jj y I d c -s 5^ y Hi . rn- rt > y £ 33 3 ^ '-'* C 3 ^ t- - « y ^ y y t C y P O ;3 ys ■g 3 S3 rt _^- J 'O • y « y 4-> +J * ' O o2' TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) i 8 o 'E 4< s-s *H Ucj 0^4; ij.s c T3 O (U Bo" puno^ - •S-o S ^ flj * ^ ® X VO o ? «.2 “ s v g ^§2 a ^d 2» 111 T ® -w by es .5 ® C -w tT O j; C aSc^ . fi ' I ^ 5b O 9^ r a-c O &0 a cs -a ^ o 0) sg: §s| . ” 2 & ® a-i*! o a "-o S “ ^ c o 2 C M _ ^_l © 4) ® S o be © « H! g'- g o ... iP o g >« f5^ d2« C ^ © L. P, : o o 2 '^2- dj S "0 83 § c|^ i 8l|g^8Sp« - >^ s OI Sh S u D oa 05 O 00 00 C tn ^ . tH P CO X ©■3 ^ ® : 43 c a > “ oi d (5 CO CC ffs; iH C ii tr^. ago ft ® > ^ a O •'- 01 ^ a •« c © c8^ tC a ^ CO £-E^ o *4 o ” d c 0) (B 0, - d 1^ CO ag pS tc - s®'E° o be w 4-3 . 4) ^ -© C 0, d 4) o d 43 43 « S > W to d E> CO paa:juB -a^no puno^ paa:^UB -jBno ■:jU9D aad aarnsioj^ 43 ft O Z, tc CO ft d "ft <3 !?; CO o nO t-i 'C3 pq 43 ^ ftft; ..:g^ Ph t-i > C3 w.a .2 4J 'O B ”3^0 M 12; Number I ■a uopoadsuj 2529 3686 2654 2653 4847 1890 1927 2049 3472 3700 CO CO 2785 3372 3360 I CO 00 CO I^PUJO (M B 7652 5909 5910 5721 6292 6292 6292 6292 6493 5990 6568 6568 7218 7218 1 7218 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I to 1 i i ! i 1 1 1 1 1 1 .t^ i 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I ; Q 1 I • * 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 H 1 1 1 1 1 o 1 1 1 1 I e' 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 4^ ."S Ph 5 >3 ft d a . SS 5 ; 1 M - 2 s 73 ft d n 777 ^ 2Ph o j43 « HQtrl to ah-.^ i«-s “Is Q) pH O KJ O CO 'd g 43 q 03 M tn ” d S tfa q d d ft 2 > d 3 CO (h S-( O O CCC/2 u c« 2 o C+3. g ft ft o i-i - fc: d .£3 wSS a ft d d H ^ l-iM P 0? a a o o OP a o 43 a 43 f-i w ft o d a 43 M q O ^ -q O gpHpH N C" Pi 3 H < ■< ai 4 a 3 “ m +j C3 d •c g £ s ’c g 3 W)^ t>0 5 tiog to 1> O! t> g O ‘'-i 2 -3 .--T s C g-S r: 03 r ^ 5’«3 M ® -Q S b£ CQ Q o3 a ;® 0) if tts • T 3 ce -C-rt M O (U 4a . to O c fl o o is :.ii cti'S-M S 3 .3 fl S to S o o .fl o a ^ S S ^uh :x != <0 . ' 4 x 3 o o *r; ” 03 o " O o o'l « S. llo S tu . c VO o “ o ll l“i Ss Si= “ - § IS ■V — to h o^-S .»w ^Sd^oX o 3 r •- © 42 S* o h O (l ll bo ft ft o ■< : dj : o " o o bo "Is' -m'C " o3 C fl 033 ^3 to O' k flo o?S rr'fl’’^ .0 .. ’ 2 ’^^ ft .© ® cs -'3 S 2 ^J- - 2 S S - rt 2 •g toflj S 0| - ^ M 1^ ooe £ ,;s3 fl|*,^fl2 C H ■“ “ fl-§2fl.oO ^ to ft ^ - . o S' o ^ 3 X -.-fl 2 Sfe I ”2 2 fl CQ ^ ri S'® ° cts 1 2 j ^ c .t: n ^ ft S ^ ^ o ft f- ° ^ 0 es o ^ o S .fl 2 fl 53 ft pj 4J 3 O 5 3 '3 b . « o ,3 o o O fl 42 fe 43 3; O 45 bOk. P to k^ to o fi 3 ' S o fl - £ s^^ 3 O V 3 ^ fl 53 kS 8 “'3 o o ^ fl o S fl X O rj ® O C (M (M (M C lO CO 0 ^D 1-* 0 10 !"-• CD Ci s? CD 01 Ol (M CO CO CO -^ 2 "o W ft W S' Kn w ^ (h dJ Q^ G G G C3 CO o CO 01 CO CM ft's o^ (M Cl Cl 1 1 -i _5 4 -P 1 1 > 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 *c 0 *5 0 0 -Witl ~ S i > 1 1 1 1 1 ^ M I 1 1 0 o' 1 . 1 ^ c /2 * * • ID LD ID •» • 43 txJ.d 0 GI 1 1 I 00 5 £ G a> k 2 fi G .20 0 43 ! 11 ^111 ft 3 O O PM 2 bo 2 £3 03 43 ;-i 33 fl fl 3 CJ 4 x 3 4 x 3 2 ® 22 0 OQ « CO 0 CO 4 x 3 fl - •'53 ^CO CO 00 0 ID 0 ft u ft a flS'l rH fl< a p ft 0 ft ft 0 0 6 6 Q >. 1 g&H & 4 Eh 4 X 4 x 3 4 x 3 k fl Fft +lx 0 G *n 8 .& ft ft ft ft ft ft 3 p^ £io a^ 0 0 d 2 d 'ft o 2 g ^ . s fl fl o o s o-a -x O fl o 2 o 223 43 S. 2 "S O > 0-7 io O O ft fl -CO ft s o w O-g ^ o 2 m o o £ fl Sft ® 2 tr fl 3 pq n '3 ' 1) 'G 1 ^ 2 .fl^ " 4 x 3 fl.2 ^ ^G coO .52 .2 ’53 'S s a tl tH CL> O) 3 3 3 3 pqpq fl kCO ft43 _ s c“).a ® fl "rt ^-go •2 pq bo P^-rt 'ft - a, flCP '3 M O) +J tu I— < fl O 08 PM a ® fl 3 OO} Ph 5sjo 4 x 3 .a O w 2« pq tt Not tagged. Labels furnished 241 g tons removed from sale and returned to mfrs. 1 82 •S § S s'® ® I I -Si’S I ^^1 'S ^ e s s I 1=^ •I S'®! u ’S i>v P-i 5 * ^ +-4) fi ft - < >- H d S ^ S o bci^S ^ 2§ 2 ^ c •r' ® 4» Pft '8 ^ 4, -H o ^ ^ 8*0 t - fi oo ^ ^ OT fi ii - ® b 2 * c3 O ^ W g C ^ 2 O M O >i . o j_r ' 'O ’i-’ls ° •w ° ^ 8ft® ® ag s c ~ 2 « : S s- to tc -d 8 0) . S ■=! .8 ie g ® 0) C to cc ® 8.§ m ® S 5 ® * V ^ r; 2S £ “ J S -M O ® ®2 S o £ 8 ® fcPS ^ • o 2^ S £"8 tc^Sc o' 8 O 8: g o ii O 8 «ft^ £ r 3* ► Sio 'O gl ®l b *8 ft — s: C ^ '^1 0 ^ • -c z ;r cQ th f 5 8 ^^ « 8 ^ t> M 8 C . S 3 8 ■^-' ®.S 8 'O ® ■ S ^5 HH p 03 ■ .ft M .Sf |w| ' s s a g ^ ;f3 W g" ft' .8 8 a > o-n !i S CO as ft 8 H « ft S oa w Q^'a ^ iJ a » '3 ^ . S ^ o o Sft ! ^ ,Q h-i » a> •p •;:: 't, « c i»D-g tT "S N S 'c :=; tn ® 5i3S 5 aJ ^ K r ^ ^ ^ y g " 3 3 2:3 " ^ a © i s £ -a § ft te 2 ft S =“ 2, “ ■ -M- .Q tx)-" % - oj ^ S O M ® rrt p5 5 ^ S ^ - 'x* CO C ^ 1 ::^ O M ^ <1^ . 2 1 o g ft ft c3 d 1 s cS 2 - 'S” . 1 « ^ J O © Gj n °° .:£! .£” -o g ft £ ® c g ftn o © g ©go . w ^ cd - = y S 5 cj y « s- r 2 fti y L§ . &o -d o y 0) 5; y £2 ft to o ft t- “ ^ 01 y ts £ oj O :3 cn cn o y ti „ ft c 3 ft ^ CO 2 £ fe 2 S t> cO cO O cS y o xJ-^- S S © ^ pC ^ fgx. 2 XX S ^.> ra g W 5 - y M ^£2 C ft _ £ ftQ O cO C 3 (D 0 ^ (S cO ^ cO 1 > K! CC ^ 2 s.§ ^-H ^y £'§ O 33 beg ^ cO o ^ xT ^ >. - O XS T y y C ^ tC o cO t 3 -« C 3 -w to .rt g be g y y y 5 .|2 c " y ft o ^ cO a o C P fci CO© == s s “si oj be 2 to- •" be y ^■11 tj O CQ ^ (V >0 00 £^ ° £ pQ ,c -a m a O © y?. o ^ y • a 5 bJJ to N 2 a .-a af o S g ft u ft tc a cO cO to* ^ a lo in lo (M CO 00 CO S 'y d ^ o sa «a CD a a a N „ o 2 ’o 2 M -K. £ a a ^ g'2 2 MW-S y a • ftW a 'apq d a; a 2 . trl^ tri -a o 'S a CQ O ^02 a a ^ 42 di a •« d a ^ M .a’ 3 .5 ^td2 a. a a . M S M a 'xW O OJ w C^ w »«-3 III y g a S2i'^ £ c 42> 6 1 o ^ 1 ^ = ' .2 > N 3068 4380 4459 3999 8 S 4181 3755 3066 3260 3323 3065 2724 5092 5119 3127 3767 1864 OA CO 3211 s CO I> lO C<1 CO a in in CO 00 Oi CO CO S§ . 6538 I 07) o (M O O (M CO i-H CO O in CO lO in in I 1 CO CO CO 1 1 CO CO t 1 o CO 1 1 1 1 1> 1 y O O O) 0 <3^ be © .ft -ft ftO 2 ^ M > O PQ (D y b^.iP oa: 5^ .20 o5 5'^ 'gs S-a ai o 2'o OO 0O S-ft '% -0 73 y a> CD y PhPh «Ph a.“^ a gt) §3| 00 03 y g +j M .2^0 « Ah Q y d3 Mo a G 0_; O Op(l| ■=8 a a m a o ^0.2 0 ^ G! aQ^ci -5 Ah W tt Not tagged. Labels furnished 184 ■S’® ^ I si i' 5-^ _ c ® i== C-C ^ a; to M g-g " S I paa:^UB -anno 13 CS s-< ta puno^ punojj -jBno ^ ^ bfl ? to II cc - V ■ s •“ s 1:2 - d?i ri --I . 3 . >. o' X 4 ) ' O r M tS ” G-^ 2 >-' * X c <2 ^”c§ -Q O 03 o ^ ^S 0 - ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ■G C o u oj > “ C l> . X W o -d t* ^ 0 ) ^ s SC- 'S i . G bo g c c‘° cj M 'O •-« C ‘1 . ^ (U c3 ^ oj o p P ^ a>§^ p ^ O t- H ^ ~ c G^r .H S CO i> CO 10 ira 10 (M (M CM CO X o o -p 3 S. •“ o •gs ra ;C .-. ° « >- b£ c 'd S ■r oj .P 4^ fl 3 «, g c g O X C 3 G p to G o| 2 C « to e 2 Sd S S .G 4 , . . « "O >> X &►,-> c o S ft ^2 . "S'® = I is * fe tc ^ « !S l«l| gd* o^pq -M* S ”' -*-'- 'S c 2 S TO w 2 3 : G c to bfl S •:tua3 aacJ ajn:}sioj^ 'a uoi^oadsui I^PWO 3 W eg i-i 0 03 « .G Ot- 02 P CC 3^ <=8 03 M ^oT 0 CO 03 d “P 0 « cc Sag P G d tH 22 — c S o O) 0? •r; HU d P fcH c3 0 ll =8 CO « G > P'S 6 G Pl) « GJ P 2 P 0 CO G C G 03 4J ^ CXI g’“ |a OJ -K c3 g ^ o o ^ tu] a> t. ^ O e -X CO -X '*( CO CO CO CO CO Ift ii 00 00 -X o o LO CM 1 >- o o woo o 5 £ w £ > •> o 3 .ti G G a ^ O "o 5 CO Q a g o„-.9 9p^ -M o' -2 ^ CX) G “15 o W gj (y OJ G ^ K K KO 6 M « o o G5 e .'O ' 1 - 34 ; a; 'O _(y (y P P CO ,x - ” " .9 J3 o ►3 4J ^ G^ . 00 P 43 ^ ^ G — G > « ft a o i e 4 ) ^ o Q^a c G® a w p ,p p -o G -d -d 03 03 03 03 P P G G O O PP d d G G O O a a 48 i c8 i 148 p ' .ta 1 1 -W 0 1 0 1 1 0 •d I d iPd OP 1 i 1 > Id " 1 P d d I d 1 Ss S 03 1 ' 03 1 03 03 IdP P 1 P I Sd a £ Q P p PP p a> 03 03 03 03 G G G G p S S5 5 d CO 03 03 CO d 43 >1 ft 03 0 W x-! '>J £ d ^ G d ^d-g «d oOjdCCco CO £ m_G £ “ CO g) a CO 03 >: 03 W >1 90 aso S P rSi G O G "O G S .gjp d G O P d CX) 03 O GCO Pdd d^'S g P P O w 43 ■2 g oP O i85 •4^ P, © 0) o g ® 2 . S 15 ccS S w « fe • H = ® ^:; c o fc< ft C 3 ft ft ^ ft C . ^ !C ^ rt C . o * ^ ^ 'C ^ ^ ri 'C :;: 'k, wo.’Sbcfe-o^bfi 3oC Po.tl ^^bCN s^'O gfe5 I 55g<° cd 'O ^ I o 4) '^6^ (D (1) ^ — w »>S> W jjPlM 01 O ♦- C o fi Q Q O 0» X5 ^ ^ " . B O rt m |g 5 'S ft c3 ® X y g y - P S S c — ' p4 4> d '^.'2 ^ <1> . “■g ^ X- u ^ S . o ^ tg 0) fi s- t, y , tc ftcg 2 to-g d P.-2 O 3 s . tl « « ctj 'O +J ttl >2 0) (D ; o Oi 00 o o CO o o CO 1 > rH to J>; Ml 0 Ir- Oi CP o o Ol Oi o oi CP o> CP O CP 0 CP d d d rH rH o o kO to kO o CP O O CP CP o CP LO kO cq ko kO kO o 00 CP CP o o CP o o CP CP o CP d cx5 06 06 I“t I-H rH i-H i-H rH rH iq oo CP CD CP J>; kO CO 04 o to Oi cq TJH rH CO CO co' CO CO CO CO CO CO 04 CO CO* CO CO 04 04 co’ c4 eo kO CP O o CP lO kO kO kO kO kO lO iq LO kO kO kO kO LO - Cq 00 04 Oi cq rA d CP C5 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 i i i .S 1 1 g ft d o a d B d 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 > to B d > s 73 ' B 73 B d _y 5 Q >i Q 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 !'§ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . Chicagc S i i o : 1 ^ 1 1 ^ la 3 |C5 B d B to 3 B B O 02 O 1 O 1 1 .S 1 I M 6 Q 73 y '> a o to d y M 43 0 02 y W 43 3 0 02 M CO B 0 02 B d .^? 2 y S Clinton South Be (h <1? tH W tH 1 to y y «8 2? B y ft CJ h4> G a> P o Hi o c3 Hi 4^ o a ^3 H-d o C3 p a C5 o tH w d 'r 3 'C'S '3 Bm 3 d" O 43 y M M O W gpq _y ’d B d 43 B d ft) Sh d W Sh , d w ft M *3 P *3 *s 44 d X . 5 "S o _ ' OJ . fl a C3 o3 a c3 c • C3 G cs s y _d 5 Alex Ale Edw B y 3 S 3 O 002 m _o s o d O J. c J. c Jos. PH w So ^ . 3757 4922 2720 3413 4920 3111 4418 3136 3395 3421 4843 5111 3979 1945 3820 CO co 2139 3366 4846 CD 01 04 04 04 kO to 1 J>- CD § <5 CO 1 M^ rH M M kO CD CO J> Jr- CO CO Ml 3 M< M to 00 1 0 CD 0 J> CP 0 X- X- . o “1^ «l tuo^ e;” C5 4:: I , ^ ' r“ ®S -o |1^ o y 1 d P cs ^ ct3 ^ O (H 3 t-. 3 y 4^ p O ^ ^ ^ O'^ jd P'« y g S dg;^ ccdj.y r O W ^ -o •'d 'Sp y d ^ o to w B g 43 t»‘2 2p 73 y y Ph 73 y y pH 1 1 73 y y pH 'O 3 s-i B ft . fl ft . 0 a 0 a p 03 a 33 Q, 43 n, 43 g teKHtn^PH^ 0 ^ -a '43^43^0^ o;c^>.p ft s •2 !ft 1 a 02 1 it 1 fit I M it btS S2 B 0 y it B 0 y to B 0 y it yS'S^ySoO •S 6 .s ft! a-^X 0 g B .G a; TO X3 TG '^03 B y 2 2 0 0 rX 0 0 44 3 olden Shell d W S S S d « « S S 0 0 d 0 0 M 0 a a a y tu 43 43 CCCO OO 431 43 '6'a y y y y O O O O 44 43 3 3 MW tt Not tagged. Labels furnished -^- 600 lbs. removed from sale. Labels 6248 furnished TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) s .2 tii-i sil .£ S ft ^ VI •g 5 h a ft to 4P " !> Orf a rrt ^ ^ ^ c; c cti«Cs8a.ctj-J? 0*0 4( 'J' O ® i ® X Ft^ o ^ ' S^Q 5 S ' C 1 o; 0) -g u X in 'q. a> ^ ft puno^ paa:;uB -JBno o -5 puno^ 3 rt 2 Cj^ J-. a> paa:ju’B -a^no •:^uao aad aan:jsioi^ r-H O OO' fl a o3 c3 a a MM cl d a a o3 03 •a uoi^oadsuj l^PWO o .s M d o' I i d "d S M •sa s d >^3 do. Wm k < a OJ I dJMd d! , Q risi 4 J a> V O OP t^rd.SiM .22 OM M Ot 3 . o td o fl o OpL| "S cy 03 MH d^ M^: xi d) o o o o M M d d o o MM t S Sg i?.a= C3 03 C3 03 §.§ d> s a a bo M o approx 3 . 6 % gn ^ § 2* «-2 2 . ^ « “u S :=: M ® . o' I" IS >2 g^-E 0) 73 -j^ - o ® t* L • w «tC bfl tc . ;> M O S'® ^ fl 8“ S , O ^ s s s ^ <1> ^ 2 'o 2 ^ £| S) *5 o Q,"!; cd ^ tn ft S > S 2 15 - S “ 'C 2 “ S ^ ^ boM^- O C . ^ c^ 0) i; "S o '‘=i - rr^ '3 ^ a> Js! S Pi ^ § C +J 0 w CD ^ ce -.O - S Id-- ' ^- o nj w ^ C 5 •“ CCS cS ^ CD C rt w 45 c ® ■g d) !3 “sS ^ CQ -M c 5 g g«l, it. Ry< milo, 6% lime , milo, enings. rit not ^Cft ” - d . C § (D Z 82 o S B'^ o 43 0 ftc fl C o >5 ft CD ft o s rt O 2 p- -o CD ® CD ^ C DO 43 S CD • > ►j, C W CC o P ^ U I « - c ^ C i:3 ^ fe 5 ° CD ® CD CD C d:; M ® 77 p’ 'fl C w B g * !-. C »§1 ciS § B « “ * « ■^7 "i c «| I^S§ -S CD -M 7 : C .,H D 22 o-g 2 M c >. c O ^ ™ cci t> M O CC! B ft cn M C 45 *7 “ • ^ . . 0 CD 'E ® 2 DO 43 bc^ C ' t» »J r« ft L c » -• ISiS!?. •°si|5s 2 fi 2' c O C * 'c CD CD 45 o B '2 C W C ^ » O «"2®^ ° C -ii! . d c* ft - F ft vspS F ft CDfeSj ft 8 g 8 .^"-8 . +j CD • -B Ci g >1 O d3 F ,F^r 7: bo 22- c5 2 ft 2, 9 X rl ft X plii O . f- o ftCD 4 ft'^ £ c ■ -o C ft ft 2 ^-T o ft ^ 2 i 43 43 S " t>- ft cc^ > m in C 0 rH C5 05 05 0 05 cr> rH rH rH <0 0 0 , 0 0 0 0 0 0 cq 0 cq 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 » Oi 05 05 0 0 0 0 C5 0 0 0 <0 0 CD T-l ' l-H ,-H r-H ,-M ,-H 00 Cq 05 J>; 05 cq cq 0 m rH cq j^. in r- CO c4 CO CO c<5 c-i CO CO CO CO CNJ CO C^l 01 oq e>i 10 in 0 , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 in in in in in ci J 1 0 r 1 0 tUD 1 1 1 1 1 > > 1 '> 1 O) 1 0 1 di 1 1 i ft 1 1 0 CO ft CO ft 1 CO CD d ' 2 i 03 0 1 m d d rQ 1 1 s-T 1 1 '> 1 1 03 frH ft > ft > .22 3 0 >s ^ TO r-H Cl ft ft ftW M .2 a a c hH >. ft 'V a S 2 Ph o ft l-H IS 3 CO •2§: ft ;z; CO. ^ W CO .— . O) « ft'^ ' ?Q o3 CO W9 |i| O ftj ►7 'ft c ft 2 ft a c 5 Pr 2 ^ ft o ^ ^ ” ft ft -la G r Pm pm 'ft -ft '3 000 000 pH pH Pn 000 P^PMPh 1 i CD G G G G G G E -ft .2 S“ CO ft CD a F^ aarH CO0CO0CO0 g ^ 2 ES g ‘5 PM PM PM ** Not registered 243 135 u,g^ removed from sale tt Not tagged. Labels furnished 244 400 lbs. removed from sale and returned to mfrs. TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) 1 88 1 1 V aji c ^ .2 E os s 4) P'S C q CS -2 S'?! "S ® 4 , h B e. S ::: c 50 5 0, ' ^ S ^ C . O c M OS d S« c ^ tn 3 P,^ » - P ^ oS q" ^_r g O 1 3 y rf H /T< „•■ bXiQ O N “ ^ ^ 3 s, a y 07 q m S 2 al ■5S tu h ® Oi Si a rl ’-:* d O ^ o c'2-r O 3 6® U 0) ® t. B cj o "Sd V oS 'i't c z ^ a < B o y 3 o u -B iSH* rl I > c .ti S ! fc. ? . 03 bx) ^ 3 O o “ ^ !-> y 2 *-' "n “ 'E ^ a ^ 0*73 g :b y 5 a ” CO . y c3 P — X O c a^^'B E 3 eo y O “ ^ a a y o 33 P y ^.i 3-" 32 TS t»»a 3 y g ^ ^ P M y “ 1 s| sl| y .S B 73 y y 3 Hf o puno^ Ci oi 9.3 cs oi 11.8 zq 00 10.0 10.1 10.1 oi CO 6 8 eo 0[V y paa:;uB O O O O CD p o o o o O ^ P -anno O s o 1>^ CO ci o o o ci a i ^ puno^ 00 (M 00 o CO p oa Crude Fat :r cen1 CO CO CO CO CO CO oi CO co’ CO CO p^^:^uB lO lO lO o iq p p in p p p p a -auno c4 c4 oi oi oi oi oi oi oi oi oi •:^U30 aad (M CO o rH p CO 00 aan:jsioj^ ci o rH ci oi ci CD 00 oi CD CD o i X .y • o bo .y 2 > C3 Ph p o a s 1 ! 1 1 ' ! p 2 'y C g 1 >1 P c3 P «d rO o . o bo a _y P 53 > w d o O O HJ ^ o • o > t« ! ^ P o tn ^ 2 M C3 1-1 .s' C5 ip .s M y P o ra o o S bo P St. John, A Owens & C Bend Grain h Bend O i i 1 O ■=8 a cc 1 . ».^ M bo 3 0 2 d p P P Ah a 5 3 3 C i O > crt w s Eh 2 i-s S d M ^•002 p-< Ehoq Ah Number I •Q uoi:joad8uj CO Ol 3108 3578 3364 3272 2034 1 2545 4177 1926 1 3105 3175 3412 i^ptyo 6770 7257 1 7257 o; i 7582 5741 6411 6411 6431 CO s 6431 6431 1 : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 \ .■12 4.^ 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 O p O P 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4-d I'e: 1 » 4^ 1 \ *Sh 1 1 'E CO .3 1 4.^ O o O P O 5 'Ep p .c O o.te .H .ti P a S 'C y 73 r y 1-5 H o p pps I Ha^ oil •go a s ^ Ah W .% P y .i; P ■^33 O o t-l o (H 0^ y y O U . 2 c3 y 73 y Sh K A5 C3 -a . y Ts y a Ah '^33 y " a 2 3o» y tn 033 S « .M 5“S .CJ cy *n SO 3 C a ^33 3t1 O N S ^ (U !h -I s s C “ 01 ft tC C ft ■^>02 c«.5- t, g -- CO 0 ^ IS ^ y tO^Q tn ■M d • 01 0) X (u m — « ‘^1 ft i s o a ft - 3 y «5 U5 W ;o X X ftfe .ti ft ft>^ sh a 01 ® 2 ^ § 2 S 5 M S g S O) •M — . a-- d «® s X X .”2 2 sg§§ ft--5 r-; ^ d a^ cn ft O O g „-^co y ^Q Q /5 a s ■W y ft ft ^ 2 a 2 ft! u a a > M ft ri P* CO M ft .ti O u 0) be ‘is ^ g fl o ft ft .ftH i r* O gftfl >,4S> Frt (U (-, JjO y r 5 01 ft 01 ^ I a ® 3 « a ft ® «3 -ft a O ■" OB ft 3 , ^ ft'E V g a 3 4*2 ^ o' 'O o « ^ ” - “‘^5 .^a >> ft :5 S ^ rT . 3 ^ g S t-*' c^ •W ri ^ Q 2-^0 o ® -'a ® c 2 _ c ft . eft F 1 h ) * " 3 CQ ;a Sf o M a>ft .3 ® 3 3 ^ IF — ■>-' y M to ft >> 5 j* o to i# . 01 p -ti ft's 01 +J ft 01 •«< C . ft ggS ” a © to- a a a ■ft ® " ®;S'3 d ^ a 01 2 ® r “ 0.O o c^ 01 +J ft 01 y ft y y y XI 1 h "t? y y « X fe o 2 -F ft QtJ rr {> W3 C V- CO C^ . > 1 1 t ( 1 > j ^ ' 1 1 y 1 1 1 1 cj 1 1 1 7 ^ 1 1 ft 1 0 1 1 0 i^x i i ° i 3 rX 1 «5 1 N 1 a> 't-s 1 F g ft i J il 0 ! 1ft Cj 1 1 ;> ft! i © ' 6 ' r Ph 0 ! 0 go pq^ X! © ft^ 1 1 6 1 1 ft! 1 g 1 pH 1 ft3 ft © PP x: ft X ft 0 ft 0 ^ ! ij >a H F ft 6^ 02 © ft ft 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 >* ! -e s XI 2 1 ! a 0 1 ft -ft “2 ' 5 !<« g ft-2^.§ a a . © ft 1 lO ^ '^©^ ft! 0 Ift © T ft! 4ft 0 fcuo C 03 ^g-gga -a^ ft5£«^ PI.2 .2w 4p'.a ■+ft ft 2 Sh ft ft ppg2 =3 ' o-~ > ^ il a W ft 0 cc 4^ ^4 ft PP § d Ma ft tnfe d PP2 . fc> C3 t^o 1 1 •d CJ t> w c3 >r ^ Ph ti Side Cerea Wayne 4^-0 ^ rl pC CJ> 6 g-^ d ft'd Ph 0 ft+4 ^o-go fp cc ft (_| 0 PP 1-3 1> .ift 0 ft »-30 w x: . 00 M oPh 02 CO CO 6465 g l>- Gi I> Gi £3 > CO cc ) CO c^ ) 00 5 1'- t ^ s i 'TtH ) CO 00 3 3 3 0 CO 10 LO CO CO CO 00 00 CO 00 LO LO LO LO LO ! ^ e ? cr 1 rti 1 1 I 1 1 1 J 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 ; 1 j I 1 1 t l 'pH ‘S 1 1 1 1 1 1 44> S 'ft' 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 cq dj 1 4^ .t^ 2 5 4-3 0 1 0 0 I s "C CD xi CD X 1 1 1 1 5 0 -C , r!^ .-C & 1 1 1 1 © 4.4 -tC Eh ^ d g ft -ft ft ft I .a ft ftj g Ph rX .© ■ft g Ph ,x .© ft! © © Ph © CDO -C -ft 'ft © © Ph ft CQ a ft ft ft. a a 0 1 S 03 0 CQ .ft 1 'S a ^ c« <0 S| tJ ft X! 0 '^'ft‘'a : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T3 a S ^F^-g ^ 1— 1 +p» 0 X © 0 bSi ft d fciX) _g XI .© s 0 xo .© Ift CD © © © © PhPh XIX! w bfl ft 0 CJ na Co , Mo. >73 (>v © ^p§ 0 • ^ . dT c3 >>t— 1 © F' .Ph a >> ft, c > © Ph . >. QJ . >» II- ©si a Ph Ph o « S5 ou t>s ^ 03 W G n. P F P^ Of riP u oo ft 002 tix),o^ 3 tn CO 02 g M CS'S © X a ’aP' ft ft w P5 OP CQ wa 01 ^ o.ift Pi ::!= 3 & S o © 03 oa o> 0 0 ^ s-s a A o ^ 0 ^ TO 4 :^ s u ® C tc Cj 01 XB - .S ifc 0*0 C - ^ go e*5 O M ^ ft - __ .S •'^ a -O o o .ii! o C Oi O O' LO - to ■!-> cq g g Q - O “r i-. ^ o o c Cl c g o X " ^ t : ft o ft O y 'O tn c «>2 o O « O . ft *- i! bJj goo o r-; ® i c O y * o o-o S -So® ^ ^-5 c o — ® P S &H o d 12 ' X 2 O o£ d C! S-, C Cij O O c . o d S£ = « ft o -g S O «2 ft Clj U CC S be * TO O w fc . ^ ^ n: ^ be 5 ^ y (C ™ C oft .-i g ® S ® s-g ^ o '* o cS siigi .- c I bo’i ^ ^-|. SW£S o ^ S >> C(f ^ C rt tn C 'g C !- S O sli#|l«- i d s”^ § E fc a r* 4-2 O.S fi puno^ 11.4 10.0 9.7 10.5 8 .G I'll 26.5 19.3 14.9 5.9 14.6 p^^:^uB -auno 0 10 C=, 0 cq 10 0 (Z> iq 06 cd 0 0 06 00 0 CM i 2 cd 10 0 0 C1 0” ftl paai^uB 0 00 iq iq cq iq 0 CO iq cq CD w 0 A -auno CN cd cd cd C^l 10 cd CM •^uaa aad eam^sio]/^ 0 0 9.5 0 cd 9.6 00 7.0 G .5 9.7 11.4 1 5.3 > a e, Ind. ry Feed, -a 0 0 P >1 nsville, Ind. FOODS, te, ^ 0 ! . £-0 03 0 is - 1 1 ft 03 ® ^ ] .S 'ft -ft 03 F 1 ®a.ft ft 5 ' 03 ft . 5 : ft ! 0 4 -d ^ CC ^ C 3 Q ^ fl-i ft 0 P « > P r'ft CO 2 " COCK Syndical , N. Y. tfiur __ 'ft F ft .® 0 -c beP >, ■ ftF ft ^ 'ft : ft 2 ^^ 'ft .1 0-^3 b 0 rt VO r- a> a> ^ CSJ r. C 3 C 3 .5 o sh ( 7 - o ^ »H a? O-S ft c ®.2 o*^ o •S b 'C CO oft ... o no“^ ft “-5 5 o ij o C3 o So p r^o: c ft 5 o-“ to W b o •'B -ft 2 C 5ft 2 03 ^ 5 p '- o III Sii llB 5"!E pp 'C's K'ft ^ ft - c3 I" •s W W 3 . 1 % sulphur , 9 . 9 % salt Clark, Dr., Ashland, Ohi( I9I ft ^ a c3 j- ad to .iil I* -< tJ 0,2 O 13 Prt F Co o ^ , W rH O c S - e! iSS» d 'd ►Frt - a V ij ’-j - »^.s - OJ® S 'S-^cjS g ■£ S £ ^ « a Pll V ® g ■s . a .5 d ^ 60 o » -a . 2 3 ft "S' 3 Or^ o ^ vO cu rs ^ V Id CD C< O C a a “ 'g-^f O O ^ o ^ ^ 05 W ’S bJD C t** fl >H >-'. a ft a ft ^ I 3 a . 4 ) ^ ft a TO O O ^00 S 2 .a s^.JL . Bj" ft 2 -Q CQ- a cd-a <= bJD . S .£ a w .3 S 4 ) "d "d be 5 5 o -a .* *r " ^ oT a *-"* fcj} CD W ®3 Ti) 3 'ci^ . a 5^2 a bT‘ a - 4 ) fl 4) . a as ^ cd-d a CQ d cd ao o 8 . 065.3 ft.a^^ •2'^ Q cd a 01 a o 4) , o a ft a; u ft.; O 4 ) cd a _ Sep.'S O *r >. . S I §S a ® a - a 2 a § ^ •S§«^2| -z: o tn a a; 4) « a 3 2 4 > ci i » a a od i 'C ^ 1- bD o 4 -» w c 3 ^ 93 '::3 ^ 8.3 ^-'d a a _ be ^ S a sS 01 ^ !D a cd a! 00 z: ^ M a 01 bjo j* aT a a X ' 01 01 8”-^ > ® bX) al o 41 o ft 1 a fc, ?a: 41 ; ^ -d 3 ^ aT'S .“ 2 a ^ 1 °”^ , OT 93 bfi r/T bJD w 111 [a .bs £ a 'd 41 3 M 41 41 2 01 t, ^ . -M bn . 01 fi a 52 bn 1 c 2 .S 3 O (D ^ 2^ ftS SD^-g-S 41 cd ® 3 ^ 3^ -3 g c'S'^ 2 ai d rn o Z ^ d Cl a 41 41 41 g-d'*^ a 41 d o c B 41 +J o o -o 2 ^ ® “i sl g-^' 8 S g= 8 B S §? 6>-d;gteo>-!ag >>5 n 03 ^ s 1 d I 41 I o i 41 I > I fH d 41 tl Id go 5 >> 5 - „ d -c o oPh ^08 ^ r-. 03 Q ^ 5 2“ *C Cl 92 .y .3 a ^ g ri«! -g 1^ CC.m O a & o "d _d 'o 'B 41 "d d o ’■S * d 41 2'S S o o ,2 o g o® o.tS 41 T3 O Vr-I '-' O 3 -m d ai ft 4 ) gpq O'o 03 CJ ^ Q 03 6 ^ 0 93 C3 03-^ 03 sgo hP 41 d . 1-1 01 4 J u 1 ! c3 1 41 >> d 0 ai fi i 1 0 t 1 1 i 'g 0 r-i a d ft g 0 X 41 d a: 1-4 i o' I .a 1 B 1 ft ” s "3 03 'O a ^3 d c d go P-i 03 'TJ ‘ ! - ft >> S § 0 ft g 0 a ft 0 ^ ? P ^ P ^ ft« Sd 0 C 3 (i, 0 0^ g Crc 3 0 0 0 >. d 0 0 Ph 0 2 Q g d’S ft) § B d ® ro %M-| 1^0 ■4-1 'd 0 o<; “ 8-Si « S >> >» ii a dSS lO 0 d SO S' & K s.d i* d Z •r fi s d^ S 8 «2 0 4 ) m Pbii M m -b .3 V « I S a 2 B S © «• B *H a a .S -S t? i « ®- 3££||5 a-dg® *1©*^ islss^^a ©•^idd'^gd >d © ©d « 2 gid’^'oc^-o ©a+>aa®*"a B’ 3 s£ 4 ;i_ 4 i 3^®i3j3*''05a 1^2 ftl^ S|l g ft 91 p d ft'" s '";«bnao®-g^x iH S5 Oi C5 >s$3 5 fH j? 5 ©'! 01 S-g oa| •o « a a B.g ®'2 .Sid Id’S © d 4 ) ft ft-< bed a 3 d.a 91 d 1 g '5 QJ Sm ^ a « ft a o u a t 3 i^a^ sss 91 *H 41 ©.a'g.a t* 2 2 'S o 'S fi 91 2 © £ d g d 2 s 91 3 , , 91 91 1 3 .3 *- .a * ,3 s — © d i fti * aS ft i 65d ^od “6S.S'i 12 «: TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) 192 ■S'® * ^ ® e s fi III 4) S-a .sr CsS 11 ^ S’® » ■fl ® ® fS a) h c a ®.S c tj S a puno^ c; X! “ "o r- 5>0 O S •S 2 ® c O) . ■9a° o w b “ x: w S .5 O ^ “a rt S ^ fl 1 1 1 C3 (y 0 1 tn 2 X cd «« Ta » « 6 0 >. X S Sh X >. X X X X _co S X* "a a '3 Eh* pg >. a 0 'g o; 0 5 =8 s 0 3 0 cd w W 4-i 0 $-H 0 *2 Si 0 pg w. c. a a eg' « . 0 eg •a 00 0 CD e CO 0 § ID CO i 1 uoi^oadsuj (M 10 s (M 10 o 2 ° 0) - “ .- ^ ^ .z ^ o-in^q S) ^ ^ - 2 3 O rj 3 h .2 I ^ M ft p^ O 4 -> I O ^ fi 3^ 3 00 3 t2 » 2 s- ft ft 3 a“ gc o , w q ft 3 ^ >s w ^ aJ if- Sal g3 5 3 g -2 5>0 .2 -3 2 O 3 tJ — 3 y, (U o 'O (U r- 2 C 300 3 3 3 3 .3 q a> J- 52 ^ q -3 3'>>'^^P oSSbtI^ ^ w o ^ 2 “ a .2 ^ ^3 2 &q S S VI "^ 2^1 .3 2"" a q ftca o > O - § - 2 3 » |gs 3 q — ft tifl o “ ,3 3 M 3 w a “ a q 3 g 3 2 J M § 3 .2 ■^Sa'^^i 3 H 3 § > O O ^ 3- w 3 35 T, 0<1 q 3 *1 3 3 3 -d 3 c 3 2 g “> 53 ft >> a 2 H+s 8 g-g’a ^ C3 0^ Qj ^ SJ bX)N d 3! C5 3) 3 3 ^ = •2 3^- g 3 s 5 3 3 g q o' 2 i>: u CO 00 00 10 35 m 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -iii 3 1 ! 3 ft P 33 1 1 1 1 3 0 3 q 03 P 1 'o' 2 44 f-i 3 ftl .2 2 p(5 r2 a> x: p 4 3 ft P "O >> 3 ft 1 W a> S a C3 03 0 w 1 s' 2 0 P2 hi hi 30 ^ P S qT w gi m . t-S 0) CC *3 a 5 s W bo j _^'-5 hp 0 § 3 Sh o 10 m i- (M (M I OJ 35 CC ; P O jAh 40 qT ^ 3 a P O O gcB MS 3 320 a 0.2 3Q;)'a 35' Os 1 o' ^ d 3 S 25^ 3.2aj — O'goa ^ 03 ►4 ft o ^ 3 2 9.2 3 o aq .SO 30 35 Q S.3 3 ft S 5 o >* O ro §|i g^§ lls o oq . 3 2 ° §05 0 bO s 9 ° © H c /5 0 . 44 q © 3 P “ © - 235 "S s ^ 2 “ ° a q ^50 08 P 0 50.2 > 0 ° .2W p ot^ 0 S M p S bfl p s a c 3 bjo 3s^ !Z1 3 3 3 3 2 3 o 8^1 PM t>> o ^ oO ^i2 2 . 305 O O •2> 2 > Sh ti f-i OJ c-l || o ^ O 0^ o« r^Tl TD o o) O g no 3^.2.2 CC 03 03 03 3 3 ^Ph jj 40 44 4 > CJ O « O O ■*^ 3 q -23333 VrOOhbh;* -^--.30 003 V 03 »H h h hi h ;ri w - _ „ u 13 03 d Ol>a 43 4 )'®’^'^’^ S+^S 344443+-+- igd^—OOOOi gissioii © £ O O ,«1 .«cl .s^ h h.'” h fc,«H 4 H«HeM «H «H «t-l 'O^'O'Soood SSs^ooo© g|esS 222 *H h h rd «'SSHS-^i;s -22 af ftftaaaap C 5 i-((NO 0 r^l'«iHI^P? 3 3 45 ‘I h. 3 h h ^ t, . 2 S ‘H O 'a::5^5' O' © 03 5 q ■si I si. '^35 3 ! '^13 03 © © — 4) goSiS- 3 S S © g ' . © (H >- hi , 35 a s s 43 x 3 : gs bo a a 2 a" ^’3’3 ap g « « "2 ® ^ TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) 194 V 2 s®i ® 2 gflcs g gp.S 5'^ oj :3 o ^ O CO O ti > oQ 03^ |§ .A O.H 3 3 ■i4 CJ 2 .0 ^«.S ^bo'g 9'2g «« 3 bo . o an-G ll a&H oSg 3 >2 « pW “ ft." “SB xb p 5 sog- g- w fH 1 1 1 ! 1 0 1 m « bo 2 ;h 3 3 ’n ^ a 3 B w 3 1 1 1 1 0 ' d 5 d po 0 p 35+^ 0 3 C3 3 Pi 3 3^ 3 3 .0 g 3 '^XSeg 3 1 ,3 0 3 w rS So a? W cts Com W. Va. and Cat CS 0 d 3 a ■3 0 t-< a^ 0 60 0 d^-S 3 w 2 g 0 0 'O Ph ga a d ftS Irt «d ;h a T3 1 |§ 0 3 0 Bo 3 3 +j P KS e-i P. 3 CO yj J9 3 P P P o 3 db bo 3 ego 3 3'^ 2 Qi-i+i” . bo 3 3 033 +J O CCq c3 OQ •25 g s^a a <5 ft 2 a ^ o 2 >3 .‘^ a 3 W 3 ft c; ^4^ a O ^ X 3 S ;0^ ! O sulphur 195 " OJ 0 ) ft a cj H o 2 to . td H ^ to 3 .S 1-0 - o ^ « C w cd 3 a ^2 0 fl a oT -0 a 3 d •" .3 § to'd - g 2 5 P &C-0 “ S cs o to D <1^ ^ o. -d ” c S 2 ! “ O 5 Or. --2 S 2 .5 ft c £ w _ o' o .in o ni ®< to S a rH-:§W “ .r c o ^ (D P > .'g 0) P< S'® +J s 'W ^ a (U .2 fl sa -d ■“ ^ -d . ■d-O ( -| ' S ^ i go 2 - •2.0^ rt oj ^ OT S-. ^ 4) (n C ft r{ O <“S . o o C d o ^^ o 01 a ,.-0. S3 o a d V a -d o d d -So o ,o Ph S o> > -d S S . a i;- o o . d .o ns! o O Xi d d d 3 o O .S o d to .in jH to d to- 2 d > 1 g S “ ^ d . .,^ O -1 d P* d ^ 1-1 o ? to- ft ^ d 3 d 2 P in ft a .2 ftS *♦-» O <-« O) y S g >d§ 2.2 ,- 'Ti ^ H. ' -d-d-o Pood S P ^ 3 ^ -P >< — d es -d -tc o p d a d o -- P y dirt h p ^ ■ rgp IB^O y to -3 ® ft S 3 dS^i s “a ® g 2 i ft «« d t, o 5 y o >“ ■ J d ^ § 3 o o P o -- S O CH ft ► O tS ^ 2 xj 5 to m s •rt nn to .S O 3 d — S 3 ^ “ 5 . ad's Pg 2 to * *2 d 5 ® 2 12 M t- to ^ bjo:d £“ d O bfl to gj d j3 y 3 ft 2 O) to rO to 3 d b u S^O .TjH to X s s m «S u . P-d u wo'O p t>o p-a d -|2§ii§ ^ ^ be o ao S § Oi lO ^ ^ fl gw >>5 ^ d g O ^co tuo S-l d ns CO OJ 2-^ O 3 w^n a ^ . bo o p -s d ^ ft ^ Sid^ nsi'-' ft yfH o o a, Ss CO ^ia .d O Q d O) ^.2 a Cl O S .3 a?" O 3 tn >. 0? ri o rd d . [. a o ^ .2 p nn-g .2^ £ t» id Sh ns! nsT y p ^ pH t>0 bo w dra -d >> d-d |a o y MM 2 d a *^n° 2 d -d •sM W ft y O y -d Oo o =: M a X3 d ^Ph - t>> O g .gM yfi a d '“' 2 >> a sh 2 ^ O ft ^ (S -d — O 3 P -.9 pH d o nsi-SS F.a ft ft 2 ao o ■■P d 2 ~ ft ft S 9 ds y P 2011 4460 2825 3305 1924 1533 0 CO CO 03 C 3 2244 1987 (M CO 0 CO CO 0 0 §8 (M 8 rtM y o rt ft p 9 £a OJ s ^ g 2 ft £3 ^ ^ S-d ft ft. 5 ft 'w 0 0^0 ^ ^ ^ ^ ti h H h ^ 11 ^ 2£|2 «H "rt tH !H -S'S'd'd y y y y ®li® sasa y y y y »H h ft h ft ft ft ft S3 d g d -ft-fta-ft a a a a a s ft d pQ jz; ®!*®® ■g ® ‘5 o^so yoosoi^t- -^iHW WM'^jn’Oir^ . 5 d . -y a-® -ft ft ft S,a-®'-2 y bo ft a 2.g rt ® ® ft* TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) i 1 sli oj .S 4-> h d s d £ 5-^3 S ^ d ■s -S* ^ sIS i S’« ^ « .2 d« iV U a ft 196 S biC’C .SP a> O cS ” - "a ^ S o o ” SH £ d 'd O « is "d d a ■ .h d d c S d ' a. d S ^ : w ® eS ' cj +s 0 Ot- O e '^rH d ® - - id . i« .2 1 a; w '® * ' y d 3 X ' d a I y OD a i a. Cl ! “ a ' d 8'S'g .-d c S y M , 11 ! • d : S. == S ' ^ cr^ M- S d ' d ft' £.Ho ga*^ ^ o O ^ 8 ft . y — 5 ,2 dJ ^ d 2 i 1 ^ 1 o _2 W X ' ^ ^ y ® fci ^ d ' y "d d o w d . d '-' " -CO' d to d ■r- d . ® £ .£ 'S O' 2 d .ti lifers y a ^ m' d S St.s ly d y 2 d c ft “ a 'S y 2 > 2 3 S d , ^ - d d M d Cii g^d >ei ^ s _- d y dye y y C O' -2 M a d d .3 3 I'd'- a o d ,ro o X .Si y 'C y y fO y 3 " 3 y y i 2 5 5?-: d r- ii Q 'C C rt r' ^ - o - w o 2 2 w-d— d.S coal'd a i-d .3 cd to M W y d d __ - o o c to -a d d o ■42 H o ® c .a! '3 y "3 •- C c d-P 2 d 2 a z; i»o 0 © a; 1 ^ TO o yd d -5 ■c -a y •'- -£ S 3 ^ y 'a i: ft y rt as- S > C y _- ' d C 5 y y 2 r b> c pS .£ ; ■ y be ;■£ d . , ^ c ^ ^ O ^ (V . d 8 'Sj ® ':3 -tJ tc ^ -3 1 X y a to y a to „ y y 2 ® 2 S-af ft y lii d y I’ a a X iH W be .5 M 00 o d,^‘ -d 3 ,3 a ^ y d ■- be 8 s>gd o -a y aJ y a: d si's ° . d +j' y X y y a X ;3 a: 3 : ® c d ? a '5 s “ £ - — * -3 x' C d +j'' ® be d C £ -S ® a^-d d H d S|2 g ,•*0 . ^ ^ 2 O oj ci & c ^ >> a £ 5 3 y C d _ jii a y as c y be o I a: y c ,3 c-^' d.d d 33 y y 3 U r 2 2 punoj to eo paatjUB -JBno puno^ paai^uB -JBno •;uao aad 0an:^SIOJ^ •a uopoadsuj I^PUJO o fti a ft. t. S A I 'd! ^ O a r° • dl c '3 5 2 § 1 '^ •43 a d .2 3 c g o S 322 d y ft 'c Si 3 y O ■^-a £ o t-H o — ^ 2 d .5 o .2 H ^3 a i>° di d . 3 N (4 .a) 3 W w y O .0 ^ o Ph .S^ x .2 T3 .S2 ^ g §0 £_, ® C3 . OJ 4^ fH* (i; ft hP -5^ 2 ft P-i 3 dIP ft^ S & 03 o M c4 35 £ >• g y o d y . >. of soda, 6% sulphur 197 2 ':;3 -c .S g' « c 'd C cu 4) 3 hT <1^ 4 ) O " t- -w « o £S w a> ai 2 g “ 3 C 8 1 I"! ft W D ? s U 3 0 ) fO ft £ Sft ►d 3 . o 43 rt // iT „g»(> C be (h 0) 3 beZl 3

43 ^3 3 “ 3 ^ O) g oT ft tp i- ft pT 3

o > 3-2 3 ^ S) .2 Pi O ^ C o ft o CO .2 (p O O fi 6 O ^ fa 3 d sor 3^ be -i-d) . j3 3 O o 3 l 2 ^ j Ph fi)+f ^3 O 3 ft. ^ 3 dpq pq ft'd >1 ■3.-1 Pq ” S 'd o g G ^ 3 >1 . S'? 06^ bel 5 t>> o . WK 9 3 fti ft _3 ^ pq 6 'S s ftsl 3 /3 pq a j '^'2 G a&|« /3 cH .0 a ^X 2 qj go^ ft ^ ^ al^ o|'^ ^ -gog o O 3 ft a g O 3 O .2< ^-1 ^ o o Oh .2 tp 'b =3=8 2 h /3 O ^'d u t- o 3 01 o) y H didJ ftj d o o 3g^f^ a ,2 be be a W be be g WW O 3 h tftO 3 - 7Z O ft ft >1 S (V bft g o be.d ■>,« CM 3 ^ >>r .=3 o ^ o c h ■2 >. y ^ d^l C 3 f 3 a; 0,5 3 X2 1 ^ d! 3 O lJ 4 " t-i Efq /3 ft o o be M /2 be 3 d? td O > pq b^S 3 o 3 -3 g'ft O >1 lg pad! -d a, pa 'ft . sa ^ c- 'd ft ft^c O y '^02 . ft 3 kT O 5 ft 2 H “Sc ;gS^ XJ O y ft02 & ^ pa a § O' Cl ^ . 0.2 g MH/ai-i P20 y 3 .a =3 U2 O § « pa 2| ^1 V >< H ^ «fty diu M tdh -ftM 2 © ^2 S fi td a S y s « a y 'stJg'ag*- 2 ^ Id a s a 2 ^ = ixj E a gx: 2 aft ^ a •2 ft 3 £ B ft a * 3-g ft * .2 wG ® » f^ CD ft ^ ^ >sS> -H V • ^ • M M M X eo O ^ y « 25 2 a a it:: .2 y 41 y 2 / 3 /= £y y y Igsa -'d'ft'a fi ^ 4J V > ^ ? 2 = iil i iHN:; £ a a a.S 3 p’s a * ^ M O IftM 10 TABLE IV — Report of Inspection of Feeds Collected 1916 (continued) 198 I 1 ^* 1 all to *2 ra ■+a h w s C 4J 5-0 ^ Mei 5> C g A •s s” 5? o _fi ^ .& S'® ® 3 ^ ® .S C£ C ^ p 3 5 « K c; I “£ n ft ft 0 CD be g 0 cd w-C 3 £ rH- C .^S w ^ :3 'd ^ -O 2 5 » Co p, ^ cij M 0) CS >. O o o >» § Cl ffl o SJ.5 fl 'O 3 ; (U So" S[£ « ft puno^ p^^:^uB -jBno puno^j paa:iUB -jBno •;uao aad aan:^sioj\[ 1-1 >5 -2 a S o t>co •a uoi^oadsui m CO CM CO g^'a § -o ^ a >i • 2 I- a^g ^^■Ph m S-a ,2 o a 5 «j a .0'S p 's 1=1 a O f> O a3 .EHftl d >>>, -a ^-a: ft. o a ft ft ft" 3 o o 2^SS * “ 'S o o W >^ao, y, a O D H a i.s Oft: ft-jf ft c» a ’a .a >1 tH 3 ft^-p O «J O J oc ft s t) 'ft g 5J o -ft O t-l . Ch W ftft:r^ < m o a s ft M o ft tuo o ft 03 -52 cs OJ CQ .S2 S^O b d > ft <1 -'s, Sk S n -^‘2 oO eqj ft t-i as o w o^ -ft o 4-> tJ 5S S| QJ O) ft g Orn ft ^ '39 g-a ►2 ft ^2 0 ftO*^ -S b ft ft ^^2 ft 0 a^ft • 1 *Wheat Middlings 7449 Mt. Vernon .1 i Hoosier Packing Company, The, Decatur, Ind. Tankage _ 7396 2091 Decatur 1 Not registered Tankage 7396 4201 Decatur ’ 3 Deficient in crude protein Hubbard, J. W., Monrovia, Ind. Mixed Eeed 7550 4850 Monrovia Wrong label attached Hughes-Curry Packing Company, Anderson, Ind. Eeeding Tanka ve 7374 1997 Anderson .35 Not registered Humphreys-Godwin Company, Memphis, Tenn. Eorfat Brand Cottonseed Meal 7116 5135 Oakland City 12.5 Deficient in crude protein Hunger, C. G., Madison, Ind. Chicken Eeed 3506 Madison .05 Not tagged Hunter-Robinson-Wenz Milling Com- pany, St. Louis, Mo. Mixed Eeed 5218 3950 Linton 5 Not tagged Hutchinson Elour Mills Company, The, Hutchinson, Kans. Mill Run Bran 4995 3916 Monon 1.5 Adulterated with screenings Mill Run Bran 4995 3917 Monon 2 Incorrect guarantee of Mill Run Bran 1 1 4995 3918 Monon 3 ingredients Wrong label attached Mill Run Bran 1 4995 1 3919 Monon .65 Wrong label attached Igleheart Bros., Evansville, Ind. *Whent Bran 1 ’ 5771 Mauckport .45 Not tagged Imperial Cotto Milling Company, Chicago, 111. Imperial Cotto Brand Prime Cotton- seed Meal 4881 2317 LaEontaine 3.5 Not tagged Imperial Cotto Brand Cottonseed Meal 7099 2313 Muncie 30 Not tagged Imperial Cotto Brand Cottonseed Meal 7099 2824 Columbus 1.75 Deficient in crude protein Imperial Cotto Brand Cottonseed Meal 7099 2826 North Vernon ___ 2.25 Deficient in crude protein *Xo sample taken TABLE VI — Feeding Stuffs Withdrawn From Sale, Jan. 1, 1916, to Jan. 1, 1917, on Advice of State Chemist (continued) Number Amount with- drawn approx. tons LABEL Official Inspection D. Sample taken at Imperial Ootto Milling Company, Chicago, 111. Imperial Cotto Brand Cottonseed 7099 2930 Burney 7 Imperial Cotto Brand Cottonseed 7099 3511 Madison 1.75 ^Imperial Cotto Brand Cottonseed Meal 7099 Elizabethtown __ 3 imperial Cotto Brand Cottonseed Meal 7099 North Vernon ___ .2 Imperial Cotto Brand Prime Cotton- 7150 2646 Orleans 4.3 7307 2165 Frankfort _ . 2 Imperial Brand Cottonseed Meal Imperial Brand Cottonseed Meal Imperial Cotto Sales Company, Chicago, lU. Imperial Cotto Brand Prime Gotton- 7307 7307 8093 2800 2817 5188 Bourbon Inwood Rensselaer ._ 4.5 .2 15 Imperial Cotto Brand Prime Cotton- seed Meal 8093 5157 Notre Dame 13 Imperial Cotto Brand Prime Cotton- 8093 ^94 Moody 10 Imperial Cotto Brand Prime Cotton- pppd Mpal _ 8093 5291 Wabash 10 Indiana Seed Company, The, Indianapolis, Ind. *Pony Brand Cottonseed Meal 7426 Columbus .25 International Glue Company, Boston, Mass. T?pd Star Brand Pi.sh Scrap 7166 5309 New Castle .1 International Sugar Peed Company, Minneapolis, Minn. International Special Dairy Peed 5327 2816 Inwood .3 TntPrnafic^nal Poultry Peed 5669 4963 S alem .8 ♦International Hog Peed and Charcoal. 6097 Grabill 3 International Climax Hog Peed & nharpoal 7650 4247 Nappanee 9.85 Interstate Peed Association, Detroit, Mich. Interstate Dairy & Hog Peed 7719 3517 Argos __ 3 Int.prstatp Dairy A-, Hog Peed 7719 8040 4473 Pewflnna 6.5 Interstate Brewers Dried Grains 4831 Greenwood 2 Johnston & Sons, C. H., Pinola, R. R. No. 7, Laporte, Ind. Wheat Bran 7391 2065 Pinola (Laporte Wheat Middlings - . 7392 2066 R. R. No. 7) — Pinola (Laporte .2 Joslin-Schmidt Company, The, Cincinnati, 0. “Abattoir Brand” Digester Tankage.. “/\battr*ir Branrl” Meat Rpraps . 6376 4122 4155 R. R. No. 7)— Upland Pennville .15 5.05 .2 Kansas Plour Mills Company, The, • Wichita, Kans. Wheat Bran and Screenings 5076 3346 Richmond 5 Standard Shorts and Wheat Screen- ings . 5079 3184 Batesville 1 White Shorts & Wheat Screenings 5080 2133 Michigan City .1 1.25 Cause Not tagged Deficient in crude protein Not tagged Not tagged Deficient in crude protein Not tagged Not tagged Not tagged Not tagged Not tagged Not tagged N't tagged • Not tagged Not tagged Not tagged Deficient in crude fat and crude protein and adul- terated with grit Not tagged Wrong label attached Not tagged Deficient in crude fat and crude protein and excess crude fiber Not tagged Not registered Not registered Deficient in crude protein Not tagged Not tagged Deficient in crude fat Mutilated labels attached *No sample taken 2i6 TABLE VI — Feeding Stuffs Withdrawn From Sale, Jan. 1, 1916, to Jan. 1, 1917, on Advice of State Chemist (continued) Number ----- Amount LABEL .2 Sample taken at with- drawn Cause ’o approx. o QO a tons Kaw Milling Company, Topeka, Kans. 7935 4796 Michigan City _. Michigan City _. 3.3 Wrong label attached Not tagged *\Vhpnt Bran 1.35 Kellogg & Sons, Inc., Spencer, Buffalo, N. Y. Old Process Oil Meal 5877 4250 Albion .3 Not tagged Kemper Mill & Elevator Company, Kansas City, Mo. Anchor Bran with Ground Screenings.. Carnation Gray Middlings and Screen- 6030 3978 1.85 Not tagged 7325 3977 Jasonville 2.05 Not tagged Carnation Gray Middlings and Screen- 7325 4870 4 Not tagged Kennedy Milling Company, The G. W., Shelbyville, Ind. 7791 4058 Shelbyville .. ... .5 Not registered Kingfalfa Mills, Nebraska City, Neb. 3971 3079 Port Branch .15 Not tagged Klemm, Geo. J., Milton, Ind. 4736 2871 Lewisville 1.95 Wrong label attached Knoke & Company, H. C., Chicago, 111. Perfecto Poultry Pood . 3940 2859 Prancesville ,25 Not tagged Adulterated with screenings Incorrect guarantee of ingredients Perfecto Poultry Pood 3940 4035 Otterbein .06 Perfecto Poultry Pood 3940 4036 Otterbein .06 Krause Milling Company, Chas. A., Milwaukee, Wis. Badger Dairy Peed 6426 2102 Laporte Incorrect guarantee of in- gredients and excess crude fiber Blue Top Pine Chick Peed No Grit 6500 3658 Charlestown .65 Incorrect guarantee of ingredients Blue Top Pine Chick Peed No Grit 6500 3659 Charlestown .65 Incorrect guarantee of ingredients Badger Dairy Peed 7326 3429 Kokomo 1.5 Deficient in crude protein Kuhn & Son, John H., Michigan City, Ind. TTeneatta Scratch Peed No Grit 7798 3992 Michigan City .. .08 Not registered Lanier Bros., Nashville, Tenn. 1 .Tersey Brand Pottonseed Meal 5537 3320 Richmond 1.2 Deficient in crude protein and excess crude fiber Larrowe Milling Company, The, Detroit, Mich. Dried Beet Pulp 2709 5159 Valparaiso i 2.5 Not tagged I. ash Plour Mills, The Pred B., Parmersburg, Ind. Iva'^h’s Extra Mixed Peed 6417 3976 TTyinera .14 Wrong label attached Not registered Porn Peed Meal 7783 4019 Parmersburg .25 Laxo Pake Meal Company, Chicago, 111. Did in-nee.«!S T.axo ("ake Meal 4618 2441 Crothersville .18 Not agged Not tagged *Dlfl Process T.avo Pake ATeal 4618 Clinton .25 Leavel, I. A., Bainbridge, Ind. Wheat Aliddlings 7501 2450 Bainbridge .5 Deficient in crude fat Lefforge, Otto, Eossville, Ind. Chop Peed 7932 4496 Rossville .05 Not registered Linton Mill Company, The, Linton, Ind. Wheat Shorts 507 1751 Dugger 1 Not tagged ^No sample taken 217 TABLE VI — Feeding Stuffs Withdrawn From Sale, Jan. 1, 1916, to Jan. 1, 1917, on Advice of State Chemist (continued) Number LABEL Official Inspection D. Sample taken at Amount with- drawn approx. tons Cause Loughry Bros. Milling & Grain Com- pany, Monticello, Ind. 7713 3368 Greencastle .25 Not tagged 7713 3580 LaPayette ,1 Not tagged 7731 3599 Monticello .25 Not registered 7731 3600 Monticello .2 Not registered Louisville Cereal Mill Company, Louisville, Ky. Memphis .1 Not tagged Louisville Milling Company, Louisville, Ky. *Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings 6175 Laconia .1 Not tagged Wheat Shorts with Ground Screenings 6176 2463 Sellersburg .25 Not tagged Wheat Shorts with Ground Screenings 6176 2880 Leavenworth — .15 Not tagged Lovitt & Company, L. B., Memphis, Tenn. 6849 2232 Crown Point 10 Deficient in crude protein ]Vl6inphiS PTfind r^ntt.nnspprl TVfpal 6849 5298 Portland 11 Deficient in crude protein Oottons^^'Cl 1909 Indianapolis 10 Not tagged Macdonald, J. M., Cincinnati, Ohio. Kineda Prim<^ rintt<^Tisppfl Meal 6761 2421 Columbus 1 Not tagged Kin^clfl ppiTTip r^ntt.nnsppfl IVfpal 6761 2440 Crothersville .25 Not tagged Kineda Prim*' rinttnnsppfi Mpal 6761 3661 Jeffersonville ___ 6.05- Deficient in crude fat and Kineda Prime Cottonseed Meal 6761 5174 •Jeffersonville 7.6 crude protein and excess crude fiber Deficient in crude protein Kineda Prime Cottonseed Meal 6761 5330 Indianapolis 10 Deficient in crude protein Maeado riott<^n®p*'d Mpal 6891 1768 Portland 1.25 Deficient in crude protein MRCftdo ivfpal 6891 3090 Haubstadt 1.75 and excess crude fiber Not tagged Maead*^ rinttnnsppd Meal 6891 3166 Evansville .5 Not tagged Maegerlein Roller Mills, Arthur, Clay City, Ind. Sprppning'S 4516 Clay City 3 Not registered Major Company, The Guy G., Toledo, Ohio. Old Process Oil Meal 2858 1525 Columbia City __ .65 Mutilated labels attached *01d Process Oil Meal 2858 Lawrenceburg __ .13 Not tagged Majot & Morgan, Michigan City, Ind. nhnp Pppd 8039 4799 Michigan City __ .6 Not registered Mangelsdorf Bros., Atchison, Kans. Pppd 4282 Westfield 33.05 Not tagged Marshall Milling Company, Marshall, Minn. Shorts & Screenings not exceeding Mill Run 6396 4736 Bargersville 15 Not tagged Martin & Company, John C., Mineral Point, Wis. *MartiTi’s rialf Mpal 5047 Goshen .25 Not tagged Martin & Martin, New Castle, Ind. Corn Ppp.d Mpal . 7863 4302 New Castle .35 Not registered Cracked Corn, Wheat & Oats 5310 1 New Castle .05 Not tagged *N6 sample taken 2i8 TABLE VI— Feeding Stuffs Withdrawn From Sale, Jan. 1, 1916, to Jan. 1, 1917, on Advice of State Chemist (continued) LABEL Number Sample taken at Mayflower Mills, Fort Wayne, Ind. ^Mayflower Mills Wheat Middlings 451 Albany 5 Not t3,g'^6(l Mayflower Bran & Screenings 6715 4688 Liberty Center _ .25 Not tagged Bed Dog _ . 7444 2247 Not tagged Mead, Johnson & Company, Evansville, Ind. Mead’s Hominv Feed 7760' 3682 7.5 Not registered ! Meier Packing Company, Indianapolis, Ind. 1 Tankage _ 4897 Indianapolis .03 Not tagged Metzger Seed & Oil Company, Toledo, Ohio. *01d Process Oil Meal 6672 Pleasant Lake .25 Not tagged Montgomery, Ira, Madison, Ind. Corn Feed Meal 3536 ,2 1 Not registered Morris & Company, Chicago, 111. Big Brand 60% Digester Tankage 4224 4074 Salem .5 ! Deficient in crude protein Mortorff, M. J., Metz, Ind. i Chop Feed 4310 Metz .25 Not registered Mueller, Edward P., Chicago, 111. Fleischmans Dried Grains 7762 3729 Crown Point 17.5 1 1 Not tagged Muun Brokerage Company, Little Rock, Ark. Tierer Brand Molasses Fattener 7399 1829 Rldgevillft ■1.75 Not tagged Tieer Brand Molasses Fattener 7399 1830 Ridgeville 2.05 Not tagged McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis, Ind. McCoys Choice Distillers Corn Grains. 4945 4632 Indianapolis 8.5 Deficient in crude protein McCoys Choice Distillers Corn Grains- 4945 4830 Greenwood 1.4 Deficient in crude protein McCoys Choice Hog Digester Tankage 5223 3908 Elnora .2 Not tagged *Green Pasture 5513 Plainfield .85 Not tagged Eureka Poultrv Mash _ _ _ 6572 5255 Odon .25 Not tagged White Corn Germ Meal 7220 4272 Woleottville .25 Not tagged White Corn Germ Meal _ _ 7220 4273 Wolcottville .35 Not tagged Nading Grain Company, Wm., Greensburg, Ind. Nading’s Chop Feed 7278 3196 Greensburg .13 Incorrect guarantee of ingredients Nappanee Produce Company, Nappanee, Ind. Corn Peed Meal 4238 Nappanee .09 Not registered National Feed Company, St. Louis, Mo. “Hominv Feed” _ 3020 4293 Fremont .8 Not tagged “Middlings” 3022 1797 Feme 10 Conflict of statements on sacks and official labels attached “Middlings” 3022 2675 Pa nil 4.4 Adulterated with screenings *Wheat Middlings & Ground Screenings 7349 Montmorenci 1.75 Not tagged National Feed Mill Company, The, Mineral Springs, Ohio. Silver Hen Feed 3885 1 Brookville .2 Not registered Amount with- drawn approx. tons Cause sample taken 219 TABLE VI — Feeding Stuffs Withdrawn From Sale, Jan. 1, 1916, to Jan. 1, 1917, on Advice of State Chemist (continued) Number LABEL Official Inspection D. Sample taken at Amount with- drawn approx. tons Cause Newsome Feed & Grain Company, The, Pittsburgh, Pa. Palmo Midds 6911 1501 Connersville 15 Excess crude fiber and Palmn Midds 6911 1881 Ridgeville _ _ 20 adulterated with peanut hulls Not tagged Adulterated with peanut hulls Not tagged 6911 2626 Spiceland 2 Pfllmo Midds 6911 4439 Sheridan 1.4 Noblesville Milling Company, Noblesville, Ind. Noblesville Milling Co’s Middline^s 3767 1613 Pendleton 11.5 Conflict of statements on 3767 1614 Fortville 5 sacks and official labels attached Conflict of statements on Noblesville Milling Co’s Middlings 3767 1628 McCordsville 4 sacks and official labels attached Conflict of statements on 3767 1723 Red key 2.9 sacks and official labels attached Conflict of statements on sacks and official labels attached Conflict of statements on sacks and official labels attached Conflict of statements on Noblesville Milling Co’s Middlings Noblesville •Milling Co’s Middlings 3767 3767 1726 1936 Redkey South Bend 2.5 .25 Noblesville Milling Co’s Middlings • 3767 2407 Arcadia 2.5 sacks and official labels attached Conflict of statements on North Madison Coal Company, North Madison, Ind. Middlings & Screenings 7617 2901 North Madison . 3.75 sacks and official labels attached Not tagged Nothern, W. C., Little Rock, Ark. Butterfly Cottonseed Meal and Cake.. 6525 1486 Farmland 10 Deficient in crude protein Butterfly Cottonseed Meal and Cake.. 6525 1827 Ridgeville 2.9 Not tagged Ohio Valley Seed Company, Evansville, Ind. Fnllnest Serateb Feed 6594 3796 Grandview ...... .25 Not tagged Omaha Alfalfa Milling Company, Omaha, Neb. Creamo Dairy Feed No. 1 1884 Mishawaka .25 Not tagged Page Milling Company, The Thomas, Topeka, Kans. Pure Winter Wheat Bran 6109 3980 Jasonville .4 Not tagged Mutilated tags attached Mutilated tags attached Pure Winter Wheat Bran 6109 5287 Martinsville 1.15 Pure Winter Wheat Bran 6109 5288 Martinsville 3.5 Peppard Seed Company, J. G., Kansas City, Mo. “Brite Mawnin” Brand Poultry Feed.. 7385 2921 Noblesville .15 Not tagged “Tripple-P” Thiek Fund 7387 2922 Noblesville .15 Not tagged Petersburg Milling & Grain Company, Petersburg, Ind. Petersburg “A” Mixed Feed 7765 5231 Petersburg .15 Not tagged Pfeffer Milling Company, Lebanon, 111. Pfeffer Milling Co. Hominy Feed Phoenix Flour Mill, Evansville, Ind. 2617 3657 Lexington ! Evansville 8 Not tagged Bran & Screenings 2252 5137 .4 Not tagged 220 TABLE VI — Feedihg Stuffs Withdrawn From Sale, Jan. 1, 1916, to Jan. 1, 1917, on Advice of State Chemist (continued) LABEL Nun is *3 o Inspection ^ D. Sample taken at Amount with- drawn approx. tons Cause Piqua Milling Company, Piqua, Ohio, Wheat Middlings 2295 1823 Union City 1.55 Not tagged Wheat Bran 2296 1836 Union City .. .65 Not tagged Planters Cotton Oil Company, Dallas, Texas. Prime Cottonseed Meal -fe Cake 7463 2169 Sedalia 3.1 Not tagged Portland Fertilizer Plant, Portland, Ind. Tankage 5629 4154 Portland 75 Adulterated with stomach offal Prairie State Milling Company, Chicago, 111. - Garland Wheat Bran & Screenings 6845 4367 Anderson 1 Not tagged Wheat Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run 7412 4368 Anderson .1 Not tagged Prussian Remedy Company, St. Paul, Minn. ^Prussian Calf Meal 7801 Dunkirk .03 Not tagged *Prussian Calf Meal 7801 T.inton .03 Not tagged ^Prussian Calf Meal 7801 Elwood _ .04 Not tagged Purina Mills, Branch, Ralston Purina Company, St. Louis, Mo. *Purina Chicken Chowder Feed W^ith Charcoal not over 1% 6409 Roanoke .12 Not tagged *Purina Chicken Chowder Feed With Charcoal not over 1% 6409 Roanoke .05 Not tagged Purina Scratch Feed 6410 2393 Marion .05 Wrong label attached *Purina, Chiek Feed 6480 Roanoke _ • .26 Not tagged *Purina Chick Feed _ _ 6480 Ru.sihville .01 Not tagged ' *Purina Chick Feed 6480 T.eeshurg .08 Not tagged Purina Pig Feed 6902 1471 Reynolds 3.8 Deficient in crude protein Purina Omolene Horse Feed _ 7043 1686 Bicknell .25 Deficient in crude fat and crude protein Purina Calf Meal 7297 1913 Mishawaka .1 Not tagged *Purina Calf Meal 7297 Oakland City .03 Not tagged *Purina Scratch Feed _ 7350 Tell City .05 Not tagged *Purina Scratch Feed 7359 Connersville .09 Not tagged Purina Chick Feed 7351 2746 Indianapolis .25 Deficient in crude protein *Purina Serateh Feed 7350 Roanoke .10 Not tagged ♦Purina Scratch Feed 7350 Weisburg .10 Not tagged ♦Purina Scratch Feed 7350 Waterloo .03 Not tagged ♦Purina Chick Feed 7351 Urban a .04 Not tagged ♦Purina Chiek Feed 1 7351 Connersville .09 Not tagged ♦Purina Chick Feed i 7351 No. Manchester .03 Not tasrged ♦Purina Chick Feed 1 7351 No, Manchester . .04 Not tagged ♦Purina Chick Feed 7351 Rrookville .07 Not tagged ♦Purina Chick Feed 7351 Nohlesville .04 Not tagged ♦Purina Chick Feed 7351 Weisburg .11 Not tagged ♦Purina Chick Feed _ _ 7351 Waterloo .10 Not tagged ♦Purina Chick Feed 7351 Nohlesville .10 Not tagged ♦Purina. Chick Feed 7351 Stendal .05 Not tagged ♦Purina Phick Feed ! 7351 Owensville .02 Not tagged ♦Purina Chick Feed * 7351 Odon . .08 Not tagged ♦Purina Chick Feed ! 7351 Sullivan .12 Not tagged ♦Purina Chick Feed 1 7351 Spencer .03 Not tagged ♦Purina Calf Meal i 7872 Sheridan .05 Not tagged Purity Oats Company, Davenport, Iowa - Iowa Chick Feed 6760 2892 Cambridge City. .18 Not tagged Iowa Scratch Feed 7015 2891 Cambridge City. .05 Not tagge'd ♦Iowa Scratch Feed i 7015 — Boswell .12 Not tagged *No sample taken 221 TABLE VI — Feeding Stuffs Withdrawn From Sale, Jan. 1, 1916, to Jan. 1, 1917, on Advice of State Chemist (continued) LABEL Number Official Inspection D. Sample taken at Amount with- drawn approx. tons Cause 1 5610 4999 Vincennes 5 Deficient in crude protein 6468 3451 Indianapolis 1.55 Incorrect guarantee of in- gredients 6431 3764 Porter .9 Not tagged ! 6577 Bremen .4 Not tagged i 6889 2017 South Bend .05 Not tagged 7027 3251 Indianapolis 2 Conflict of statements on sacks and official labels attached 7027 3465 Columbus 1.7 Not tagged 7299 5289 Martinsville 1.5 Wrong label attached 7300 1 4917 Indianapolis 10 Incorrect guarantee o‘f ingredients 1 7439 5216 Linton .55 Not tagged and incorrect guarantee of ingredients 1 7584 4215 Hoagland .8 Not tagged 7986 4876 Danville 1.8 Deficient in crude fat and crude protein 955 2212 Mooresville .9 Deficient in crude protein 5767 3495 Madison .9 Deficient in crude protein 5836 3091 Evansville .4 Not tagged 1 6909 4782 Zionsville 2.8 Deficient in crude protein 6909 5245 Terre Haute 1.5 Deficient in crude protein 7221 — South Bend .04 Not tagged 7221 — Roachdale .04 Not tagged 7221 — Roachdale .03 Not tagged 7221 t — Brookville ' .17 Not tagged 7221 — Owensville .03 Not tagged 7221 — Oakland City .07 Not tagged 7221 — Tell City .03 Not tagged 7221 — Odon .21 Not tagged 7221 — Cayuga .03 Not tagged 7221 — Angola .05 Not tagged 7221 — Spencer _ . .09 Not tagged 7221 Frankton .16 Not tagged 7221 Princeton i .1 Not tagged 7533 4208 Bloomington ___ 1.6 Wrong label attached 7534 2918 Vevay _ 1.4 Not tagged 2917 Vevay .13 Not tagged Adulterated with silica 6094 2422 Fairmount 1.8 7181 4745 Greensburg 4.8 j 1 Deficient in crude fat and excess of crude fiber 7436 2261 Ainsworth _9 Not tagged 7437 2262 Ainsworth !i Not tagged 6076 1893 Winchester .8 Deficient in crude protein 7354 2663 Logansport 1 .4 Not tagged Quaker Oats Company, The, Chicago, 111. Green Cross Horse Feed (Molasses *Pansey Chick Feed with Grit. Maz-All Feed Golden Sweet Mule Feed Golden Sweet Mule Feed Schumacher Feed White Diamond Feed Excelsior Feed I 7439 Quaker Dairy Feed with Molasses. Ralston Purina Company, St. Louis, Mo. Winner Prime Cottonseed Meal Winner Prime Cottonseed Meal *Purina Chicken Chowder Feed with not over 1% Charcoal ’‘Purina Chicken Chowder Feed with not over 1% Charcoal “Purina Chicken Chowder Feed with not over 1% Charcoal “Purina Chicken Chowder Feed with “Purina Chicken Chowder Feed with '‘Purina Chicken Chowder Feed with '‘Purina Chicken Chowder Feed with “Purina Chicken Chowder Feed with not over 1% Charcoal “Purina Chicken Chowder Feed with not over 1% Charcoal “Purina Chicken Chowder Feed with not over 1% Charcoal “Purina Chicken Chowder Feed with not over 1% Charcoal “Purina Chicken Chowder Feed with not over 1% Charcoal “Purina Chicken Chowder Feed with not over 1% Charcoal Scratch Feed with Grit or Screenings.. Chick Feed Without Grit Winner Scratch Feed Rapier Sugar Feed Company, Owensboro, Ky. Rapier’s Molasses Alfalfa Hog Feed- Rapier’s Molasses Fat Maker Raschka, William, Ainsworth, Ind. Rauh & Sons, E., Indianapolis, Ind. Rauh’s Meat Meal Reid-Murdock & Company, Chicago, 111, Farm House Scratch Grains “No sample taken 222 TABLE VI— Feeding Stuffs Withdrawn From Sale, Jan. 1, 1916, to Jan. 1, 1917, on Advice of State Chemist (continued) Number C Amount LABEL "eS _o OJQ Sample taken at with- drawn Cause Ij approx. 5E O 00 C tons Reiners, Wm. F., Birdseye, Ind. 1 Mixprl FflPd 5406 3731 Birdseye 5.5 Adulterated with wheat screenings Ritter, Hennings Company, Louisville, Ky. Shnr-PlfiPT: Baby Chipk Fppd 5914 4673 .25 Deficient in crude fat and crude protein Whitp T?npV TTpn Fppd 6863 3724 Fckerty .9 Not tagged Roper & Brown, Hobart, Ind. Wheat Middlings with Screenings 7684 3086 Hnbart 8 Not tagged Not tagged and deficient in crude protein 7685 3037 8 Routh & Company, W. C., Logansport, Ind. Rnnth’s Bpst Fppding Tankage 3575 2290 Logansport .3 Deficient in crude protein Runge & Company, John, Richmond, Ind. Rnngp’s Mitred FPed 7900 4414 Riehmnnd ,1 Not tagged Not tagged Dnrn Feed Meal 7901 4413 Richmond .1 Ryde & Company, Chicago, 111. *^R,ydp’s riream Half Meal 5496 Areadia .18 Not tagged Not tagged *Rydp’s riream Half Meal 5496 Wolcottville .25 Sanitary Milling Company, Gas City, Ind. Mixed Feed 7445 2318 Gas City .3 Not tagged Schaefer & Schwartzkopf, Columbus, Ind. *r;nrn Bran 476 Columbus .08 Not tagged Schnaible Grain Company, The Matt, LaFayette, Ind. Mixed Ground Corn and Oats 3 4516 T,a Fayette .05 Not tagged Security Remedy Company, Minneapolis, Minn. *Seeurity Oalf Meal 5973 Fremont .38 Not tagged Shepard Clark & Co., Cleveland, Ohio. Ooeonnnt; Oil OaVe Meal 1910 Winchester 1 Not tagged Shine & Co., John H., New Albany, Ind. Serateb Feed 4049 Borden .08 Not tagged Star Middlings 5457 3720 Milltown .6 1 Adulterated w ith screenings Sparks Milling Company, Alton, 111. Not tagged Try Me Bran and Sereenings 6778 1752 Dugger 1 ^^'^I’ry Me Mixed Feed 6537 Borden 1.5 Not tagged *Try Me Mixed Feed 7687 Borden 4.6 Not tagged Stanard-Tilton Milling Company, St. Louis, Mo. Wheat Middlings with Screenings not Incorrectly labeled pxeeeding Mill Run 7013 3696 Corydon 1.9 Starlight Miiling Company, Borden, R. R. No. 1, Ind. Mixed Feed 7794 4050 Borden R. R. 1 .15 Not tagged Wheat Middlings 7795 4051 Borden R. R. 1— .05 Not tagged St. Louis Independent Packing Com- pany, St. Louis, Mo. Independent Brand Digester Tankage. 7204 5065 Mt. Vernon .2 Not tagged *No sample taken 223 TABLE VI— Feeding Stuffs Withdrawn From Sale, Jan. 1, 1916, to Jan. 1, 1917, on Advice of State Chemist (continued) • LABEL Official c nber a Iq m fl Sample taken at Amount with- drawn approx. tons Cause Stott, David, Detroit, Mich. Winter Wheat Bran _ 5279 4309 Berlein 4 Deficient in crude fat and crude protein and adult- Streeter Coal & Feed Company, erated with screenings Chop Feed _ 7792 4094 Muncie .3 Not tagged Suckow Company, Franklin, Ind, • *Wheat Middlings _ . 5946 Trafalgar 15 Not tagged * Wheat Bran 5947 12 Not tagged ♦Middlings & Screenings 7375 Franklin .75 Not tagg'^a Sugarine Company, The, Peoria, 111. 6193 4072 1.1 Adulterated with screenings Sneo Old Process Tdnseed Meal 6193 4073 Salem . 2.7 Deficient in crude protein and adulterated with Sullivan Mill & Elevator Company, screenings Sullivan, Ind. Corn Feed Meal 7777 4018 Sullivan .15 Not tagged Sulzberger & Sons Company, Chicago, 111. Sulzberger’s High Protein Tankage 5625 1622 Fairmount 1.2 Deficient in crude fat Sulzberger’s “High Protein’’ Tankage. 7435 2404 Tipton .25 Not tagged Sulzberger’s “High Protein” Tankage. 7435 2499 Churubusco 1.35 Not tagged Sulzberger’s “High Protein” Tankage. 7435 3956 Remington .85 Not tagged and deficient in crude protein Swift & Company, -Chicago, 111. Swift’s Poultry Bone 62 1542 Warsaw .1 Not tagged Swift’s Poultry Bone 62 2500 Wolcottville .1 Not tagged Swift’s Special Meat Scraps 4697 2608 Wakarusa .15 Not tagged Swift’s Special Meat Scraps 4697 3953 Wolcott .7 Wrong labels attached ♦Swift’s Special Meat Scraps 4697 Rushville- . .05 Not tagged ♦Swift’s Meat Scraps T.aconia .06 Swift’s Meat Meal 5687 2597 Ligcnier .05 Swift’s Digester Tankae-e 7030< 4689 Swayzee .4 IN U L LdggCLl Swift’s Digester Tankage 7030 5060 Johnson .06 Deficient in crude protein Swift’s Digester Tankage 7030 5184 Richmond 2.25 Not tagged Swift’s Meat Scraps 3083 Ft. Branch .1 Deficient in crude protein Not tagged Tell City Flouring Mills, Tell City, Ind. Bran &, Screenings 5640 4563 Mauckport .5 Not tagged Texas Cake & Linter Company, Dallas, Texas. Sunset Brand Cottonseed Meal and Cracked Cake 7035 1588 Modoc 14.8 Deficient in crude protein Sunset Brand Cottonseed Meal and and excess of crude fiber Cracked Cake 7035 2312 Connersville 2.8 Deficient in crude protein ♦Sunset Brand Cottonseed Meal and and excess of crude fiber Cracked Cake 7035 .... Selma R. R. 2.. 2 Not tagged Thurgood, Geo. R., Vincennes, Ind. Thurgoods Mixed Feed 1806 5001 Vincennes .1 Wrong label attached and deficient in crude fat Toledo Seed & Oil Company, The, Toledo, Ohio. Major Brand Old Process Oil Meal 5546 1883 Mishawaka .5 Not tagged Major Brand Old Process Oil Meal 5546 1921 South Bend 13 Not tagged Major Brand Old Process Oil Meal i 5546 1925 South Bend 1.9 Not tagged ♦Major Brand Old Process Oil Meal 5546 , South Bend .4 Not tagged ♦Major Brand Old Process Oil Meal 5546 South Bend .2 Not tagged Major Brand Old Process Oil Meal 5546 4742 Greensburg 1 Not tagged Trimble Milling Company, The, Milton, Ky. Shipstuff ... 1989 3503 Madison 1 Not tagged *No sample taken 224 TABLE VI — Feeding Stuffs Withdrawn From Sale, Jan. 1, 1916, to Jan. 1, 1917, on Advice of State Chemist (continued) Number LABEL Official Inspection D. Sample taken at Amount with- drawn approx. tons Cause Ubiko Milling Company, The, Cincinnati, Ohio. Union Grains Ubiko Biles Ready Dairy Ration Union Grain & Coal Company, Anderson, Ind. *Union Chick Feed *Union Chick Feed Union Chick Feed Union Molasses Feed Union Horse Feed Union Horse Feed Union Chick Feed Union Elevator Company, New Richmond, Ind. Union Chop Feed Union Grain & Hay Company, The, Cincinnati, Ohio. Union Challenge^ Chick Feed Union Seed & Fertilizer Company, New York, N. Y. Security Brand Cottonseed Meal American Red Tag Cottonseed MeaL__ American Red Tag Cottonseed Meal- Valentine & Valentine, Franklin, Ind. Middlings Washburn-Crosby Company, Minneapolis, Minn. Washburn-Crosby Co’s Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings Washburn-Crosby Co’s Rye Middlings Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run Wheat Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run Wheat Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run Wheat Flour Middlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run- Ground Linseed Cake Oil Meal Ground Linseed Cake Oil Meal Wash-Co. Alfalfa Mixed Feed and Mill- ing Company, Fort Calhoun, Neb. Wash-Co. Alfalfa Meal Western Flour Mill Company, Davenport, Iowa. “Black Hawk’’ Wheat Standard Mid- dlings Whelan, Omer G., Richmond, Ind. Corn Feed Meal Wilbur Stock Food Company, Milwaukee, Wis. •Wilbur’s Calf Meal Wilkinson & Company, T. B., Knightstown, Ind. Combination Dairy Feed 7068 2940 Terhune 3.45 Not tagged 3003 Marion 2.25 Not tagged 3003 No. Manchester. .03 Not tagged 3003 2392 Marion .15 Not tagged 5593 4067 Ridgeville 1.8 Not tagged 7151 4066 Ridgeville .1 Not tagged 7151 4114 Muncie .35 Not tagged 7596 4095 Muncie .25 Not tagged 7755 3685 New Richmond __ .05 Not tagged .3 Not tagged 7993 5272 Gas City 1.0 Not tagged 2995 Marion 15 Not tagged — 2996 Marion 3 Not tagged 932 2335 Franklin 15 Adulterated with cracked wffieat and ground weed seeds 5464 3132 Gary 1 Not tagged 7018 4592 Radley 20 Not tagged 7229 3288 Bryant .2 Not tagged 7230 4555 LaFayette 3.5 Not tagged 7230 4556 LaFontaine .2 Not tagged 7232 2872 Lewisville 8 Not tagged 7234 2664 Logansport .15 Not tagged 7234 2665 Logansport 1.5 Not tagged 5477 2662 Logansport 1 Not tagged 6735 1785 Merrillville .85 Deficient in crude fat 7709 3317 Richmond .03 Not tagged Lawrenceburg __ .06 Not tagged 7654 2971 Knightstown 20 Not tagged ^No sample taken 225 TABLE VI — Feeding Stuffs Withdrawn From Sale, Jan. 1, 1916, to Jan. 1, 1917, on Advice of State Chemist (continued) Number LABEL Official Inspection D. Sample taken at Amount with- drawn approx. tons Cause Wood Stubbs & Company, Louisville, Ky. Shawnee Brand Chick Feed 6927 2511 New Albany 1.2 Deficient in crude fat and adulterated with screen- ings Shawnee Brand Chick Feed 6927 2716 New Albany New Albany ! New Albany 7 Adulterated with screenings Deficient in crude protein Deficient in crude fat and crude protein Shawnee Brand Scratch Feed 6928 2510 3.8 6928 3622 .45 Shawnee Brand Chick Feed 7332 2529 New Albany Seymour 2 Adulterated with screenings Not tagged Shawnee Brand Pigeon "Feed 7652 3686 .2 Zenith Milling Company, Kansas City, Mo. Wheat Shorts 7372 4501 Dana .9 Not tagged Ziliak & Schafer Milling Company, Haubstadt, Ind. • 7iliak’s Shipstnff 5850' 3077 rt. Branch .25 Improperly tagged Improperly tagged Ziliak’s Shipstnff 5850 3078 Ft. Branch .5 CONDI3IENTAL FEEDS American Druggists Syndicate, Long Island. City, N. Y. Safe-T-Kros Regnlatenr 6208 4898 Matthews 18 lbs. Not tagged Barker, Moore & Mein Medicine Com- pany, The, Philadelphia, Pa. Barker’s Chemical & Vegetable Horse, Cattle & Poultry Medicinal Powder. Blackman Stock Remedy Company, 4610 2762 Coal City 3.6 lbs. Not tagged Chattanooga, Tenn. Owen’s Health Jir, Fgg Producer 6242 2566 Indianapolis 2.4 lbs. Not tagged International Stock Food Company, Minneapolis, Minn. Special International Medicinal Poul- try Food Tonic 7421 5277 Bloomfield 17 lbs. Not tagged Pratt Food Company, Philadelphia, Pa. Pratts Animal Regulator 4491 4561 Elkhart 57 lbs. Not tagged Wilbur Stock Food Company, Milwaukee, Wis. Wilbur’s Stock Tonic 5691 2567 Borden 25 lbs. Not tagged Total .... 1,381.11 Condimental Feeds. In addition to the shipments listed in the preceding table 126 consign- ments of condimental feeds representing 56 brands and 27 manufacturers, from which no samples were taken were removed from sale in 93 towns on accoimt of failure to meet the requirements of the law. This makes a total of 701 consignments removed from sale in 1916 226 TABLE VII — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917-18 Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL BRAN, MEDDLINGS, SHORTS, CHOP FEEDS, CORN FEED MEAL AND OTHER MILL BY-PRODUCTS Acme-Evans Co., Indianapolis, Ind. Acme Feed Acme Middlings and Screenings Homlik Acme Bran and Screenings Capitol Red Dog Flour Acme Flour Middlings & Screenings. Acme Farm Feed Acme Milling Co., The, Aurora, Ind. Middlings Bran & Middlings Mxd Bran Akin-Erskine Milling Company, Evansville, Ind. Standard Wheat Middlings or Shorts, Ground Wheat Screenings and Salt Mixed Feed Winter Wheat Bran & Mill Run Wheat Screenings Corn Feed Meal Akron Milling Co., The, Akron, Ind. Wheat Middlings Wheat Bran Albion Roller Mills, Albion, Ind. Winter Wheat Bran Winter Wheat Middlings American Hominy Company, Indianapolis, Ind, Cracked Corn and Rolled Oats American Milling Company, Peoria, 111. Amco Corn Feed Meal Amo Mill & Elevator Company, Amo, Ind. Amo Middlings Amo Feed Rye Middlings and Screenings Middlings and Screenings Anchor Milling Company, Rochester, Ind. Wheat Middlings Mixed Feed Feed Meal Anchor Chop Feed Anderson, G. H., Seymour, Ind. Corn Bran Com Feed Meal Official Number 1 Not less than per cent. 1 Crude Fat Not less than per cent. ' Crude Protein 1 Not more than 1 per cent. Crude Fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients 5588 4.0 16.0 9.0 Wheat bran, wheat middlings and not exceeding mill’s run of ground cleaned wheat screenings 55&0 4.5 16.5 8.0 Wheat middlings and not exceeding mill’s run of ground cleaned wheat screenings 6876 3.0 8.5 4.0 Reground corn feed meal 7159 3.5 15.5 10.0 Wheat bran and not exceeding mill’s run of ground cleaned wheat screen- ings Low grade wheat flour, containing the finer particles of wheat bran 7573 4.0 15.0 5.0 7618 4.5 16.5 8.0 Wheat flour, wheat middlings and not exceeding mill’s run of ground cleaned wheat screenings 8439 5.0 12.0 7.0 Corn, wheat bran, wheat middlings and hominy feed 968 3.9 14.2 6.6 Wheat middlings 970 3.9 14.2 8.2 Wheat bran and middlings • .j 2556 1 3.7 13.6 10.0 Wheat bran and corn bran 1 . 6032 4.0 14.0 6.0 Wheat shorts, ground wheat screen- ings and salt . 6047 4.0 15.0 9.5 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings and salt . 7729 3.9 14.0 12.0 Wheat bran and whole wheat screen- ings not exceeding mill run . 8572 2.0 9.0 7.0 Corn feed meal . 2795 4.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings . 3597 3.5 14.0 12.0 Wheat bran 8610 3.0 13.0 10.0 Wheat bran . 8611 3.0 13.0 7.0 Wheat middlings ’ 6578 4.0 9.0 5.0 Corn and rolled oats _ 8095 2.5 8.0 5.0 Corn feed meal 4442 ■ 2.8 13.0 7.0 Wheat middlings 4443 3.0 13.0 12.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings and corn bran - 7947 2.7 13.5 12.0 Rye middlings and ground rye screen- 8118 2.8 13.0 7.0 in^s Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings 3747 4.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings _ 4214 3.0 12.0 11.5 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings and corn bran 4927 3.5 7.5 5.0 Corn feed meal _ 8587 3.5 9.0 5.0 Corn, oats and corn feed meal 4837 3.0 7.0 15.0 Com bran . 52.30 2.0 7.0 1 3.0 Corn feed meal 227 TABLE VII — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917-18 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official Number 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 Angola Flouring Mills, Angola, Ind. Angola Flouring Mills Middlings 1007 4.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Angola Flouring Mills Wheat Bran 1008 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Angola Flouring Mills Chop Feed 1099 3.9 9.5 7.0 Corn, oats and rye Arkansas City Milling Company, The, Arkansas City, Kans. Standard Wheat Shorts & Screenings.— 8469 3.5 16.0 5.5 Wheat shorts and ground wheat Wheat Bran & Screenings 8470 3.5 14!o 10.0 screenings not to exceed 8% Wheat bran and ground wheat Ashbrook Co., The J. S., Mattoon, III. Royal Grain Feed 5912 3.0 10.0 7.0 screenings not to exceed 8% Corn, rolled oats and rolled barley Peerless Corn & Oats Chop 7983 3.0 10.0 6.0 Corn and oats Diamond A. Feed Meal 8209 3.0 10.0 6.0 Feed meal from corn, kafir, milo and Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings 8530 4.0 13.0 13.0 wheat Wheat bran and ground wheat Wheat Middlings with Ground Screenings 8531 4.0 14.0 11.0 screenings Wheat middlings and ground wheat Ashley-Hudson Milling & Grain Co., Ashley, Ind. Ashley-Hudson Wheat Bran 3144 3.8 14.0 12.0 screenings Wheat bran Ashley-Hudson Wheat Middlings 3145 4.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Atkinson Milling Company, Minneapolis, Minn. Wheat Bran with Screenings 8199 4.0 13.0 13.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat Aviston Milling Company, Aviston, lU. Hobby Horse White Middlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run 7383 5.0 14.5 7.0 screenings Wheat middlings and ground wheat Amilko Pure Bran 7384 5.0 15.0 11.0 screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat bran Courtesy White Shipstuff, (Red Dog) 7483 3.0 14.5 13.5 Wheat middlings and reddog flour Hobby Horse Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run 7503 3.5 ,14.5 10.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat Bachman, Valentine, Indianapolis, Ind. Bachman’s Cleaned Wheat Product 0950 3.7 16.0 10.0 screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat bran and middlings Bachman Flour Mill, Indianapolis, Ind. White Middlings 5902 3.7 15.0 9.0 W^heat middlings Badenoch Company, J. J., Chicago, HI. J. J. Badenoch Co’s Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings Not Exceeding Mill Run 6219 4.0 14.5 12.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat J. J. Badenoch Co’s Wheat Standard Mid- dlings with Ground Screenings Not Exceed- ing Mill Run — — 6220 5.0 15.0 9.5 screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat middlings and ground wheat Corn Feed Meal 6989 1.2 7.0 3.5 screenings not exceeding mill run Corn feed meal Wheat Flour Middlings 8638 4.0 15.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Bailey & Thompson, Prairie Creek, Ind. Mixed Feed No. 1 6952 3.0 12.5 10.0 Wheat bran, shorts, ground wheat Thompsons Wheat Shorts 7769 3.8 14.9 7.4 screenings and corn bran Wheat shorts Mixed Feed No. 2 7770 3.0 12.0 10.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings Corn Feed Meal 7785 2.5 7.5 5.0 and com bran Corn feed meal Baldwin, J. Jay, Crown Point, Ind. “Baldwin Chop Feed’’ 8700 3.0 S.O 6.0 Corn, oats and corn feed meal Baldwin, Jr., Dwight M., Minneapolis, Minn. Dwight Flour Mills Red Dog 3205 5.5 17.5 6.0 Low grade wheat flour containing Baldwin Flour Mills Wheat Shorts and Screenings 5693 5.0 15.0 11.0 the finer particles of wheat bran Wheat shorts and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run 228 TABLE Vll — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917-18 (continued) LABEL Baldwin, Jr., Dwight M., Mineapolis, Minn. Baldwin Flour Mills Wheat Flour Midds and Screenings Baldwin Flour Mills Wheat Bran and Screenings Ballard & Ballard Co., Louisville, Ky. Ballard’s Mixed Wheat Feed & Mill Run Screenings Ballard’s Bran Ballard’s Kentucky Farm Feed Banner Roller Mills, The, Mooresville, Ind. Wheeler’s Banner Mixed Feed Barlow, C. M., Kokomo, Ind. • Wheat Middlings Barlow’s Chop Feed Barnes & Company, R. J., Dunkirk, Ind. “Bran” Middlings Bran and Middlings Barry, Russell, Crandall, Ind. Mixed Feed Wheat Middlings Bartlett Company, The J. E., Jackson, Mich. Wheat Bran with Screenings Standard Wheat Middlings and Screenings “Farmer Brand” Red Dog Flour Bash & Co., C. E., Huntington, Ind. C. E. Bash & Co’s Chop Batchelor, Barlow & Davis, Sharpsville, Ind.i Corn Bran Batchelor, Barlow & Batchelor, Sharpsville, Ind. 2 Wheat Bran Wheat Shorts Batchelor & Barlow, Sharpsville, Ind. B. & B. Chop Bay State Milling Company, Winona, Minn. Rye Middlings “Winona” Fancy White Flour Middlings. . “Winona” Fancy Mixed Wheat Feed & Wheat Screenings “Winona” Wheat Middlings & Wheat Screen- ings “Winona” Coarse Wheat Bran Reddog Flour Beck, Delbert F., Burlington, Ind. Beck’s Chop Fe^ r 1 Succeeded by Batchelor, Barlow & Batchelor 2 Succeeded by Batchelor & Batchelor ] Official Number Guaranteed t Not less than per cent. Crude Fat Not less than per cent. Crude Protein Not more than per cent. Crude Fiber 5694 5.0 16.5 7.0 5695 4.0 14.5 12.0 8758 4.4 14.6 6.9 8759 4.1 14.5 9.6 8760 4.4 15.0 6.4 437 3.9 14.0 8.5 5368 4.0 14.0 7.0 5938 3.0 9.0 7.0 287 4.0 15.1 10.0 288 2.9 13.9 3.5 289 3.6 15.6 10.2 8421 3.0 13.0 10.0 8422 3.0 13.0 10.0 6813 3.0 14.0 11.0 6814 4.5 13.5 10.0 7211 4.0 15.0 3.7 1749 3.9 9.5 6.0 4037 5.0 8.0 13.0 4675 3.8 14.0 12.0 4676 3.7 14.0 7.0 8389 3.5 9.0 6.0 8189 3.4 16.0 6.0 8190 4.5 16 0 2.5 8191 4.5 16.0 8.0 . 8192 5.0 16.0 S.O . 8193 4.5 15.0 12.0 . 8194 4.5 16.0 2.0 . 1209 3.9 .9.5 6.0 and to be composed of the following ingredients Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat bran, wheat middlings and cleaned and ground wheat screen- ings Wheat bran Wheat middlings and cleaned and ground wheat screenings Wheat bran, shorts and corn bran Wheat middlings Corn, oats and corn feed meal Wheat bran Wheat middlings Wheat bran and middlings Wheat bran, corn bran and ground wheat screenings Wheat middlings Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat middlings and ground wheat sereenings not exceeding mill run Low grade wheat flour containing the finer partieles of wheat bran Corn and oats Corn bian Wheat bran Wheat shorts Corn and oats Rye middlings Wheat middlings Wheat bran, middlings, reddog flour and less than 6 % ground wheat screenings Wheat middlings and less than 8 % ground wheat screenings Wheat bran Low grade wheat flour containing the finer particles af wheat bran Corn and oats 229 TABLE VII — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917-18 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL 0) fl (U GO Belt Elevator & Eeed Co., Indianapolis, Ind. 1 Eeed Meal 3322 3.7 8.5 7.0 Chop Feed 3777 3.5 9.0 7.0 Mixed Feed 3778 2.0 10.0 15.0 Bergenroth Bros., Troy, Ind. Wheat Shorts and Screenings 2023 4.0 14.0 8.0 Bergenroths Wheat Bran & Screenings 2024 3.8 14.0 10,0 Middlings 2025 4.0 15.0 6.0 Mixed Feed 3441 4.0 14.0 11.0 Mixed Bran & Screenings 3442 3.8 14.0 12.0 Corn Bran 8443 4.5 8.0 14.0 Berlien Mills, Angola, R. F. D., Ind. Wheat Middlings ___ 7515 3.0 12.0 10.0 W'heat Bran 7738 3.0 14.0 10.0 Berne Milling Co., Berne, Ind. Berne Milling Co’s W^heat & Corn Bran 1117 3.8 14.0 10.0 Chop Feed 6673 2.8 8.7 8.0 Wheat Shorts 8018 2.3 13.0 7.0 Bernet, Craft & Kauffman Milling Co., St. Louis, Mo. Mt. Carmel Bran & Screenings 5518 3.5 14.3 9.5 Mixed Feed 5519 4.0 14.5 9.5 Wheat Middlings and Screenings 5791 4.9 17.2 6.0 “A” Wheat Middlings with Screenings 5806 3.0 15.0 8.0 Berry Bros., Lynn, Ind. Daisy Chop 7044 3.5 9.0 6.0 Eesser, W. T., Greencastle, Ind. Besser’s Extra Mixed Feed 5170 3.5 15.4 12.0 Besser’s Wheat Middlings 8594 4.0 14.0 7.0 Bicknell Mill Company, Bicknell, Ind. Mixed Feed 7824 3.0 13.0 12.0 Bicker Bros. Company, The, Hammond, Ind. Chop Feed 3869 3.0 9.0 8.0 Big Diamond Mills Company, Minneapolis, Minn. “Big Diamond Standard Middlings” and Screenings __ 7059 4.2 14.6 9.3 “Big Diamond Bran” and Screenings 7069 4.0 14.0 11.0 Billman & Sons, C. H.. Shelbyville, Ind.sa Shelby Mixed Feed 4303 2.0 10.0 10.0 Shelby Shorts 4943 2.0 12.0 10.0 Shelby Wheat Bran and unground wheat screenings 6546 3.0 14.0 12.0 Bishop Elevator Co., Logansport, Ind. Chop Feed . 554 3.9 9.5 6.0 ^‘‘Succeeded, by Cutsinger & Thompson and to be composed of the following ingredients Corn feed meal Corn, oats and corn feed meal Wheat and crushed wheat screenings Wheat and ground wheat screenings Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings Wheat middlings Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings and corn bran Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings and corn bran Corn bran Wheat middlings Wheat bran Wheat and corn bran Corn, oats, barley and corn feed meal Wheat shorts Wheat bran and crushed wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat bran, middlings and crushed wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat middlings and crushed wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Corn and oats Wheat bran, middlings, com bran and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat middlings Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings and corn bran Corn, oats and corn feed meal Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat bran, shorts, ground wheat screenings and corn bran Wheat shorts Wheat bran and whole wheat screen- ings Corn and oats 230 TABLE VII — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917-18 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official Number 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 1 following ingredients 1 Blair Milling Company, The, Atchison, Kansas. Bran and Screenings 7735 3.5 14.5 10.0 Wheat bran and 1% ground wheat screenings Soft Wheat Shorts — 7736 3.5 16.0 5.5 Wheat shorts Blanton Milling Co., 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 and whole wheat screenings Blish Milling Company, Seymour, Ind. Blish’s Red Dog Flour 6403 3.5 16.0 1 3.0 Low grade wheat flour containing the finer particles of wheat bran Bulls’ Eye Mixed Feed 8176 4.5 16.0 9.0 Wheat bran, middlings and ground wheat screenings Bloomfield Mill & Elevator Co., Bloomfield, Ind. Mixed Mill Feed 4924 3.0 12.8 10.0 Wheat bran, middlings, whole wheat screenings and corn bran Corn Bran 8654 3.0 6.0 9.0 Corn bran Bloomington Milling Company, The, Bloomington, Ind. Mixed Feed 3602 3.0 13.0 8.0 Wheat bran, middlings, whole wheat screenings and corn bran Middlings & Screenings 8447 4.0 14.0 9.0 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Bluffton Milling Co., Bluffton, Ind. Wheat Bran 661 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Wheat Middlings 8017 2.5 13.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Bock, Leonard, Argos, Ind.^ Wheat Middlings 548 4.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Chop Feed 549 3.9 9.5 6.0 Corn and oats Wheat Bran 550 3.7 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Mixed Feed 2843 3.7 14.0 12.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings and corn. bran Boldt & Son, Crawfordsville, Ind. Boldt’s Shorts . .. 51 4.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat shorts Boldt’s Corn and Oat Chop _ . . . 53 3.9 9.5 6.0 Corn and oats Boldts Mixed Feed 5456 3.5 13.0 10.0 Wheat bran and com bran Boldt & Son, Waynetown, Ind. Mix Mill Feed Bolte & Sons, Ben, Ferdinand, Ind. 4170 3.0 11.0 11.0 Wheat bran, middlings and corn bran Wheat Shorts 7276 4.0 14.5 8.0 Wheat shorts Wheat & Corn Bran and Ground Screenings 8178 3.5 14.5 10.0 Wheat bran, corn bran and ground wheat screenings Bonner & Company, F. J., Lafayette, Ind. Mixed Feed 8141 3.5 9.5 10.0 Corn, oats, wheat bran, corn bran and corn feed meal Boonville Milling Co., Boonville, Ind. “A” Mixed Feed _ 2244 3.8 14.0 11.0 Wheat bran, middlings and ground wheat screenings Wheat Bran & Screenings 2842 3.7 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings Corn Bran 3080 4.0 9.0 13.0 Corn bran Corn Feed Meal 6851 2.5 7.5 5.0 Corn feed meal Shorts & Feed Meal 7847 4.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat shorts and com feed meal Boston Milling Co., Eckerty, Ind. Bobbitt’s Mixed Feed 3453 3.7 14.0 11.0 Wheat bran, middlings and ground w'heat screenings Bowling Green Mills, The, Bowling Green, Ind.^ Wheat Bran 3370 3.9 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Ship Stuff 3372 3.7 13.5 6.0 Wheat product 3 Succeeded by J. A, Bock * Bowling Green Milling Co. 231 TABLE VII — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917-18 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain (U c fl .S fl as LABEL aJ 5 .15 ^ .2 5 1 (1) and to be composed of the s O Not less per cent Crude F Not less per cent Crude P Not mor per cent Crude F following ingredients Bowling Green Milling Co., Bowling Green, Ind. Middlings 62C6 3.0 13.0 6.0 Wheat middlings Mill Feed Branch Grain & Seed Co., Martinsville, Ind. 0912 3.5 10.4 13.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings and corn bran Horse Feed 272 3.5 9.0 6.0 Corn and oats Corn Feed Meal 3888 2.5 6.0 5.0 Corn feed meal Brewer Milling Company, Gosport, Ind. Mixed Feed Bridgeton Milling Co., Bridgeton, Ind. 3930 2.6 9.5 7.5 Wheat bran, shorts, ground wheat screenings and com bran Mixed Feed 6621 4.0 9.3 9.0 Corn, oats, wheat bran, com bran and ground wheat screenings Mill Feed 7226 3.7 13.0 10.0 Wheat bran, middlings, corn bran and ground wheat screenings Wheat Shorts 7717 2.0 13.0 8.0 Wheat shorts Bran & Ground Screenings Bristol Milling Co., Bristol, Ind. 8177 3.8 13.0 10.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings 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 3353 4.0 12.0 25.0 Buckwheat hulls and middlings Brizius Company, The Chas. W., Newburgh, Ind. Eagle Mixed Feed 5927 4.0 15.1 5.9 Wheat bran and 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 Corn bran Brook Flour & Feed Mill, Brook, Ind. Corn Bran 2430 4.5 7.0 10.0 Corn bran Chop Feed 2431 3.5 9.0 8.0 Corn and oats Brose, George, Evansville, Ind. Wheat Bran & Screenings 2942 3.2 13.5 12.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat Wheat Middlings and Screenings 6854 3.8 15.5 7.0 screenings Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings Brose & Arnold, Evansville, Ind. Shipstuff 192 4.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat middlings Bran and Screenings 2257 3.7 14.0 11.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings Wheat Middlings 7491 4.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat middlings Brown & Cole, Vevay, Ind. A. Mixed Feed 7771 3.7 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings and corn bran Browning Milling Co., W. A., Evansville, Ind. Corn Bran 2163 4.0 7.0 14.0 Com bran Corn Feed Meal 3537 2.4 6.7 5.0 Corn feed meal Brudi & Co., Jos., New Haven, Ind. Corn and Oat Chop Feed 586 3.9 9.5 6.0 Corn and oats Middlings 2246 2.8 13.1 8.0 Wheat middlings Bundy Bros., Vallonia, Ind. Mill Feed 7861 3.4 13.0 10.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings and corn bran Shorts 7862 3.0 13.0 8.0 Wheat shorts Burrell & Morgan, Elkhart, Ind. Bran 253 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Middlings 254 4.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Butler & Company, Edw. J., Chicago, 111. Wheat Bran and Screenings 8346 4.0 14.0 14.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings Wheat Flour Middlings and Screenings 8347 4.0 14.0 10.0 232 TABLE VII — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917-18 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official Number 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 Butler & Company, Edw. J., Chicago, 111. Standard Middlings & Screenings 8348 4.0 14.0 14.0 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings Butler Milling Co., Butler, Ind. Butler Milling Co’s Wheat Bran 1029 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Butler Milling Co’s Chop Feed 1031 3.9 9.5 6.0 Corn and oats Wheat Middlings • 7082 3.6 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Butt & Bro., L. T., Center Point, Ind. Mixed Peed 4431 3.5 13.5 10.0 Wheat bran, shorts, ground wheat screenings and corn bran Wheat Middlings and Low Grade Plour 5132 2.1 11.5 6.0 Wheat middlings and low gjade flour Corn Peed Meal 5133 3.0 7.0 5.0 Corn feed meal Byrnes & Co., W. J., Chicago, 111. Wheat Bran Cadick Milling Company, Grandview, Ind. 5435 3.5 15.7 12.9 Wheat bran Mixed Peed 7857 4.0 16.0 7.0 W’heat bran, shorts, ground wheat screenings and corn bran Bran and Screenings 7858 3.8 15.0 10.0 W’heat bran, ground wheat screenings and corn bran Shipstuff 7859 4.0 16.0 7.0 Wheat shorts, middlings and red dog flour Cagle & Schopmeyer, Poland, Ind.® Mixed Peed Cannelton Plour Mills, Cannelton, Ind. 6884 3.8 13.0 13.0 Wheat bran, shorts, middlings,, ground wheat screenings and corn bran Ship & Wheat Screenings 2589 4.0 14.0 9.0 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings “A” Mixed Peed 3426 3.5 13.5 10.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings and corn bran Mixed Bran & Screenings 3427 3.4 13.5 12.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings, and corn bran Carmer Company, J. M., Auburn, Ind. Carmer & Walker Chop Peed 7925 3.9 9.5 6.5 Corn and oats Carpenter, B. O., Perrysville, Ind. Wffieat bran Wheat Bran 3582 3.0 14.0 10.0 “Wheat Middlings’’ 4712 2.8 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Carter, C. P., Terre Haute, Ind. Wheat bran and hominy meal Bran & Homco Mixed — 4003 5.0 10.0 9.0 Carter Peed Store, The, Martinsville, Ind. Corn, oats and corn feed meal Chop Peed - 4862 3.0 9.0 .7.0 Castetter & Company, Clyde J., Goshen, Ind. Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings Wheat Bran & Ground Screenings 7291 3.5 14.0 12.0 Wheat Middlings & Screenings 7292 4.0 14.0 10.0 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings Cauble, 0. L., Pekin, Ind. Wheat shorts Wheat Shorts 1016 4.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat Bran 1018 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Pnrn Ttran 6129 2.0 8.0 13.0 .Corn bran Mixed Peed 6130 2.0 10.0 10.0 Wheat bran, shorts, ground wheat screenings, wheat dust and mill sweepings Cauble & Dunlevy, Henryville, Ind. Corn bran Corn Bran 1728 4.0 7.0 13.0 Bran 4295 3.5 14.0 8.5 Wheat bran Corn Peed Meal 4296 2.7 6.8 5.0 Corn feed meal Star Mixed Peed 5825 4.0 14.0 8.5 Wheat bran, middlings and shorts Star Wheat Shorts .5826 3.5 13.5 7.4 Wheat shorts ^ Succeeded by Lewis Schopmeyer 233 TABLE VII — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917-18 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official Niimber 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 Cayuga Milling Company, Cayuga, Ind. Cayuga Milling Co’s Mixed Wheat and Corn Bran and Wheat Shorts 418 4.2 12.0 10.0 Wheat bran, shorts and corn bran Cayuga Milling Co’s Mixed Wheat Bran and Wheat Shorts 419 3.9 14.0 9.0 Wheat bran and 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 and corn bran Corn Meal, Shorts, Wheat Bran & Corn Bran 4373 3.0 11.0 11.0 Wheat bran, shorts, corn meal and corn bran Corn Meal and Shorts Mixed 4374 3.0 12,0 9.0 Wheat shorts and corn meal “B” Mixed Peed 5175 3.5 13.0 6.0 Wheat shorts and corn feed meal “A” Mixed Peed 5176 3.6 11.0 8.0 Wheat bran, shorts and corn feed meal Champion Roller Milling Co., Richmond, Ind. Wheat Bran 2496 3.5 14.8 10.0 Wheat bran Wheat Middlings or Shorts 4700 4.0 16.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Chapman-Doake Company, The, Decatur, 111. Corn & Oats Chop 8590 4.0 10.0 7.0 Corn and oats Chicago Heights Oil Mfg. Co., Chicago, 111. “Prize” Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings 6444 4.0 15. 0‘ 7.0 Wheat middlings and 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 and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run “Prize” Standard Middlings and Screenings.— 7006 4.0 15.0 7.0 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill mn “Prize” ped Dog Plour 7402 4.0 17.0 5.0 Low grade wheat flour containing the finer particles of wheat bran “Prize” Rye Middlings 7595 3.0 14.5 5.0 Rye middlings Christian & Co., 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 White Middlings & Screenings Jersey Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings 5515 4.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Not Exceeding Mill Run 7429 4.0 13.0 13.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Poland Wheat Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings Not Exceeding Mill Run.. 7430 4.0 14.0 11.0 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Cincinnati Grain & Hay Company, The, Cincinnati, Ohio. Wheat Bran 8665 4.0 14.5 9.0 W’heat bran Wheat Middlings City Milling Co., Kendallville, Ind. 8666 4.2 15.7 6.0 Wheat middlings Wheat Bran 6273 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Wheat Middlings 6370 3.0 13.0 7.0 Wheat middlings 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 Peed 6107 3.0 9.0 7.0 Corn, oats and corn feed meal Clark & Sons, C. G., Rushville, Ind. Clark’s Com & Wheat Bran (Mixed) 185 3.7 14.0 10.7 Corn bran and wheat bran Clark’s Corn and Oat Chop 187 3.0 8.0 8.0 Corn and oats Clark’s Wheat Bran 188 3.7 14.0 10.3 W^heat bran Clarks Mixed Peed 5813 2.9 14.0 10.7 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings and corn bran Clarks Middlings 7918 4.5 18.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Claro Milling Company, Waseca, Minn, Claro Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings... 6615 3.0 14.0 12.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run 234 TABLE VII — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917-18 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain Vi D c fl B I C Cj _ci S.4 LABEL 3 .S ^ J and to be composed of the m v< +Jrr. o following ingredients QJ 0) Q) o S iz; ao Q) O TQ c (u a> S t)T3 ^ V, S |2 QJ Vl :z: fto 1 o O S S :z: fto Claro Milling Company, Waseca, Minn. Claro Wheat Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings 6616 3.0 14.0 12.0 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Claro Wheat Flour Middlings 7045 3.0 15.0 6.0 Wheat middlings Claro Ked Dog 7046 3.0 15.0 5.0 Low grade wheat flour containing the finer particles of wheat bran Claypole, Geo. M., Sardinia, Ind. Geo. M. Claypole’s Mixed Feed 1889 3.5 14.0 12.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings and corn bran Geo. M. Claypole’s Wheat Bran 2144 3.2 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Geo. M. Claypole’s Wheat Middlings 2500 4.0 14.0 8. O' Wheat middlings Corn Feed Meal 4056 2.7 7.0 7.0 Corn feed meal Chop Feed Clayton Milling Company, Clayton, Ind. 8165 3.5 9.5 10.0 Corn, oats and wheat Mixed Feed 7665 3.0 13.0 11.0 Wheat bran and middlings White Middlings Clifty Mills, R. R. No. 3, Greensburg, Ind. 7722 1.8 13.0 5.0 Wheat middlings • Mill Feed 4381 3.0 13.0 12.0 Wheat bran and middlings Clyne, I. B., Crawfordsville, Ind. 1 1 Chop Feed 1 6207 3.0 8.0 6.0 Corn and oats Coal City Milling Co., Coal City, Ind. Pure Corn and Oats Chop 2952 3.5 9.5 7.0 Corn and oats Coal City Mixed Bran __ 6601 3.5 13.5 11.5 Wheat bran and corn bran Coal City Wheat Shorts 1 6913 3.5 14.0 8.0 Wheat shorts Columbia City Mill & Elevator Co., The, Columbia City, Ind.® Mixed Bran 2701 3.5 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran and corn bran Chop Feed 1 2703 3.5 9.0 6.0 Corn, oats, rye and barley Mixed Feed I 5525 3.0 13.0 7.0 Wheat middlings and corn feed meal Wheat Middlings & Ground Screenings 6990 2.8 13.0 7.0 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings Corn, oats, rye, barley and corn feed meal A. Chop Feed i 6991 3.0 8.0 10.0 Columbus Milling Co., Columbus, Ind. Mixed Feed 652 3.5 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran and middlings Corn Feed Meal 6904 2.5 7.5 7.0 Corn feed meal A. Mixed Feed 1 8676 3.0 i 13.5 12.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings and corn bran Combs & Sons, L., Vincennes, Ind. t Corn & Oats Feed 1 8070 3.0 8.0 9.0 Corn and oats Comer & Scearce Co., The, Mooresville, Ind. Feed Meal 5379 2.4 6.0 4.0 Corn feed meal Commander Mill Company, Minneapolis, Minn. Commander Wheat Bran with Ground Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Screenings Not exceeding Mill Run Commander Wheat Standard Middlings with 7139 4.0 14.0 11.0 Ground Screenings Not Exceeding Mill Run__ Commander Flour Middlings with Ground 7957 4.0 15.0 9.0 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Screenings Not exceeding Mill Run 8374 4.5 16.0 7.0 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Cook, E. N., Plymouth, Ind. Corn, oats, ground corn screenings and corn feed meal Cook’s Chop Feed 4770 3.0 9.0 9.0 Cook Co., C. B., Greenwood, Ind. Corn feed meal Corn Feed Meal 4798 2.0 7.0 6.0 ® Succeeded by The Farmers Mill & Elevator 235 TABLE VSI — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917-18 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official Number 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 Coombs Milling Co., Wm. A., Coldwater, Mich. Wheat Middlings with Ground Screenings Not Exceeding Mill Run Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings Not 7344 3.0 15.0. 6.0 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Exceeding Mill Run 7345 3.0 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Coppes Bros. & Zook, Nappanee, Ind. Bran 5628 3.6 13.5 11.0 ■ Wheat bran Mixed Eeed 6919 4.5 14.0 9.0 Wheat bran, middlings and ground wheat screenings Middlings and Ground Wheat Screenings 7561 4.0 15.8 6.0 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings Reddog Flour (Branded “F”) 7610 2.7 14.0 2.3 Low grade wheat flour containing the finer particles of wheat bran Corydon Milling Company, Corydon, Ind. Wheat Middlings 3305 4.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings “A.” Mixed Feed 7100 3.5 1*.0 10.0 Wheat bran, corn bran and ground wheat screenings Crabbs, Reynolds Taylor Company, Crawfordsville, Ind. Chop Feed 1029 3.7 9.0 6.0 Corn and oats Ground Corn and Oats Screenings 8208 3.0 9.0 10.0 Ground screenings from corn and oats Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Co., Lafayette, Ind. Mixed Feed 2468 3.7 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings Corn Feed Meal 5310 2.0 7.0 5.0 Corn feed meal Ground Corn and Oats Screenings. 8208 3.0 9.0 10.0 Ground screenings from corn and oats Thrift Chop Feed 8688 3.0 9.0 10.0 Corn, oats and corn feed meal Crabbs Reynolds Taylor Company, Reynolds, Ind. C. R. T. Chop Feed 5831 3.0 9.0 7.0 Corn, oats and corn feed meal Crandah, L. W., Fremont, Ind. Corn and Oats Chop __ 1650 3.9 9.5 6.0 Corn and oats Wheat Middlings 1651 4.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Wheat Bran 1652 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Crescent Milling Company, Crothersville, Ind. Mixed Feed 7574 3.8 14.5 9.0 Wheat bran, middlings, corn bran and whole wheat screenings Crescent Milling Company, Fairfax, Minn. Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings 6772 5.1 14.2 13.2 Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run not exceeding mill run 6773 5.8 16.2 10.0 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Crocker, William G., Minneapolis, Minn. Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings not exceeding Mill Run Wheat Standard Middlings with Ground 7235 4.0 13.0 13.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Screenings Not exceeding Mill Run Wheat Mixed Feed with Ground Screenings 7236 4.0 14.0 11.0 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Not exceeding Mill Run Wheat Flour Middlings with Ground Screen- 7237 4.0 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run ings Not Exceeding Mill Run 7238 4.0 15.0 8.0 Wheat middlings, reddog flour and ground wheat screenings not exceed- ing mill run Red Dog Flour 7239 4.0 16.0 4.0 Low grade wheat flour containing the finer particles of wheat bran Crown Mill & Feed Co., Evansville, Ind. Corn Bran 7773 4.0 7.0 14.0 Corn bran Croxton, James W^, Cloverdale, Ind. Middlings 246 3.8 14.0 5.0 Wheat middlings 236 TABLE VII — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917-18 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official Number 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 Croxton & Co., J. W., Cloverdale, Ind. > Croxton’s Extra Mixed Feed •263-2 3.5 12.0 12.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings and corn bran Daily, 0. C., Bristol, R. R. No. 5, Ind. Bonneyville No. 1. Chop Feed .5501 3.0 9.0 8.0 Corn, oats and corn feed meal Dalrymple, J. W., Rising Sun, Ind. Bran & Shorts 810 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran and shorts Daniels & Pickering Co., Middletown, Ind.’^ Corn Feed Meal 4331 2.5 7.0 5.0 Corn feed meal DeBaun Mill, Terre Haute, Ind. 1 Buckwheat Mixed Feed 3337 3.5 12.0 25.0 Buckwheat hulls and middlings Deck, James M., Roann, Ind.s Pure Winter Wheat Bran A 195 3.7 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Pure Wheat Middling 196 4.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Dclp Grain Company, E. E., Bourbon, Ind. . Wheat Bran & Screenings 7555 3.8 14.0 11.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings Wheat Middlings & Screenings 7556 4.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings Speeial Corn Feed Meal _ _ 8372 6.0 11.0 5.0 Corn feed meal Deutsch & Sickert Company, Milwaukee, Wis. Coarse Wheat Bran ___ 5389 4.0 15.0 12.0 Wheat bran Pure Wheat Middlings 5472 5.0 15.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Mystic Bran 7187 4.5 14.0 15.0 Wheat bran Eagle Wheat Standard Middlings with Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings Ground Screenings 7188 5.0 14.0 9.0 Wheat Bran with Screenings 7259 4.0 13.0 13.0 Wheat bran and ground rvheat screenings Corn Feed Meal 8553 6.0 9.0 6.0 Corn feed meal from yellow and white corn •Flour Middlings including Mill Run Screenings 8555 4.3 16.0 7.7 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Reddog Flour a582 5.0 15.0 4.0 Low grade wheat flour containing the finer particles of wheat bran Mixed Feed Dilger Bros., Mariah Hill, Ind. 8705 4.8 15.3 10.4 Wheat bran, middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Mixed Bran . 3181 3.0 13.0 10.0 Wheat and corn bran Dilger Bros. Wheat Shorts 3632 2.5 12.0 8.0 Wheat shorts Dilley Company, C. L., Logansport, Ind. Corn, cats and corn feed meal Dilley’s No. 1 Chop Feed 7951 3.5 9.0 7.0 Dillsboro Milling Company, Dillsboro, Ind. Wheat shorts Wheat Shorts 1008 4.0 14.0 8.0 Mixed Feed 4053 2.9 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, corn bran and wheat dust Dixie Mills Company, East St. Louis, 111. Dixie Corn & Oats Chop- 7693 3.0, 8.0 10.0 Corn and oats Donmeyer, Gardner & Co., Peoria, 111. Wheat middlings Pure Wheat Middlings 2612 4.5 15.0 8.0 Wheat Bran with Screenings Not to exceed Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings not to exceed mill run Mill Run -• 6208 4.0 14.0 11.0 Doolittle Mills, Doolittle Mills, Ind. Wheat bran and middlings Bran and Middlings a345 3.5 14.0 8.0 7 Succeeded by J. M. Walker & Son. 8 Succeeded by James H. Deck 237 TABLE VII — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917-18 (continued) LABEL Official Number Not less than . per cent. Crude Fat Not less than ^ per cent. p Crude Protein p Not more than g- per cent. ^ Crude Fiber _ Dreyer Commission Company, St. Louis, Mo. Corn Feed Meal 8606 8.0 8.0 11.5 White Corn Feed Meal 8632 3.0 10.0 6.0 W. Corn Peed Meal 8655 3.5 8.0 5.0 Dubois Milling Company, Dubois, Ind. Bran So Shorts 1192 3.6 13.0 10.0 Duglay & Jones, Churubusco, Ind.° Wheat Middlings 7468 3.0 13.0 7.0 W'heat Bran 7469 3.0 13.0 10.0 Dunlap Grain Company, The J. M., Franklin, Ind. Middlings & Screenings 8668 3.5 14.0 8.0 “Dairy” Wheat Bran 8669 3.8 14.0 10.0 Eagle Roller Mill Company, New Ulm, Minn. Superb Red Dog 3555 5.7 20.7 3.8 Rye Red Dog 5782 2.6 15.2 3.1 Wheat Middlings with Ground Screenings Not exceeding Mill Run 6687 4.5 15.4 9.5 , Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings Not exceeding Mill Run 7105 3.4 14.0 11.0 Rye Middlings with Ground Screenings Not Exceeding Mill Run 7604 3.5 16.0 7.0 Flour Middlings with Ground Screenings Not Exceeding Mill Run 7701 4.2 14.5 8.0 Early & Daniel Company, The, ' Cincinnati, Ohio. Bran & Screenings 7273 4.0 14.5 10.0 Middlings & Screenings 7274 4.0 15.0 8.0 Mixed Feed and Screenings 8385 3.0 14.0 10.0 Eberts So Bro., North Vernon, Ind. Corn Bran 1242 5.0 8.0 13.0 Eberts’ Mix-Feed 2652 4.0 15.5 8.0 Eberts C. & 0. Feed 3742 3.5 9.0 6.0 Mixed Feed 4151 4.0 15.5 11.0 W'heat Shorts 5413 4.0 15.0 7.0 ' “C” Mixed Feed 5612 3.5 11.0 12.0 ' Corn Feed Meal 7669 2.5 7.5 5.0 ' Eberts Grain Co., Nabb, Ind. * Eberts Grain Co., Mixed Peed •_ 4970 4.0 15.5 8.0 ■ Eckert, Andrew W., Jasper, Ind. Mixed Feed 7756 4.0 14.0 10.0 ■ Eckhart Milling Co., B. A., Chicago, 111. ! Bran and Screenings 6194 4.0 14.0 11.0 ' Wheat and Rye Middlings with Ground Wheat Screenings not exceeding Mill Run 8673 4.0 14.0 7.0 ^ Mixed Feed 8674 4.0 14.0 11.0 Flour Middlings 8675 4.0 15.0 7.0 1 ^ and to be composed of the following ingredients Corn feed meal Corn feed meal Corn feed meal Wheat bran and shorts Wheat middlings Wheat bran Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings Wheat bran Low grade wheat flour containing the finer particles of wheat bran Low grade rye flour containing the finer particles of rye bran ' Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run ' Rye middlings and ground rye screen- ings not exceeding mill run Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat bran and whole w’heat screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat bran, middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Corn bran Wheat bran, middlings and ground wheat screenings Corn and oats Wheat bran, middlings, groimd wheat screenings and corn bran ground w^heat screenings wheat screenings wheat screenings screenings tVheat middlings, rye middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceed- ing mill run iVheat bran, wheat middlings, rye middlings and ground wheat screen- ings not exceeding mill run y Succeeded by Churubusco Flouring Mills 238 TABLE VII — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917-18 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official Number Not less than per cent. Crude Fat Not less than per cent. Grade Protein Not more than per cent. Crude Fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Eclipse Mill, The, Ramsey, Ind. • Mill Eeed 2485 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran and middlings E*Mipse Mixed Eeed Edinger & Company, Louisville, Ky. 3455 3.5 13.5 12.0 Wheat bran, middlings and screen- ings Wheat Bran & Wheat Screenings 7205 4.0 14.5 10.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat Middlings and Wheat Screenings 7206 4.5 15.5 8.0 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat Mixed Feed & Wheat Screenings 7207 4.0 15.0 10.0 Wheat bran, middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run i?trrow Feed Meal 7811 3.9 8.7 2.5 Corn feed meal Edwardsport Mills, Edwardsport, Ind. Wheat Shorts 6830 3.0 13.0 7.0 Wheat shorts Wheat Bran 7210 3.0 13.0 10.0 Wheat bran Eesley & Co., Wm., College Corner, Ohio. Wheat Middlings 2921 4.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Bran 3220 3.5 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Mixed Feed 4254 3.0 13.5 13.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings and corn bran Egloff Milling Company, Vincennes, Ind. Wheat Bran, Ground Screenings, and Corn Bran 6053 3.5 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings and corn bran Wheat Shorts 6054 4.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat shorts Mixed Feed 6873 3.5 14.0 8.6 Wheat bran, middlings, corn bran and ground wheat screenings Egloff Sons, A., St. Meinrad, Ind. Bran & Screenings 2591 3.0 14.0 8.5 Wheat bran, whole wheat screenings and corn bran Shorts 2749 3.8 15.0 4.2 Wheat shorts Elizabeth Milling Company, Elizabeth, Ind. E. M. Co’s Wheat Bran and Middlings 8410 3.7 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran and middlings Emison, J. & S., Vincennes, Ind. Middlings 1536 4.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat middlings Mixed Feed 4237 3.0 14.0 9.0 Wheat bran and whole wheat screen- Emisons Mixed Feed & Middlings 5768 3.5 14.0 8.5 IDff S Wheat bran, middlings and whole wheat screenings Emison & Co., J. & S., Vincennes, Ind. Feed Meal 4464 3.0 8.0 5.0 Corn feed meal Emmert, C. B., Clarksburg, Ind. Mixed Feed 6929 3.0 13.0 11.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings and corn bran Empire Milling Company, Minneapolis, Minn. Empire Milling Co. Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings Not Exceeding Mill Run Empire Milling Company Wheat Standard 7393 4.0 14.0 ILO Wheat bran and ground, wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Middlings with Ground Screenings Not Exceeding Mill Run Empire Milling Company Wheat Flour Mid- 7394 4.0 15.0 9.0 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run dlings with Ground Screenings Not Exceed- ing Mill Run 7395 4.5 17.0 5.0 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run English Milling Co., English, Ind. English Milling Co. Mixed Feed 966 4.0 14.1 9.2 Wheat bran, middlings, corn bran and ground wheat screenings Enterprise Mill Co., The, Bicknell, Ind.^® Enterprise Wheat Bran _ 497 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Erie Elevator, The, Rochester, Ind. Corn & Oat Chop 3416 3.5 8.5 10.0 Corn and oats 239 TABLE VII — Brands Certified. by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917-18 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL 0) XI § .1^ c .S rt 03 ^ .g ^ 1 03 .:S and to be composed of the 03 4J|i. 03 fci +J|V, O p|t^ following ingredients 'S iB o (33 Q) 03 T- O ^ S ^ AO 03 03 03 ^ 03-0 :zi fto C 03 03 Ot3 |§3S iz; AO Etna Lumber & Milling Company, Etna Green, Ind. Mixed Ee.ed 5860 4.0 Etna Bran & Screenings 6659 4.0 Etna Middlings & Screenings i 6660 4.0 Everett, Aughenbaugh & Co., Waseca, Minn. Eaco Winged Horse Mixed Feed 4397 3.0 E-A-CO Wheat Middlings and Ground Screen- ings ..... 5440 3.0 E-A-CO Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings. 6024 3.0 Ewing Mill Co., Brownstown, Ind. Ewing MiU Co’s Mixed Feed 2497 3.8 Fairplay Feed Mills, Linton, Ind. Feed Meal . 6503 2.5 Farmers Elevator Co. of So. Whitley, South Whitley, Ind. Farmer’s Chop Feed 6117 3.0 Farmers Grain & Milling Company, The, Union- City, Ind. Wheat Middlings & Screenings 8259 2.5 Farmers Mill, The, Huntingburg, Ind. Farmers Mi^ied Feed 6520 3.0 Farmland City Flour Mills, The, Farmland, Ind. M:heat Shorts 1658 4.0 Wheat Bran . 1659 3.8 Feed Products Milling Company, Chicago, HI. Wheat Middlings with Screenings not exceed- ing Mill Run 8624 3.5 Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings Not ■Rxepeding Mill Run 8625 3.0 Ferger Grain Company, The, Cincinnati, Ohio. Nutritia Winter Wheat Bran and Screenings.. 8392 4.0 Nutritia Rye Middlings and Screenings 8393 3.0 Nutritia Winter Wheat Middlings and Screen- ing.ci .. .. 8394 3.5 Fette, Nicholas H., New Alsace, Ind. Fette’s Cleaned Wheat Middlings 2603 3.2 Fette’s Cleaned Wheat Bran 2604 3.^ Fisher Bros., Evansville, Ind. Wh^at MidfBings and Snreenings 8715 4.0 Wheat Bran with Screenings 8718 3.5 Flater, Joda, Alfordsville, Ind. . Joda Flater Wheat Bran 576 3.7 Joda Flater Wheat Middlings 577 4.0 Fohl & Son, Casper, Cedar Grove, Ind. Wheat Middlings 8418 4.0 Mixpd Fped 8419 3.8 Follett & Co., R. J., Carmel, Ind. Mixed Feed 3163 3.7 9.0 8.0 Corn, oats, rye and corn bran 14.5 11.0 Wheat bran and not exceeding mill’s run of ground cleaned wheat screen- ings 16.0 8.0 Wheat middlings and not exceeding mill’s run of ground cleaned wheat screenings 15.0 12.0 Wheat bran and middlings 15.0 10.0 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run 14.0 12.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran and shorts 7.0 5.0 Corn feed meal 9.0 7.0 Corn, oats and corn feed meal 12.5 7.0 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings 13.0 14.0 Wheat bran, shorts, corn bran, crushed wheat screenings, mill sweep- ings and wheat screenings 14.0 7.0 Wheat shorts 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran 14.0 12.0 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run 14.0 11.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run 14.5 10.0 Wheat bran and 3% ground wheat screenings 15.0 7.0 Rye middlings and 3% ground rye screenings 15.0 10.0 Wheat middlings and 3% ground wheat screenings 13.8 7.0 Wheat middlings 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran 14.0 9.0 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings 13.0 13.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings 14.0 11.0 Wheat bran, corn bran and ground wheat screenings 13.0 10.0 Wheat bran, shorts and corn bran 240 TABLE VII — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917-18 (continued) Forest Park Mills, North Terre Haute, Ind. Mill Peed 5817 3.8 9.8 Corn Peed Meal 7927 2.5 7.5 6.0 Wheat bran, middlings, corn bran and ground wheat screenings 5.0 Corn feed meal Pornax Milling Company, Decatur, Ind. Pornax Hog Peed Pornax Mixed Peed Powler, A., Pittsboro, Ind. Corn & Oats Chop 7199 '7200 2618 2.8 12.0 3.2 13.0 7.0 12.0 Wheat middlings and corn feed meal Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings and corn bran 3.5 9.0 9.0 Corn and oats Pox & Hess Company, The, Coldwater, Ohio. Wheat Bran with Screenings 6865 3.0 14.0 Wheat Middlings 6998 14.0 Wheat bran and whole wheat screen- ings Wheat middlings Predericksburg Milling Co., The, Predericksburg, Ind. Wheat Shorts Blue Eiver Mixed Peed Peed & LcAvis, Campbellsburg, Ind. Mixed Peed 2280 3668 3.0 13.0 3.0 12.0 7.0 11.0 Wheat shorts Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings and corn bran 6062 3.0 13.0 10.0 Wheat bran, middlings and corn bran Preeport Roller Mills, Preeport, Ind. H. Baiting’s Composition Peed Friendship Milling Company, Friendship, Ind. Shorts Wheat Bran 960 4379 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, shorts, middlings, whole wheat screenings and corn bran 4.0 14.0 8.0 3.5 14.0 9.5 Wheat shorts Wheat bran Fuhrer-Ford Milling Co., Mt. Vernon, Ind. Wheat Bran and Screenings Mixed Feed — Wheat Bran, Middlings and Screenings Wheat Middlings 2385 2386 4682 3.7 14.0 3.9 14.0 3.5 14.0 11.8 9.5 6.3 Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings Wheat bran, middlings and ground wheat screenings Wheat middlings Fulks, Willard, Stonehead, Ind., R. R. No. 32, Columbus, Ind. Pulks Mixed Peed 7113 14.0 8.0 Wheat bran and middlings Pyke Milling Co., LaGrange, Ind. Wheat Middlings & Screenings . 6422 AVheat Bran & Screenings 6423 Gandy & Company, O., South Whitley, Ind. Chop Peed 3927 3.5 13.5 3.5 13.5 10.0 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings 10.0 Wheat bran and ground w'heat screenings 3.0 8.0 Corn, oats and corn feed meal Gard, Geo. N., Schererville, Ind. Chopped Feed Garland Milling Company, Greensburg, Ind. Garland Bran & Screenings Garland Mixed Peed > Garland Middlings & Screenings Garrett Elevator Company, Garrett, Ind. Chop Peed Geneva Milling & Grain Co., Geneva, Ind. Miller’s Wheat Bran Shorts & Middlings 6946- 3.0 9.0 6.0 Corn and oats 7279 7280 7281 3.7 15.0 ‘BO 15.5 4.3 16.5 10.9 7.9 Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat bran, middlings, cleanings and ground wheat screenings not exceed- ing mill run Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run 8445 3.0 9.0 6.0 Corn, oats and rye 3109 7527 3.3 2.5 14.0 13.0 10.0 8.0 Wheat bran Wheat shorts and middlings 241 TABLE VII — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917-18 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL 1 1 . ) Kamman, Frank W., Cross Plains, Ind. Shipstuff or Shorts _ 2359 4.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat shorts Bran 2360 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Kasch, Chas. 0., Logansport, Ind. Kasch’s Chop Feed 5539 3.5 9.0 6.0 Corn, oats and corn feed meal Katterjohn, A. F., Lynnville, Ind. A. F. Katterjohn’s Wheat Bran 487 3.7 14.0 •10. 0 Wheat bran Katterjohn’s Shorts 6937 3.4 14.0 7.0 Wheat shorts Mixed Feed 6938 4.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat bran and middlings Kaw Milling Company, The, Topeka, Kansas, Mill Run and Screenings Kaw Kaw Shorts & Ground Screenings Not 6128 4.0 17.0 9.6 Wheat bran, shorts, middlings, low grade flour and ground wheat screenings to exceed 5% 8304 4.0 17.0 5.5 Wheat shorts and ground wheat screenings not to exceed 5% Kaw Kaw Bran & Scourings 8305 3.5 15.5 10.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat scourings not to exceed 5% Kaw Kaw Pure Middlings 8306 3.0 15.0 3.5 Wheat middlings Keene, A. C., Elkhart, Ind. Keene’s Chop Feed 3281 3.5 9.0 8.0 Corn and oats Wheat Bran & Ground Screenings 7361 3.5 13.5 11.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings W’heat Middlings & Ground Screenings 7362 3.5 13.5 9.0 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings Kehlor Flour Mills Co., St. Louis, Mo. Neptune White Middlings 4191 4.0 17.0 4.0 Wheat middlings Palace Bran _ 5808 4.0 14.5 10.0 Wheat bran Rex Middlings and Ground Screenings 6682 4.0 16.0 7.0 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Kehlor’s Millfeed Kemper Mill & Elevator Co., Kansas City, Mo. 7508 4.0 15.0 8.0 Wheat bran, middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Crown Shorts 2055 4.7 16.0 5.7 Wheat shorts Diamond Bran 2076 4.0 14.5 9.5 Wheat bran Crescent Middlings with Ground Screenings— 6028 4.2 16.0 8.0 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Anchor Bran with Ground Screenings Anchor Mixed Feed with Screenings Not 6030 4.0 14.5 10.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat sereenings not exceeding mill run Exceeding Mill Run Crescent Mixed Feed and Screenings Not 7248 4.0 16.0 10.0 Wheat bran, shorts and ground wheat screenings Exceeding Mill Run Carnation Gray Middlings and Screenings 7324 4.0 16.0 8.0 Wheat bran, shorts and ground wheat screenings Not Exceeding Mill Run 7325 4.3 16.0 8.0 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings . Kennedy Bros., Crawfordsville, Ind. Chop Feed 5211 3.0 8.5 9.0 Com, oats and corn feed meal Kennedy Milling Company, M. W., LaFontaine, Ind.i* Chop Feed 6067 3.0 8.0 6.0 Corn, oats and corn feed meal Kennedy Milling Company, Geo. W., Shelbyville, Ind. Middlings 2110 3.5 13.5 8.0 Wheat middlings Mixed Feed — _ 2477 3.5 13.5 12.0 Wheat bran, whole wheat screenings and com bran Corn Bran 7791 5.0 8.0 13.0 Cora bran Kennedy’s Winter Wheat Bran . 8201 3.5 16.0 10.0 Wheat bran Kent Milling Co., Kent, Ind. Kent Mixed Feed 3364 3.2 13.5 12.0 Wheat bran and whole wheat screen- ings Corn Feed Meal 6914 2.5 7.5 5.0 Corn feed meal Corn Bran _ 6915 4.0 7.0 10.0 Com bran Wheat Middlings — __ 7649 I 3.8 14.0 7.0 1 Wheat middlings Succeeded by Hare’s Feed Mill 247 TABLE VII Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917-18 (continued) LABEL Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain Kern & Son, A. J., Trinity Springs, Ind. Trinity Brand Killian Elevator, The, Newberry, Ind. Mixed Feed Corn Feed Meal Klein, M. J., Cedar Lake, R. R. No. 1, Ind. Chop Feed Klondike Milling Company, The, Danville, Ind. Wheat Bran The Mill Run Mixed Feed Klondike Chop Feed Cracked Corn & Screenings Knecht Milling Company, Hartford City, Ind. Knecht Milling Co. Chop Feed Koenemann, Ed. F., Hoagland, Ind. Corn & Oats Chop Krause Milling Company, Chas. A., Milwaukee, Wis. Badger Fancy Mixed Feed -- Badger Wheat Middlings and Maizo (Corn) Red Dog Flour Badger Cream Flakes Badger Wheat Bran and Screenings. Badger Maizo Corn Reddog Flour Kuhn & Co., Paul, Terre Haute, Ind. Wheat Middlings Wheat Bran Kuhn & Son, John H., Michigan City, Ind. Chop Feed Lafayette Milling Co., The, Lafayette, Ind. Mixed Bran Middlings Corn Feed Meal LaGrange Mills, Red Wing, Minn. Fine Middlings with Ground Screenings Not Exceeding Mill Run LaGro Milling Company, LaGro, Ind. Prop’s Special Mixed Feed Lake Milling Company, Lake, Ind. Corn Feed Meal Mixed Feed Wheat Middlings Larabee Flour Mills Corporation, The, Hutchinson, Kansas. exceed 8% Standard Wheat Shorts Official Number jNot less man per cent. ■Crude Fat JN or less man per cent. Crude Protein JNot more man per cent. Crude Fiber 813 3.8 14.0 1 8.1 1196 3.5 8.5 8.0 ^ 8139 2.5 7.5 6.0 C 4799 3.5 9.0 10.0 c . 274 3.7 14.4 10.0 y . 2654 3.5 13.0 13.0 M . 4430 3.0 9.0 7.0, C . 4099 2.5 7.5 7.0 C . 6433 2.5 8.5 10.0 C 1682 3.9 9.5 6.0 ( 4341 3.0 11.0 9.0 1 4362 3.0 11.0 9.0 '' 4683 3.0 8.5 *9.0 ( 6362 3.5 14.0 10.5 ^ - 7671 7.5 11.0 2.0 ] _ 3250 4.0 14.0 7.0 ' 3273 3.5 14.0 10.0 ■ .. 5331 3.5 8.8 10.0 117 4.0 14.0 10.0 3831 2.8 14.0 7.0 . 6116 2.5 7.5 5.0 8604 5.0 15.5 9.5 3606 3.0 13.0 12.0 8657 4.0 9.0 15.0 8658 3.8 14.0 10.0 __ 8659 3.9 14.0 6.0 0 • 8467 3.2 15.0 10.0 ... 8468 ! 4.2 17.0 6.2 and to be composed of the following ingredients Wheat bran and shorts ings and corn bran )orn feed meal Corn, oats and corn feed meal wheat oran, miaanngs, gruuuu wheat screenings and corn bran Wheat bran and corn reddog flour ^heat middlings and corn reddog flour YVlieat; UliXll UiiU vvxiv.c*u screenings not exceeding mill run Low grade corn flour containing finer particles of corn bran Corn and oats Wheat bran and corn bran Wheat middlings Corn feed meal Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings and com bran Corn bran, corn grits and corn germ Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings Wheat middlings Wheat bran and mill run ground wheat screenings not to exceed 8% Wheat shorts 248 TABLE VII Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917-18 (continued) LABEL Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain 5 -p m c3 Montmorenci Elevator Company, Montmorenci, Ind Corn Feed Meal .. 8532 2.0 8.5 7.0 13.0 Com feed meal Corn bran Moore Milling Co., E. P., Princeton, Ind. Corn Bran 999 5.0 8.0 Morning Star Mills, Evansville, Ind. Stader’s Peed Meal 400S 3.0 7.0 6.0 Corn meal and siftings from cracked corn Corn and oats Morocco Peed & Grist Mill, Morocco, Ind. Chop 5928 3.2 9.2 6.0 Morristown Milling Co., Morristown, Ind. Corn Bran 2614 5.0 9.0 13.0 Corn bran Moutoux, P. & H., Evansville, Ind. “XL” Dry Mixed Peed 7997 2.5 9.0 12.0 Corn, oats, wheat bran, middlings and ground wheat screenings Eye middlings and ground rye screenings Corn feed meal Mueller, E. P., Chicago, 111. Eye Middlings and Screenings 8731 3.5 16.1 9.0 Mulberry Coal & Peed Company, Mulberry, Ind.‘ Mulberry Corn Peed Meai 5986 2.7 7.5 5.0 Muller Bros. Milling Co., Ferdinand, Ind. Mixed Peed 6709 3.5 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, shorts, ground wheat screenings and corn bran Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings and corn bran Wheat shorts and ground wheat screenings Wheat bran Wheat Bran, Corn Bran & Screenings 67101 3.5 14.0 10.0 Wheat Shorts and Screenings 8448 4.0 14.0 8.0 Mystic Milling Company, Sioux City, Iowa. “Mvstic Bran” 6044 4.5 14.0 15.0 McCorkle & Eiley, Thorntown, Ind. lAl Wonder 5887 3.5 9.0 12.0 Wheat bran, corn bran and ground wheat screenings Corn and oats Ground Corn and Oats 5888 3.5 9.0 6.0 McCormick & Son, Chas. W., Logansport, Ind. Wheat Bran & Screenings 7538 3.5 13.5 12.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings Wheat middlings Wheat bran Wheat Middlings & Sereenine-s 7539 4.0 14.0 10.0 McCoy Bros., Liberty, Ind. Wheat Middlings .. 162 3.8 15.1 5.0 Wheat Bran 1428 3.5 14.2 11.5 Mixed Peed 2436 3.5 15.0 8.0 Wheat bran, middlings and corn McCoy & Company, U. G., Vincennes, Ind. Corn & Oats Chop . 8168 3.9 9.0 6.0 bran Corn and oats McCoy & Garten, Indianapolis, Ind. Mheat Bran and Screenings 5504 4.0 14.0 11.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings not ekceeding mill run Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Eye middlings McCoy’s Choice Wheat Middlings with Screen- ings Not Exceeding ATill Enn 5514 3.0 16.0 8.0 Eye Middlings 5879 3.0 15.0 6.0 McHenry Milling Company, L. E., Lexington, Ind. McHenry’s Mixed Peed 8499 3.4 14.3 4.9 Wheat bran, shorts, middlings and McKenzie Cereal Pood & Milling Co., Quincy, Mich. McKenzies Pure Wheat Middlings 2822 3.8 13.0 9.0 ground wheat screenings not exceed- ing mill run Wheat middlings McKenzies Pure Wheat Bran 2823 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran 253 TABLE VII Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917-18 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL rQ 1 'cS ‘S § 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 McMahon Brothers, Valparaiso, Ind. 4901 3.0 9.0 10.0 1 Corn and oats McMillen & Son, J. W., Fort Wayne, Ind.i9 8459 3.9 9.5 6.0 Corn and oats Naber & Co., Chas. F., Alexandria, Ind. 6574 3.0 13.0 11.0 Wheat bran and corn bran 7197 3.3 14.0 11.0 Wheat bran Nading Grain Company, Wm., Greensburg, Ind. 7278 3.9 9.5 6.0 Corn and oats Corn, oats, corn bran and corn feed 7710 3.3 9.5 11.0 meal Napoleon Flour Mills, Napoleon, Ind. ■ Napoleon Wheat Bran, Corn Bran and 4042 3.7 14.1 12.0 Wheat bran, corn bran and whole wheat sereenings Wheat middlings 4043 3.8 14.2 8.0 National Feed Company, St. Louis, Mo. 5216 4.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat bran, shorts and whole wheat wH/'nt Mi'HHlinp-rj Ground Scrpf'uinp's 7349 4.0 16.0 8.0 screenings Wheat middlings and _ ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat bran, wheat middlings, corn bran and ground wheat sereenings Corn bran, corn germ, corn grits and a part of the starchy portion of the corn kernel Corn and oats Vvllcclb IVJLlLlLlllXl&O tX/ VA J. - , 8547 4.0 14.0 8.0 8637 7.0 10.0 10.0 New Carlisle Milling Co., New Carlisle, Ind. Corn & Oats <^hop - 1315 3.9 9.0 9.0 T^ran — 1316 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Wheat middlings ATi (i 1 in ffs _ - 1317 4.0 14.0 7.0 New Era Milling Co., The, Arkansas City, Kansas. TUiii Pnn T^ran Whf*at Screeninsfs 6850 3.7 17.0 9.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat Wheat Bran & Wheat Screenings 6859 3.5 16.0 10.5 screenings Wheat bran and ground wheat Cf-onricivn whpftt. Shorts 6860 4.0 17.5 6.0 screenings Wheat shorts XVhifp - - - 7476 3.7 17.6 3.5 Wheat shorts New Milling Co., The, Greenfield, Ind. Corn & Ofits 1861 3.9 9.5 6.0 Corn and oats Wheat bran, corn bran and ground wheat screenings Corn feed meal Wheat middlings AfivpH Tn^PPfl 1 - - 2616 3.8 14.0 12.0 Corn .3830 2.7 7.5 5.0 TK/hpat TVTiHrllino'.ci 7721 2.4 14.0 7.0 New Prague Flouring Mill Company, New Prague, Minn. Seal of Minnesota Wheat Flour Middlings Seal of Minnesota Wheat Bran, with Ground CJ/^T»/-»nnir»nrc' XT /vi* TTvPPPH ITl D* ATlll T?)nn 7906 7907 3.5 3.0 15.5 13.3 4.5 11.2 Wheat middlings Wheat brafi and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat middlings Seal of Minnesota Wheat Standard Middlings. . 7908 5.2 15.0 7.0 Newton Stewart Milling Co., New Stewart, Ind. ]VIix6d !PG6d , 4725 3.0 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran and middlings Nichols & Co., C. E., Lowell, Ind. Corn & Oats Chop . 1528 5398 3.5 3.5 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 Corn and oats Corn, oats, corn bran, corn feed meal and corn flour Corn bran Buckwheat middlings and buckwheat / Corn Bran 5399 5.0 9.0 13.5 Buckwh^Eit 'ppf’d .. . 6377 3.0 12.0 33.0 hulls 19 Succeeded by The McMillen Company 254 TABLE VII — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917-18 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official Number Not less than per cent. i Crude Fat Not less than per cent. Crude Protein Not more than per cent. Crude Fiber and to be composed of the following ingredients Nichols & Co., 0, E., Lowell, Ind. Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings Not Exceeding Mill Run Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings not 7005 4.5 15.0 11.0 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run exceeding Mill Run 7006 4.0 14.5 12.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Red Dog Elour 7007 4.0 16.5 3.0 Low grade wheat flour containing the finer particles of wheat bran Nieman, C., Sunman, Ind. Nieman’s Middlings 500 4.0 14.0 5.0 Wheat middlings Nieman’s Mixed Eeed 501 3.7 14.0 9.7 Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings Niezer & Co., Monroeville, Ind. Corn & Oats Chop 1501 3.5 9.0 9.0 Corn and oats Wheat Bran 1502 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Wheat Middlings 1508 4.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Niezer & Company, Fort Wayne, Ind. Wheat Middlings & Screenings 6268 3.0 13.0 8.0 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings Mixed Bran and Screenings Noblesville Milling Co., Noblesville, Ind. 6270 3.0 13.0 11.0 Wheat bran, corn bran and ground wheat screenings N. M. Co’s Mixed Eeed 5243 4.0 16.0 8.0 Wheat bran, middlings and ground wheat screenings N. M. Co’s Wheat Bran & Screenings 5252 3.7 14. 5 8.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings N. M. Co’s Goodcatch Feed Noblesville Milling Co.’s Middlings & Ground 5351 4.0 15.0 11.0 Wheat bran, middlings and ground wheat screenings Screenings Not Exceeding Mill Run 7306 4.0 15.0 7.0 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Nodine, W. J., Waterloo, Ind. Wheat Bran 2773 3.0 13.0 10.0 Wheat bran Wheat Middlings 3151 3.5 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Noftsger, Benjamin, Rochester, Ind. ) Corn and Oats Chop 2051 3.5 9.0 6.0 Corn and oats Nordmeyer, John A., Morris, Ind. Wheat Middlings 4080 3.6 14.6 6.0 Wheat middlings Norris & Kidwell, Washington, Ind. Wheat Bran 6279 3.0 13.5 9.0 Wheat bran Wheat Bran and Middlings 6281 4.0 14.7 8.0 Wheat bran and middlings Corn Bran 7011 3.0 6.0 19.0 Corn bran Wheat Middlings 8235 3.5 15.4 5.0 Wheat middlings North Judson Milling Company, North Judson, Ind. Rye Mixed Eeed 8127 2.0 12.0 10.0 Rye bran and rye middlings ^’orth Manchester Milling Co., North Manchester, Ind. “North Manchester Milliiig Companys Mid- dlings” 855 4.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings “North Manchester Milling Companys Chop”_ 856 3.0 9.5 6.0 Corn and oats Mixed Feed 4252 3.0 11.5 12.5 Wheat bran, ground wheat screenings and corn bran North Star Eeed & Cereal Co., Minneapolis, Minn. No. 1 Corn & Oats Feed 2606 3.1 9.8 5.9 Corn and oats Rye Middlings 4353 1.5 14.5 5.2 Rye middlings No. 2 Corn & Oats Eeed 4884 3.2 9.5 7.0 Corn and oats Corn Eeed Meal 7715 5.7 9.5 6.5 Corn feed meal Northwestern Consolidated Milling Co., The, Minneapolis, Minn. Pure Wheat Bran 2825 4.0 14.5 11.0 Wheat bran 255 TABLE VII — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917-18 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL ja 4j ■u 02 a> 0) ^2; fto SI -mE § § ® fl o-o ;zi fto and to be composed of the following ingredients Northwestern Consolidated Milling Co., The, Minneapolis, Minn. XXX Comet Wheat Flour Middlings with Ground Screen- ings Not Exceeding Mill Run “Wheat Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings Not exceeding Mill Run”— — Northwestern Elevator & Mill Co., The, Toledo, Ohio. Taylor’s Bran *- Taylor’s Middlings Norton & Company, Willis, Topeka, Kansas. Wheat Bran & Screenings Wheat Shorts & Screenings Oakland City Roller Mills, Oakland City, Ind. Dairy Mixed Feed O’Conner Milling Company, Corydon, Ind. Wheat Middlings Bran and Screenings Odon Milling Co., The, Odon, Ind. Chop Feed Mill Feed Corn Feed Meal Pure Wheat Bran Pure Wheat Middlings Omco Mixed Feed Ogle-Cook Grain Company, Hamlet, Ind. Corn & Oats Chop Oldenburg Flour Mills, Oldenburg, Ind. Mixed Feed Wheat Shorts - Orangeville Flouring Mills, The, Orleans, R. R. No. 2, Ind. N. 0. Felknor’s Mixed Feed Osakis Milling Co., Osakis, Minn. Fancy Bran Fancy Middlings Osgood Flour Mills, Osgood, Ind. Mixed Mill Feed Ossian Roller Mills, Ossian, Ind. Wheat Middlings . Wheat Bran and Ground Wheat Screenings.. Otwell Milling Company, Otwell, Ind. Otwell’s No. 1 Mixed Feed Page Milling Company, Thomas, Topeka, Kansas. Wheat Mixed Feed with Ground Screenings (not exceeding 5% Screenings) Bran and Screenings Pure Wheat Shorts 2828 4.0 16.5 3.0 Reddog flour and low grade wheat flour containing the finer particles of wheat bran 5498 4.5 15.5 6.0 Wheat flour middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill 6394 4.5 15.0 11.0 run Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run 5313 4.0 13.0 6.0 Wheat bran 5814 4.0 15.0 6.0 Wheat middlings 6478 3.5 14.5 10.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings 6479 3.5 16.0 5.5 Wheat shorts and ground wheat screenings 1941 3.0 12.0 8.0 Wheat bran, middlings, whole wheat screenings and corn bran 7024 2.5 13.0 6.0 Wheat middlings 7025 3.0 13.5 9.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run 55 3.9 1 9.5 6.0 Corn and oats 5037 4.1 16.0 12.0 Wheat bran, shorts, corn bran and ground wheat screenings 5160 2.8 7.0 5.0 Corn feed meal 5393 3.8 15.4 9.0 Wheat bran 5394 4.0 16.0 9.0 Wheat middlings 6712 3.8 14.0 12.0 Wheat bran, shorts, corn bran and ground wheat screenings 8556 3.5 9.0 6.0 Corn and oats 489 3.2 12.8 10.0 Wheat bran and whole wheat screen- ings 2663 3.0 13.1 8.0 Wheat shorts 4649 2.7 12.5 11.0 Wheat bran, middlings and ground wheat screenings 1 3194 4.0 14.0 12.0 Wheat bran 3195 4.0 15.0 8.0 Wheat middlings 3239 3.0 12.0 10.0 Wheat bran and middlings 6399 3.1 13.5 9.9 Wheat middlings 6400 3.5 13.5 9.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings 3828 3.2 13.0 12.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings and com bran . 8195 1 3.0 16.0 10.0 Wheat bran, shorts and not exceed- ing 5% ground wheat screenings I 8399 1 3.5 15.5 10.0 Wheat bran and not to exceed 5% ground wheat screenings .' 8093 3.0 15.0 6.0 Wheat shorts TABLE VII — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917-18 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufatturer to contain LABEL Official Number 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 Paoli Milling Co., The, Paoli, Ind. 627 3.0 12.0 8.0 Wheat shorts 2820 3.0 10.0 12.0 Wheat bran, shorts, whole wheat screenings and corn bran Wheat bran and whole wheat screen- ripnr Mill Ppprl 3019 ' 3.0 12.0 11.0 Paragon Roller Mills, Paragon, Ind. 1526 3.8 12.0 10.0 ings Wheat bran, middlings and corn bran Corn and oats Paxson, Charles E., Elkhart, Ind. Paxsnn'ls Corn and Oats Chop 868 3.9 9.0 6.0 Chop Eppd 6407 3.0 9.0 7.0 Corn, oats and corn feed meal Pearson, Warren W., Upland, Ind. Eureka. Peed . 1764 3.9 9.5 6.0 Corn and oats 8559 3.0 13.0 12.0 AVheat bran, wheat middlings and 8560 3.0 13.0 12.0 ground wheat screenings Wheat bran and ground wheat Wheat Middline-s Sereenings . . . 8561 3.0 13.0 10.0 screenings Wheat middlings and ground wheat Pendleton Peed & Fuel Co., Pendleton, Ind. Phnp Fpprl • 1477 3.0 10.0 6.0 screenings Corn, oats and wheat screenings Wheat Bran 3279 3.5 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Onrn Eppii Meal 5146 3.0 7.0 6.0 Corn feed meal Pennville Milling Company, Pennville, Ind. Wheat Midfllinp-s 3545 3.0 13.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Wheat Bran X’: OrnnnrI Wheat Sereenings 5503 2.9 12.0 10.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat W'heat Bran K-'. Corn Bran 8099 2.9 12.0 11.0 screenings Wheat bran and corn bran Peru Milling Company, The, Peru, Ind. Wheat Bran Sereenine-s . . 17 3.1 14.5 10.0 W’heat bran and ground wheat Wheat Middlings 18 3.1 14.2 7.0 screenings Wheat middlings Ohnp Epp;ereenings 2252 4.0 15.0 10.0 screenings W’heat bran and ground wheat Phneniv “A” MiYed Feed 2253 4.0 15.0 9.0 screenings W’heat bran, middlings and ground W’hefit Middlings and Oronnd Sereenings 6856 4.0 15.5 8.0 wheat screenings W’heat middlings and ground wheat Pierce Elevator Co., Union City, Ind. Pierce’s Corn & Oats Chop 399 3.8 9.4 7.0 screenings Corn and oats AVheat Middlings 2623 4.0 14.0 9.0 Wheat middlings Mixed Feed . 2624 3.8 13.0 12.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat Pillsbury Flour Mills Company, Minneapolis, Minn. Durum W’heat Bran with Ground Screenings not exceeding mill run _ 6869 4.0 11.0 14.0 screenings Wheat bran and ground wheat sereenings not exceeding mill run 257 TABLE VII — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917-18 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official Number 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 th a following ingredients Pillsbury Flour Mills Company, Minneapolis, Minn. Durum Wheat “B” Middlings with Ground Screenings not exceeding mill run 6870 4.0 12.5 11.0 1 1 Wheat middlings and ground wheat Pillsbury’s Wheat Bran with Ground Screen- ings not exceeding mill run 7133 4.0 13.0 •13.0 screenings not exeeeding mill run Wheat bran and ground wheat Pillsbury’s Wheat Standard “B” Middlings with Ground Screenings Not exceeding Mill Run 7134 4.0 14.0 11.0 screenings Wheat middlings and ground wheat Pillsbury’s Wheat “A” Middlings with Ground Screenings Not exceeding Mill Run.. 7135 4.0 15.0 8.0 sereenings , Wheat middlings, low grade wheat Pillsbury’s Fancy Wheat Mixed Feed with Ground Screenings Not Exceeding Mill Run.. 7136 4.0 14.0 10.0 flour and ground wheat screenings Wheat bran, low grade wheat flour and ground wheat screenings Low grade wheat flour Pillsbury’s XX Daisy 7137 4.0 16.0 4.0 Pillsbury’s Rye Middlings with Ground Screenings Not exceeding Mill Run 8519 3.5 15.0 9.0 Rye middlings and ground rye Pincoffs Co., Maurice, Chicago, 111. Pinco Brand Standard Middlings and Screen- ings — 8785 4.0 15.0 7.0 sereenings Wheat middlings and ground wheat Pinco Brand Wheat Bran and Screenings 8736 3.5 14.0 10.0 screenings Wheat bran and ground wheat Piqua Milling Co., The, Piqua, Ohio. Wheat Middlings 2295 4.0 16.0 7.0 screenings Wheat middlings Wheat Bran 2296 3.0 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Bran and Middlings Mixed 5295 3.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat bran and middlings Pitman, H. E., Bedford, Ind. Chop Feed 387 3.2 8.8 4.0 Corn and oats Plainfield Milling Co., Plainfield, Ind. Bran & Screenings 2839 3.5 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, ground wheat sereenings Wheat Middlings 4406 3.5 13.0 7.0 and corn bran Wheat middlings Corn Feed Meal 7923 2.0 5.0 4.0 Corn feed meal Corn Bran 8656 1.0 5.0 26.5 Corn bran Plainville Milling Company, Plainville, Ind. Corn Bran 3819 4.0 7.5 14.0 Corn bran Middlings - 3805 4.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Milled Feed 4140 1.5 4.5 14.0 Corn, oats and ground wheat screen- Wheat Bran 4372 3.8 14.2 10.0 ings Wheat bran Millfeed 5057 3.5 14.0 7.5 Wheat bran and wheat middlings Plainville Mill & Elevator Co., The, Plainville, Kans. Bran & Screenings 7830 4.0 16.5 10.0 Wheat bran and whole wheat screen- Shorts 7831 4.0 17.0 3.5 ings Wheat shorts Plant Milling Company, Geo. P., St. Louis, Mo. (P) Wheat Middlings with Screenings not , Exceeding Mill Run 5558 4.0 17.0 6.5 Wheat middlings and whole wheat Plotnicki & Co., Louis P., South Bend, Ind. Polonia Chop Feed 6083 3.5 9.0 9.0 screenings not exceeding mill run Corn, oats and corn feed meal Mixed Feed 6892 3.0 13.5 10.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat Middlings & Screenings 6893 3.0 , J3.0 8.0 screenings Wheat middlings and ground wheat Portland Equity Exchange, The, Portland, Ind. Chop Feed 8034 3.0 9.0 8.0 screenings Corn, oats and rye Poseyville Milling Company, The, Poseyville, Ind. Wheat Shorts & Screenings 7676 4.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat shorts and ground wheat I screenings TABLE VII — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917-18 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official Number 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 Poseyville Milling Company, The, Posey ville, Ind. Mixed Bran and Screenings 7677 3.7 14.0 11.0 Wheat bran, corn bran and ground wheat screenings Prairie State Milling Company, Chicago, III. Garland Wheat Bran and Screenings Wheat Standard Middlings with Ground 6845 3.5 14.0 11.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Screenings Not exceeding Mill Run 7412 4.0 14.0 10.0 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Prater-Mottier Company, Terre Haute, Ind. Corn Peed Meal 7704 2.0 7.0 5.5 Corn feed meal Praters Wheat Bran & Screenings 8145 3.0 10.0 14.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings Praters Mixed Feed 8174 4.0 14.5 9.0 Wheat bran, wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings Princeton Milling Co., Princeton, Ind. Star Brand Mixed Feed 1978 3.5 13.0 7.0 Wheat bran, middlings and ground wheat screenings Star Feed 8818 3.5 13.5 11.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings Wheat Middlings 8619 3.5 13.5 6.0 Wheat middlings Puritan Mills, The, Medora, Ind. Puritan Mixed Feed 8644 3.6 14.0 8.0 Wheat bran, middlings and ground wheat screenings Puritan Feed Meal 8645 2.5 8.0 7.0 Corn feed meal Purity Oats Cornpany of Davenport, Davenport, Iowa. Oat Middlings 8440 5.5 14.0 10.0 Oat middlings Pyrmont Milling Co., The, Pyrmont, Ind . 20 Pyrmont Ship Pyrmont Mills Company, Pyrmont, Ind. 265 4.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat bran and middlings Pyrmont Corn and Oats Chop ___ 5839 3.9 9.5 6.0 Corn and oats Pyrmont Bran 7157 3.0 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Rakestraw, H. E., Oakford, Ind. Perfection Corn & Oats Chop 6495 3.5 9.0 6.0 Corn and oats “A” Perfection Chop Feed 6496 3.5 9.0 10.0 Corn, oats and corn feed meal Rankin & Company, M. G., Milwaukee, Wis. Jersey Rye Middlings with Ground Screenings Not Exceeding Mill Run Wheat Middlings with Ground Screenings 8679 3.0 14.0 3.0 Rye middlings and ground rye screen- ings not exceeding mill run Not Exceeding Mill Run Wheat Bran with Ground Screenings Not 8680 4.0 15.0 8.0 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Exceeding Mill Run Rapier Grain & Seed Company, Owensboro,~Ky. 8681 4.0 14.0 9.5 Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Shipstuff 7692 3.5 15.5 10.0 Wheat bran and middlings Raschka, William, Ainsworth, Ind. Wheat Bran & Ground Screenings 7436 3.5 13.5 11.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings Wheat Middlings & Ground Screenings 7437 3.5 13.5 10.0 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings Ray & Rice, Camden, Ind. Wheat Bran 5342 3.3 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Shorts & Low Grade Flour a534 3.0 12.0 8.0 Wheat shorts and low grade wheat flour Red Mill, The, R. F. D., Fairland, Ind. Mixed Feed 2601 3.8 14.0 11.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings Wheat Middling.s 3256 2.5 13.0 8.0 Wheat middlings “A” Mixed Feed 4538 3.5 13.0 12.0 Wheat bran, whole wheat screenings and com bran 20 Succeeded by Pyrmont Mills Co. 259 TABLE VII — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917-18 (continued) LABEL Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain fl oS ja jj S fife 0 0)0) O U S C a B cS 52 B ^ .2 ® .t£ a> m d; ^ o-p S V V R 073 "A ftU Iz; aO and to be composed of the following ingredients Ked Wing Milling Co., Red Wing, Minn. Bixota Standard Middlings 5493 5.7 18.3 7.5 Wheat middlings Bixota Flour Middlings 5494 5.1 16.1 3.0 Wheat middlings Bixota Red Dog 6108 4.0 12.7 1.1 Low grade wheat flour containing the finer particles of wheat bran Bixota Wheat Bran with Ground Sereenings.. 7158 4.8 14.0 13.2 Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Bixota Wheat Middlings 7641 5.1 15.4 9.8 Wheat middlings Reiners, Wm. F., Birdseye, Ind. Reiners Mixed Feed Richmond Corn Mills, Richmond, Ind. 7743 3.2 13.5 10.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings, corn bran and dust col- lector dust Corn Bran Richmond Roller Mills, Richmond, Ind. 1727 5.0 8.0 13.0 Corn bran The Richmond Roller Mills Wheat Bran 482 3.2 12.0 10.0 Wheat bran The Richmond Roller Mills Wheat Middlings.. 483 3.7 14.0 4.3 Wheat middlings Rittenhouse, E. S., Liberty Mills, Ind. Liberty Bird Bran 3043 2.5 12.5 20.0 Wheat bran Liberty Bird Middlings 3044 2.5 12.5 20.0 •Wheat middlings River Side Barn & Feed Store, Marion, Ind. Chop Feed 7180 2.8 8.5 8.0 Corn, oats and corn feed meal Roach & Rothenberger, Delphi, Ind. Corn and Oats Chop 284 3.9 9.5 6.0 Corn and oats Shorts and Middlings 286 4.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat shorts and middlings A. Mixed Feed 7730 3.8 11.0 12.0 Wheat bran, shorts, scourings, whole wheat screenings and corn bran Roekport Milling Co., The, Rockport, Ind. A. Mixed Feed 2247 3.9 13.3 11.0 Wheat bran, middlings, corn bran and ground wheat screenings Bran & Screenings 2248 3.8 13.3 11.0 Wheat bran, corn bran and ground wheat screenings Kopp’s Wheat Middlings 2748 3.5 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Kopp’s Mixed Feed 3679 3.0 10.0 9.0 Wheat bran, middlings, ground wheat screenings, corn bran and corn feed meal Kopp’s White Middlings 7477 2.3 13.5 6.0 Wheat middlings Rohm Bros., Rockville, Ind. Feed Meal 5386 2.5 6.0 5.0 Corn feed meal Mill Feed 5671 3.5 15.0 10.0 W’^heat bran, middlings, shorts, corn bran and ground wheat screenings Shorts and Screenings Product 8110 4.0 15.0 10.0 Wheat shorts and ground and bolted wheat screenings Rohm Bros. & Co., Mansfield, Ind. Shorts 295 4.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat shorts Mill Feed 3991 3.0 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, middlings, shorts, wheat screenings and corn bran Roper & Brown, Hobart, Ind. Hobart Wheat Bran 4178 3.5 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Hobart Chop Feed 4409 3.8 9.5 6.0 Corn and oats Hobart Wheat Middlings 5960 3.5 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Hobart “Rye Feed’’ 5993 2.0 13.0 8.0 Rye bran and rye middlings Buckwheat Mixed Feed 6218 3.0 12.6 35.0 Buckwheat middlings and buckwheat hulls Wheat Middlings with Screenings 7684 3.5 14.0 11.0 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat Bran with Screenings 7685 3.5 14.0 13.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Rothrock, Julius, White Cloud, Ind. Julius Rothrock’s Mixed Feed 4553 3.5 14.0 9.0 Wheat bran, middlings, crushed wheat screenings and corn bran Rouse & Son, Wm., Indianapolis, Ind. Corn Bran 2124 5.0 8.0 13.0 Corn bran C & 0 2776 4.0 10.0 6.0 Corn and oats 26 o TABLE VII — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917-18 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official Number 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 Rouse & Son, Wm., Indianapolis, Ind. i Mixed Feed 3191 3.7 13.5 12.0 Wheat bran, shorts, ground wheat screenings and corn bran Corn Feed Meal 7114 1 2.5 7.5 5.0 Corn feed meal Ruoff, Geo. D., Osgood, Ind. 1 1 Rye Shorts 2860 1 2.5 14.0 7.0 Rye shorts Wheat Shorts 3054 3.0 13.0 10.0 Wheat shorts Wheat Bran 3065 1 3.0 12.0 12.0 Wheat bran Wheat Shorts & Crushed Wheat Screenings.— Russell & Company, Portland, Ind. 7712 1 3.0 13.0 10.0 Wheat shorts and crushed wheat screenings Chop Feed 6798 3.0 8.7 7.0 Corn, oats and corn feed meal Russell-Miller Milling Co., Fargo, N. D. Bran 3584 4.0 13.0 11.0 Wheat bran Red Dog ■ 3585 4.5 17.0 6.0 Low grade wheat flour containing the finer particles of wheat bran Standard Middlings 5182 4.0 15.0 9.0 Wheat middlings Russell-Miller Milling Company, Minneapolis, Minn. 1 Flour Middlings 7810 5.0 15.0 6.0 Wheat middlings Sager’s Mill, Valparaiso, Ind. Mixed Feed — . 6189 3.0 13.0 7.0 Wheat bran and middlings Sahm, Adam, Lawrenceville, Ind. Sahms Middlings _ 560 4.0 15.6 5.4 Wheat middlings Sahms Wheat Bran 561 3.7 .14.0 10.7 Wheat bran Salem Milling Company, Salem, Ind. 7.0 Wheat shorts Shorts 6134 3.5 14.0 Mixed Feed Schaefer, Carl H., Indianapolis, Ind. 6662 1 3.0 14.0 10.0 Corn bran and wheat bran Schaefer’s Special Corn Feed Meal 8119 3.0 S.O 5.0 Corn feed meal Schaefer & Schwartzkopf, Columbus, Ind. No. 6 Corn Bran 476 5.0 8.0 13.0 Corn bran Anchor Wheat Bran 477 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Acorn Wheat Middlings 2102 2.0 11.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Mixed Feed 4522 3.5 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran, middlings and ground wheat screenings Sehilt, W. F., Bremen, Ind. Chop 824 3.9 9.5 6.0 Corn, oats and rye Wheat Shorts & Screenings 6588 3.8 14.0 8.0 Wheat shorts and ground wheat screenings Wheat Bran 7971 3.7 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Schnaible Grain Company, The Matt, Lafayette, Ind. Mixed Ground Corn and Oats 3 3.0 9.0 7.0 Corn and oats Sehnell, Joseph, Schnellville, Ind. Shipstuff 7088 2.5 12.0 6.0 Wheat bran and middlings Seholl & Tieteman, Weisburg, Ind. Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings Wheat Middlings & Screenings 7679 4.0 14.0 7.0 Big Four Mixed Feed 8641 3.6 13.5 10.0 Wheat bran, shorts, corn bran and ground wheat screenings Schroeder, E. F., Crown Point, Ind . 21 Corn & Oats Chop 1356 3.5 9.0 9.0 Corn and oats Schulenborg & Donselman, Dillsboro, R. F. D. No. 3, Ind. Wheat shorts Wheat Shorts 2578 3.3 13.3 8.0 Mixed Feed 4368 3.0 12.0 10.0 Wheat bran and mill sweepings 21 Succeeded by Ernest H. Hixon TABLE VII — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917-18 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official Number 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 Schulte, W. C., Freelandville, Ind. Mixed Feed 6434 4.0 14.1 9.0 Wheat bran, shorts, ground wheat screenings, corn bran and low grade flour Wheat Bran 6435 3.6 12.0 10.0 Wheat bran Wheat Shorts 6436 4.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat shorts Schultz-Baujau & Company, Beardstown, 111, Sunbeam Middlings and Screenings 5967 4.0 15.0 9.0 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Sunbeam Bran Schultz Bros., Elberfeld, Ind. 6613 3.5 14.0 10.0 Wheat bran Wheat Bran and Screenings 3924 3.5 13.5 10.0 Wheat bran and cmshed wheat screenings Middlings Scientific Milling Company, Marion, Ind. 3925 4.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat middlings Com and Oats Chop Feed 1245 3.0 8.8 6.0 Corn and oats Mixed Bran 1.567 4.0 9.0 13.0 Wheat and corn bran Corn Bran __ 7148 3.5 7.0 10.0 Corn bran Scottsburg Milling Co., Scottsburg, Ind. Home Mixed Feed 6236 3.5 13.5 10.0 Wheat bran, middlings, whole wheat screenings and corn bran Sellars, James S., Crawfordsville, Ind. Chop Feed 5213 3.0 8.5 8.0 Corn, oats and corn feed meal Semon, F. T., Vernon, Ind. Semon’s Mixed Feed 5631 3.0 12.0 12.0 Wheat bran, shorts and corn bran Shane Bros. & Wilson Co., Hastings, Minn. Cloverleaf Bran 4925 3.7 14.0 12.6 Wheat bran Snow Ball White Middlings 4926 4.0 15.0 7.5 Wheat middlings Wheat Standard Middlings with Ground Screenings Not Exceeding Mill Run 8485 5.0 15.0 9.5 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Sheaks, Irvin, Indiana Harbor, Ind. Wheat Bran & Screenings 6511 3.5 13.5 12.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings Sheffield-King Milling Company, Minneapolis, Minn. “Fairybow” 7596 5.0 15.0 9.5 Wheat middlings and pulverized wheat screenings “Gold Mine” Feed 7599 4.5 15.0 9.9 Wheat bran, shorts, low grade wheat flour and pulverized wheat screen- ings “Whitehope” 7600 4.5 16.0 7.6 Wheat middlings and pulverized wheat screenings Low Grade 7661 4.6 16.9 1.7 Low grade wheat flour Fancy “Brodflake” Sheldon & Company, Angola, Ind. 7602 3.5 13.5 12.7 Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings Wheat Bran & Ground Wheat Screenings 6484 1 3.0 13.0 12.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings Wheat Middlings & Ground Wheat Screenings 6485 3.5 14.0 10.0 Wheat middlings and ground wheat screenings Shellabarger Elevator Company, Decatur, 111. Feed Meal 8593 3.0 9.0 6.0 Corn feed meal Shellabarger Mill & Elevator Co., The, Salina, Kansas. Bran & Screenings 5820 3.0 •16.0 11.0 Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings Wheat Brown Shorts & Screenings 8678 1 1 3.0 16.0 6.5 Wheat brown shorts and ground wheat screenings and cleanings not to exceed 8% 262 TABLE VII — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917-18 (continued) LABEL Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain V (U 0) -H ■g S ® 0) iz; fto 1 1 .S a; o O §3 S :z; fto © .tS 2 S8^ Ogg % fto and to be composed of the following ingredients Sheridan Milling Co., Sheridan, Ind .22 Corn Bran Wheat Bran 3232 5595 3.5 2.8 8.0 13.0 14.0 10.0 Wheat Shorts 5506 1.7 11.0 6.0 Shetterly Bros., Lapel, Ind. 2644 Bran and Middlings 3.0 14.0 10.0 Shine & Co., John H., New Albany, Ind. Star Peed 863 4.0 14.0 8.0 Wheat Bran __ 2086 3.8 14.0 10.0 Star Middlings 5457 4.0 14.0 7.0 Star "Peed Meal ... 5007 2.5 7.0 5.0 Corn Bran 6677 5.0 8.0 18.0 Simmerman, Jacob, Eaton, Ind. Chop Feed 5722 3.4 8.7 9.0 Sims Co-Operative Grain Company, Sims, Ind. Chop Feed 8407 3.2 8.8 11.0 Sims Milling Company, Frankfort, Ind. Wheat Bran _ 6308 3.7 14.0 10.0 Wheat Shorts 6304 4.0 14.0 8.0 Chop Feed 6723 3.0 9.0 8.0 Corn Bran 6926 3.5 8.0 13.0 Slick & Company, L. E., Bloomington, 111. Safety First Corn By-Product 8382 6.0 10.0 8.0 Small & Company, Inc., W. H., Evansville, Ind. Com Bran 4447 3.0 6.0 15.0 Feed Meal _ 4537 1.0 7.0 17.0 smith, A. S., Flint, Ind. Wheat Bran _.. _ _ . 1660 3.8 14.0 10.0 Wheat Middling'S 1661 4.0 14.0 7.0 Smith, D. R., Tipton, Ind. Corn Bran 1543 5.0 8.0 13.0 Chop Feed 1 3016 3.5 9.0 6.0 Mixed Feed 4081 3.0 14.0 6.5 Snell Mill & Grain Company, The, Clay Center Kans. Wheat Bran 4567 3.5 14.0 13.0 Wheat Shorts . 4568 4.0 17.0 6.0 Snoddy, M. W., R. F. D. No. 1, Covington, Ind. Wheat Bran and Screenings 1071' 3.5 13.0 10.0 Bran and Middlings _ . 4717 3.0 14.0 9.5 Wheat Jdiddlings 4718 2.5 13.0 8.0 Southwestern Milling Co., Inc., Kansas City, Mo. Pure Wheat Bran 7952 4.0 14.5 10.2 lure Wheat Brown Shorts 7953 4.2 15.0 8.0 Pure Gray Shorts 7954 3.8 15.0 6.7 Pure Fancy White Middlings 7955 2.5 14.0 4.2 Pure Wheat Mixed Feed 7056 4.0 14.5 9.0 Sparks Milling Company, Alton, El. 8.0 Try Me Bran and Screenings 6778 3.5 15.0 Try Me Mixed Feed 7687 3.5 16.0 9.0 Corn bran Wheat bran Wheat shorts Wheat bran and middlings Wheat bran, middlings and ground wheat screenings Wheat bran Wheat middlings Corn feed meal Corn bran Corn, oats and corn feed meal Corn and oats Wheat bran Wheat shorts Corn, oats and corn feed meal Corn bran Corn feed meal (by-product from manufacture of table meal and grits by the degerminating process) Corn bran Corn feed meal Wheat bran Wheat middlings Corn bran Corn and oats Wheat bran, shorts and middlings Wheat bran Wheat shorts Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings Wheat bran and middlings Wheat middlings Wheat bran Wheat shorts Wheat shorts and white middlings Wheat white middlings Wheat bran, shorts and white mid- dlings Wheat bran and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run Wheat bran, middlings and ground wheat screenings not exceeding mill run 22 Succeeded by Mendenhall & Weaver 263 TABLE VII — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917-18 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official Number 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 Sparks Milling Company, Terre Haute, Ind. 2Y74 4.0 14.0 7.0 Wheat middlings Wheat bran and ground wnear screenings Wheat bran, middlings and ground wheat screenings Wheat bran, middlings, corn bran and ground wheat screenings not to exceed mill run Wheat bran, corn bran and ground wheat screenings not to exceed mill run Wheat middlings, ground wheat screenings and com feed meal Wheat bran, wheat middlings, ground wheat sereenings, corn bran and corn feed meal Com bran 2776 3.5 14.0 11.0 ■Wattash Mixfid "Pfied 3011 3.5 14.0 11.0 Spink Milling Company, The, Washington, Ind. IVfixt T'f'fid 6332 3.5 12.5 10.0 Bran and Ground Screenings Not to Exceed Mill Run . _ 6507 3.5 12.0 10.0 .Einp Mivpd Mill Eppd 8137 3.5 14.0 10.0 Springs Valley Milling Co., The, French Lick, Ind. Vallpy Mi^pd Feed 6076 3.0 11.0 11.0 Stader, Frank E., Evansville, Ind. Corn Bran 6343 5.0 8.0 15.0 StadRr’., V 2 % salt, molasses 7212 3.0 12.0' 4.0 Gentian root, iron sulphate (cop- peras), mustard seed, wheat, corn, hulled oats, wheat middlings, bone, evaporated buttermilk 4640 2.0 5.0 6.0 African ginger, fenugreek seed, blood root, American Venetian red, sul- phur, wood ashes, mustard bran, ground flaxseed 4641 4.0 5.0 11.0' African ginger, gentian root, blood root, black antimony, sassafras bark, rosin, iron sulphate, sulphur, charcoal, wood ashes, ground flax- seed, saltpeter 750] 0.0 0.0 7.0 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, saltpeter, cop- peras, horse medley, bicarbonate of soda, ginger, blood root, black pep- per, flowers of sulphur, tobacco dust, wood ashes, salt, ground flax- seed 8723 5.0 5.0' 15. C 6271 5.0 10.5 12.7 Poplar bark, Epsom salt, spearmint, salt, carbonate of iron, nitre (salt- peter), elecampane, ginger, pepper, sulphur, poke root, boneset, asa- fetida, gentian, fenugreek, althaea, Peruvian bark, life root, queen of the meadows, water pepper, bone meal 4973 10.0 6.5 10.0 Ginger, gentian, capsicum, Venetian red, sulphur, charcoal, cantharides, flaxseed meal 4585 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sodium chloride, sodium sulphate, so- dium bicarbonate, sulphur, iron sul- phate, fenugreek, black antimony, gentian-, ginger, potassium nitrate, potassium bitartrate, asafetida, capsicum, Venetian red, bone meal, wheat shorts, linseed oil cake 334 TABLE VII — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917-18 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official Number 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 Empire Drug Store, Indianapolis, Ind. Empire Stock and Poultry Powder Feed Products Milling Company, Chicago, 111. 2904 4.0 10.0 10.0 Elecampane, fenugreek, juniper ber- ries, coriander seed, gentian, valer- ian, blood root, lobelia, mandrake, poplar bark, black mustard, rosin, licorice root, ginger, sodium sulfate, sodium chloride, sodium carbonate, sulphur, iron sulphate, potassium nitrate, black antimony, alum, flax- seed meal, linseed meal Polo Stock Feed Fleck, J. J., Tiffin, Ohio. 8356 2.5 10.0 9.0 Oats, wheat bran, wheat middlings, corn gluten feed, corn feed meal, oat middlings, oat shorts, oat hulls Flecks Poultry Powder Furst-McNess Company, Freeport, 111. 4520 0.0 0.0 i 9.0 Fenugreek, sassafras, sage leaves, bayberry bark, Venetian red, cay- enne pepper, bicarbonate of soda, sulphate of magnesia, mustard bran, bone meal, oyster shells F. W. McNess Poultry Tonic _ 6982 9.6 4.8 12.9 Gentian, quassia, ginger, capsicum, copperas, sulphur, charcoal, Vene- tian red, oyster shell and wheat mid- dlings F. W. McNess Stock Food _ German Reliable Medicine Co., Decatur, Ind. 8044 8.2 13.5 12.4 Capsicum, coriander, ginger, quassia, fenugreek, areca nut, sulphur, sul- phate of iron, potassium nitrate, sodium sulphate, salt, charcoal, wheat middlings German Reliable Stock Food _ Gieger-Fishback Co., The, Indianapolis, Ind. 6737 0.6 10.0 5.0 Fenugreek, elecampane, gentian, blood root, sulphur, wood ashes, salt, sugar, ground flaxseed meal, wheat middlings Hog Feed _ Gifford, Charlie, Russiaville, Ind. 6369 1.5 7.0' 2.0 Bicarbonate of soda, phosphate of lime, salt, wheat flour, corn flour, rice flour Giffords Stock 'I’onic and Worm Expeller Golden Drop Medicine Company, Chrisney, Ind. 8712 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sulphate of iron, nux vomica, horse medley, sulphur, magnesium sul- phate, Spanish brown, sodium chlo- ride Peerless Poultry Powder __ Guarantee Food Company of Pennsylvania, 6041 0.5 3.0 3.0 Copperas, copper sulphate, capsicum, Venetian red, nitrate of potassium, w^heat shorts Lewisburg, Pa, Keystone Stock Conditioner Hale, G. S., Fort Wayne, Ind. 8478 0.0 0.0 0.0 Flowers of sulphur, copperas, Epsom salt, fenugreek, gentian, African ginger, Bombay capsicum, ground cocoa shells, buckwheat hulls Hale’s Spanish Poultry Powder Harlan Products Company, Indianapolis, Ind. 750 3.7 14.0 10.0 Frumentum powder (corn meal), sul- phur, Venetian red, black antimony, capsicum Harlan Stock Regulator 8514 4.5 25.0' 6.5 Gentian, fenugreek, sulphur, san- guinaria, carbo ligni, asafetida, po- tassium tartrate, ginger, mandrake, populus alba, sodium chloride, lin- seed oil meal Harlan Poultry Regulator Heitman Bros., Holland, Ind. 8558 4.5 25.0 6.5 Gentian, fenugreek, sulphur, san- guinaria, carbo ligni, asafetida, po- tassium tartrate, ginger, mandrake, populus alba, sodium chloride, oys- ter shell, linseed oil meal H. B. Poultry Remedy and Egg Producer 5006 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 H. B. Horse and Cattle Powder Henderson «fc Co., W. D., Fort Wayne, Ind. 5007 1.0 7.0 5.0 Sulphur, Glauber’s salt, bicarbonate of soda, Jamaica ginger, fenugreek, black antimony, salt, linseed meal Atlas Medicated Stock Salt 4839 0.0 0.0 10.0 Fenugreek, copperas, gentian root, rosin, chalk, saltpeter, salt, char- coal, linseed oil meal 335 TABLE VII — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917-18 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official Number 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 Herb Medicine Company, The, Springfield, Ohio. Lightning Horse Cattle & Poultry Powders.. 5251 0.0 0.0 6.0 Fenugreek, sulphur, saltpeter, Epsom Hess & Clark, Dr. Ashland, Ohio. Dr. Hess Poultry Pan-a-ce-a 7758 1.0 2.0 26.0 salt, rosin, flaxseed meal, linseed oil cake meal Quassia, nux vomica, potassium ni- Dr. Hess Stock Tonic 7759 1.0 2.0 24.0 trate, calcium carbonate, sodium hyposulphite, sodium chloride, iron sulphate, iron oxide, fine ground cottonseed hulls Quassia, nux vomica, charcoal, potas- Hog Joy System, Springfield, 111. Gro-Past ... 7446 0.0 0.0 0.0 sium nitrate, sodium sulphate, mag- nesium sulphate, sodium chloride, iron sulphate, fenugreek, fine ground cottonseed hulls Vegetable ash containing silica, iron. Illinois Stock Food Co., The, Paris, 111. Illinois Stock Food 3086 5.0 15.0 7.0 alumina, calcium, magnesium, sul- phur, sodium, potassium, phos- phorus compounds Sulphur, ginger, sulphate of iron Indispensable Chemical Company, Kokomo, Ind. Indispensable Condition Powder 7936 0.0 O.OI 10.0 (copperas), sodium hypo phosphite, charcoal, sugar, wheat middlings, linseed meal Gentian, sulphur, sodium chloride. International Stock Food Company, Minneapolis, Minn. International Medicinal Poultry Food Tonic.. 6378 0.0 0.0 34.2 copperas, lime, anise, charcoal, ash, Epsom salt Sassafras, gentian, copperas, calcium International Medicinal Stock Food Tonic 7940 0.0 0.0 20.0 carbonate, mustard, ginger, char- coal, magnesium carbonate, poplar bark, capsicum, quassia, mustard bran Saltpeter, gentian, mustard, ginger. Iowa City Food & Remedy Co., Iowa City, Iowa. Iowa City Stock Tonic _. — 5550 6.9 28.3 7.5 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 Gentian, ginger, fenugreek, anise seed, licorice, charcoal, salt, linseed meal Gentian,, ginger, copperas, Colombo, K. & B. Medicine Company, Kirklin, Ind. K. & B. Hog Tonic 8349 4.0 14.0 13.0 Komo Manufacturing Company, Knightstown, Ind. Komo Hog Tonic 6178 3.0 3.0 6.0 madder, sulphur, wood charcoal, sodium bi-carbonate, saltpeter, Ep- som salt, Glauber’s salt, salt, lin- seed meal American worm seed, Glaubers’ 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, elecampane, caraway seed, anise seed, fennel seed, worm seed, areca, St. John’s bread (carob beans), sodium sulphate, sulphur, flaxseed meal, corn meal, wheat middlings Gentian, fenugreek, black antimony. Kurtz-Bronson Medicine Company, Kirklin, Ind.^s K & B Stock Conditioner 3886 5.0 14.0 9.5 K. & B. Poultry Tonic and Egg Producer 4357 5.0 14.0 6.5 asafetida, ginger, copperas, san- guinaria, mandrake, columbo, pop- lar bark, madder, sulphur, wood eharcoal, potassium bitartrate, Glauber’s salt, salt, linseed cake Gentian, ginger, capsicum, fenugreek. cantharides, Venetian red, sulphur, Epsom salt, linseed oil cake, beef scraps, blood meal and bone meal ^2 Succeeded by K. & B. Medicine Co. 336 TABLE VII — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917-18 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official Number 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 King- Company, The, Rockford, 111. King Poultry Tonic 7945 3.6 8.1 11.5 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 and bran) King Stock Tonic Klein-Lambert Company, The, Chicago, (Blue Island), 111. 7946 2.0 7.3 15.7 Sulphate of iron, gentian root, ele- campane root, salts of tartar, gin- ger root, mandrake root, cascara sagrada bark, fenugreek seed, Amer- ican w'orm seed, 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 and bran) 0. K. Stock Food 5998 5.0 i [ 25.0 12.0 Gentian, fenugreek, sodium chloride, linseed meal, charcoal 0. K. Poultry Food Krause Milling Company, Chas. A., 5999 5.0 ; 25.0 8.0 Gentian, fenugreek, sodium chloride, subcarbonate of iron, wheat mid- dlings, linseed meal, charcoal Milwaukee, Wis. Badger Stock Feed Lancaster, Dills, Brattain & Co., Greencastle, Ind. 8560 4.5 j 10.0 12.0 Corn, corn germ meal, hominy feed, maizo (corn), reddog flour, oat middlings, oat shorts, oat hulls, salt 0. D. Shover’s Poultry Pow’der 7560 0.0 0.0 2.0 Fenugreek, black antimony, Spanish brown, blood root, sulphur, salt, old process linseed oil meal Shover’s Stock Food Lee Company, Geo. H., Omaha, Neb. 8307 0.0 i 0.0 2.0 Fenugreek, black antimony, Spanish brown, blood root, sulphur, salt, linseed oil meal Lee’s Best Conditioner 4526 2.0 25.0 10.0 Gentian, ginger, fenugreek, sulphur, anise, licorice, rhubarb, cayenne, po- tassium nitrate (saltpeter), iron sul- phate (copperas), charcoal, salt, corn germ meal, linseed meal Lee’s Stock Tonic 4527 5.0 15.0 10.0 Gentian, ginger, anise, licorice, rhu- barb, copperas, cayenne, charcoal, soda bicarbonate, Glaubers’ salt, salt, corn germ meal, linseed meal Lees Egg Maker LeGear Medicine Company, Dr. L. D., St. Louis, Mo. 5258 2.0 30.0 5.0 Potassium nitrate, sodium sulphate, ginger, gentian, fenugreek, iron sul- phate, cayenne, salt, sulphur, char- coal, granulated blood, linseed meal Dr. LeGear’s Poultry Powder 8135 3.0 4.0 50.0 Ginger, charcoal, salt, capsicum, iron sulphate, ground oyster shell, palmo meal (composed of ground wheat middlings, ground peanut hulls, palm oil) Dr. LeGear’s Stock Powders Lewis Waukarusha Stock Food Co., The, Lee, Ind. 8136 3.0 4.0 50.0 Charcoal, salt, sodium nitrate, fennel seed, ginger, sodium bi-carbonate, iron sulphate, quassia, nux vomica, palmo meal (composed of ground wheat middlings, ground peanut hulls, palm oil) Wakarusha Stock Food Ludwig Remedy Company, St. Louis, Mo. 1090 5.5 32.0 11.0 Sulphur, resin, sulphate of iron, salt- peter, oil meal Appe Tona Medicated Stock Conditioner 7606 3.5 10.4 9.0 Nux vomica, gentian, anise, fenu- greek, potassium nitrate, copperas, sulphur, charcoal, salt, alfalfa meal, cottonseed meal Appe-Tona Poultry Conditioner 7607 6.0 16.7 14.0 Nux vomica, capsicum, potassium ni- trate, copperas, calcium hydrate, sulphur, charcoal, salt, alfalfa, cot- tonseed meal 337 TABLE \7ll — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917-18 (continued) Guaranteed I LABEL Official Number Not less than per cent. Crude Fat Not less than per cent. Crude Protein Not more than per cent. Crude Fiber Maple City Stock Food Co., LaPorte, Ind. Maple city Poultry Food & Conditioner 3207 3.3 17.5 9.2 Maple City Stock Food & Conditioner 4705 1.0 6.0 4.0 Moorman Manufacturing Company, Quincy, 111. Moorman’s Concentrated Horse Powder 5958 6.6 12.6 5.8 Moorman’s Special Cattle Powder 5959 8.2 18.3 7.5 McCrillus Medical Company, Muncie, Ind. McCrillus’ Stock Powders 5088 0.0 0.0 2.0 McCrillus’ Poultry Tonic 5989 0.0 0.0 2.0 Peelle Food Co., The, Frankfort, Ind. Peelle’s Poultry Powder and Improved Egg Producer 474 5.4 31.2 12.2 Peelle’s Stock Conditioner 475 5.6 31.5 12.0 Pratt Food 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 6026 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 Prussian Remedy Co., St. Paul, Minn. Prussian Stock Tonic 1713 3.0 10. 0i 12.0 and to be composed of the following ingredients Carbonate of iron, anise seed, Afri- can ginger, mustard, salt, sulphur, licorice root, willow charcoal, ashes, alfalfa meal, meat meal Potassium nitrate, sulphur, apocy- mum, 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 corn cereal foods Ginger, gentian, fenugreek, tamarae 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 Fenugreek, gentian, willow charcoal, sulphur, capsicum, African ginger, sodium phosphate, oyster shells, prineess metallic, linseed meal Gentian, asafetida, fenugreek, willow charcoal, sulphur, African ginger, poplar bark, cream of tartar, Glauber’s salt, sodium chloride, blood root, linseed 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, 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) Gentian, anise seed, fenugreek, sul- phur, elecampane, ginger, asafetida, charcoal, sodium sulphate, sassa- fras, licorice root, capsicum, cheni- podium, curcuma, wheat shorts, rye shorts, ground flaxseed screenings 338 TABLE VII — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917-18 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official Number 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 Co., St. Paul, Minn. Prussian Poultry Tonic 1077 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 flax- seed screenings Prussian Horse Tonic Pure Drug Co., Blooniingdale, Ind. 4706 3.5 11.0 8.0 i 1 Gentian, ginger, fenugreek, elecam- pane, anise seed, sassafras, licorice root, chenipodium, curcuma, asa- fetida, 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 Rawleigh Company, The W. T., Freeport, 111. Rawleighs Poultry Powder 6905 9.2 16.1 27.6 Ginger, fenugreek, quassia, capsicum, copperas, sulphur, charcoal, oyster shells, ground bone, tankage, wheat middlings Rawleighs Stock Tonic ^ Roberts Veterinary Co., Dr. David, Waukesha, Wis. 6996 6.6 10.8 10.6 j Fenugreek, gentian, ginger, capsicum, quassia, anise seed, sulphur, char- coal, sodium chloride, sodium phos- phate, ferrous sulphate, worm seed, wheat middlings Dr. David Roberts Calf Meal 6023 7.0 25.0 6.5 Sassafras, salt, chalk, charcoal, lo- cust bean meal, blood meal, flaxseed oil cake meal, oat meal Dr. David Roberts Hog Tonic 6216 2.5 10.0 10.0 Anise, fenugreek, gentian, licorice, nitrate of potash (saltpeter), sul- phate of iron (copperas), charcoal, corn starch, corn meal Dr. David Roberts Poultry Tonic Rust & Sons, William, New Brunswick, N. J. 6217 5.5 31.0 7.6 Gentian, ginger, fenugreek, sassafras, licorice, anise, capsicum, sulphur, sulphate of iron (copperas), nitrate of potash (saltpeter), salt, blood meal, bone meal, cottonseed meal, linseed meal, corn starch, corn meal Rust’s Haven Climax Powder 5013 2.0 5.9 25.0 Red cinchona, quassia, capsicum, fen- nel, gentian, sodium bicarbonate, sulphur, linseed meal Rust’s Egg Producer Shores-Muellcr Company, Cedar Rapids, Iowa. 5014 1.0 10.0 15.0 Capsicum, quassia, sulphur, iron sul- phate, sodium bicarbonate, char- coal, bone shells, flaxseed Shores Hog Powder 4886 6.6 14.3 14.1 Gentian root, anise seed, fenugreek seed, sassafras bark, quassia, mag- nesium sulphate, charcoal, potas- sium nitrate, sulphur, sodium chlo- ride, dried blood, ground flax and wheat screenings Shores Stock Regulator - 4887 7.2 13.8 I Gentian root, ginger root, licorice root, fenugreek seed, anise seed, worm seed, coriander seed, sassafras bark, quassia, capsicum, magnesium sulphate, charcoal, potassium ni- trate, sulphur, sulphate of iron, so- dium chloride, ground flax and wheat screenings Shores Stock Tonic 4888 7.0 9.5 11.5 Gentian root, ginger root, licorice root, fenugreek seed, anise seed, quassia, capsicum, magnesium sul- phate, charcoal, sulphate of iron, sulphur, sodium chloride, ground flax and wheat screenings 339 TABLE VII — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale In 1917-18 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official Number 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 Shores Mueller Company, Cedar Rapids, Iowa. • Shores Poultry Powder Shrader Drug Co., Iowa City, Iowa. 4880 3.6 12.3 12.5 Gentian root, fenugreek seed, nux vomica, capsicum, sulphate of iron, iron oxide, sulphur, sodium carbo- nate, charcoal, sodium chloride, dried blood, shells, ground flax and wheat screenings Eureka Stock Food 756 6.7 30.2 9.5 Anise, blood root, charcoal, fenu- greek, gentian, ginger, licorice, lin- seed meal, salt Eureka Poultry Food Snoddy Remedy Co., The Dr. J. H., Alton, 111. 1262 5.0 17.6 6.1 Bone meal, gentian, fenugreek, blood root, capsicum, wheat middlings, buckwheat middlings, carbonate of iron The Snoddy Remedy Soudan Specialty Mfg. Co., Milwaukee, Wis. 6296 0.5 11.6 8.3 Sulphur, copper sulphate, arsenic tri- oxide, charcoal, phytolacca (poke root), sodium sulphate, ammonium chloride, mandrake, w’heat middlings Soudan Blood Toner Standard Chemical Manufacturing Company, Omaha, Neb. 6199 5.0 17.0 6.0 Gentian, ginger, fenugreek, anise seed, elecampane, elm bark, sodium bicarbonate, charcoal, salt, wheat middlings, ground flax screenings Standard Stock Food 5172 0.0 0.0 15.0 Caraway seed, anise seed, coriander seed, fenugreek seed, capsicum, gen- tian root, yellow dock root, ginger root, licorice root, sulphur, bicarbo- nate of soda, salt, charcoal, ground wheat screenings Standard Poultry Tonic Stevens Stock Food Co., Wabash, Ind. 7587 0.0 0.0 18.0 Ginger root, capsicum, gentian root, charcoal, salt, bone meal, dried blood, alfalfa meal, peanut meats, peanut hulls Stevens Stock Food _ Stock Food Company of America, Minneapolis, Minn. 1000 3.0 12.0 0.0 Gentian, sassafras bark, buchu- leaves, nitrate of potash, sodium chloride, willow charcoal, fenugreek, wheat middlings Clover Brand Poultry Tonic Union Stock Food Company, Greenville, Tenn. 4489 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gentian, capsicum, ginger, charcoal, copperas, anise, bone meal, oyster shells, alfalfa meal Union Stock Tonic United States Food Company, The, Pleasant City, Ohio. 5232 0.0 0.0 18.0 Epsom salt, fenugreek, anise seed, sulphur, salt, charcoal, tobacco dust, ground cottonseed hulls U. S. Poultry Food Tonic 6441 0.0 0.0 16.0 Ginger, sulphur, Epsom salt, Vene- tian red, gentian root, fenugreek, copperas, salt, ground flax screen- ings U. S. Animal Regulator 6443 0.0 0.0 12.0 Charcoal, copperas, fenugreek, sul- phur, gentian root, ginger, Epsom salt, saltpeter, American wormseed, salt, ground flax screenings U. S. Stock Food Tonic Universal Products Co., Fairmont, West Virginia. 7493 0.0 0.0 12.0 Gentian root, blood root, Epsom salt, ginger, sulphur, poplar bark, licorice root, charcoal, fenugreek, salt, copperas, quassia, flax screen- ings Uproco Poultry Tonic 7698 0.0 3.5 3.0 Mustard, (sinapis alba) capsicum, Venetian red, sulphate of iron, cal- cium carbonate, sodium chloride, oyster shells, wheat bran, wheat middlings Uproco Horse & Cattle Powders United Breeders Co. of America, Syracuse, N. T. 7699 0.0 3.5 3.0 Sodium chloride, nux vomica, rosin, sulphur, ginger, copperas, fenugreek, digitalis, senna, charcoal, wheat bran, wheat middlings Baum’s Cattle Tonic _ _ 2069 1.0 1.0 10.0 Serpentaria, cascara sagrada, gen- tian, mustard seed, sulphur, mag- nesium sulphate, sodium bicarbo- nate, nitre, charcoal, sodium chlo- ride, licorice root, ginger, capsicum, yellow dock, Colombo, linseed meal 340 TABLE VII — Brands Certified by Manufacturers as Being on Sale in 1917-18 (continued) Guaranteed by the manufacturer to contain LABEL Official Number 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 Breeders Co. of America, Syracuse, N. T. Baum’s Sheep Tonic" 3448 1.0 1.0 10.0 Gentian, zedoary, galega, sulphate of magnesia, wormseed, sage, bicarbo- nate of soda, sulphur, chloride of sodium, ginger, capsicum, mustard seed, charcoal, linseed meal Baum’s Poultry Tonic 4216 1.0 1.0 10.0 Ginger, cayenne pepper, anise, gen- tian, mustard seed, sulphur, sul- phate of iron, bicarbonate of soda, carbonate of iron, Colombo, n\ix vomica, charcoal, linseed meal Gentian, ginger, capsicum, anise, mustard seed, galega, pipsissewa, stillingia, licorice root, yellow dock, nitre, sulphate of magnesia, bicar- bonate of soda, sulphate of iron, sulphur, charcoal, chloride of sodi- um, sugar, linseed meal Baum’s Dairy Tonic 4216 1.0 1 1.0 10.0 1 Baum’s Horse Tonic 4217 1.0 1.0 10.0 Ginger, gentian, capsicum, anise, mustard seed, worm seed, spigelia, elecampane, nux vomica, cascara sagrada, licorice root, sulphate of magnesia, sulphate of iron, carbo- nate of iron, bicarbonate of soda, chloride of sodium, nitre, charcoal, sugar, linseed meal Baum’s Hog Tonic Watkins Medical Co., The J. R., Winona, Minn. 4218 1.0 1.0 10.0 Gentian, ginger, mustard seed, anise, berberis aquifolium, spigelia, worm- seed, areca, hyposulphite of soda, bicarbonate of soda, chloride of so- dium, sulphate of magnesia, sul- phur, nitre, charcoal, sugar, linseed meal Watkins Stock Tonic 5808 3.0 i 10.0 9.0 1 j Anise seed, areca nuts, cascara sa- grada, charcoal, capsicum, corian- der seed, elecampane root, fenugreek 1 seed, gentian root, ginger root, juni- per berries, mandrake root, worm seed, pumpkin seed, sulphate of iron, sodium chloride, sodium bicar- bonate, American sulphur, salts of tartar, linseed meal, standard wheat middlings Watkins Poultry Tonic Whelan, Omer G., Richmond, Ind. 5936 2.5 7.0 6.0 Venetian red, American sulphur, Afri- can ginger, Spanish flies, gentian root, capsicum, ground shells, standard wheat middlings Whelan’s Chop Peed Wilbur Stock Pood Co., Milwaukee, Wis. 7933 4.0 12.0 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, cottonseed meal, corn gluten feed, corn germ meal Wilbur’s Stock Tonic 5691 3.0 17.0 6.0 Fenugreek, gentian, ginger, anise seed, elecampane, blood root, elm bark, quassia, soda, charcoal, salt, wheat middlings Wilbur’s Poultry Tonic 5692 3.0 17.0 6.0 Fenugreek, gentian, ginger, anise seed, elecampane, blood root, elm bark, quassia, soda, Venetian red, charcoal, salt, wheat middlings Wilbur’s Hog Tonic 6619 2.0 10.0 1 10.0 Fenugreek, gentian, ginger, anise seed, elecampane, blood root, elm bark, quassia, bi-carbonate of soda, charcoal, salt, wheat middlings, ground flax screenings 341 INDEX Page Attention, consumers, ag nts, dealers 47 Cooperation with U. S. Department of Agriculture 43 Explanation of terms 10 Definition and description of feeding stuffs. 13 Details of inspection 19 Indiana Deeding Stuff Law- Administration 8 Analyses 9 Analytical methods 10 Inspections, requests for 9 Objects 3 Official methods 10 Provisions summarized 4 Reports 9 Samples 8 Weights 10 and 6 Shipments removed from sale 40 Digestible nutrients in feeding stuffs 11 Page Cases reported 43 Rebates 40 Remarks to agents, dealers, distributors 5 Remarks to consumers 7 Remarks to manufacturers 4 Results of enforcement 45 State Chemist’s label, reproduction 8 Sales of feeding stuffs 44 Tables— Explanation of — . 46 Table I Coefficients of digestibility 12 II Summary of results of inspec- tion 22 III Average complete analyses 30 IV Details of inspection 48 V Samples examined microscopic- ally only 199 VI Shipments removed from sale... 207 VII Brands certified on sale 1917-18.. 227 CONTENTS OF TABLES Average complete analysis Summary results inspection Definition and description Details inspection Registra- tion Alfalfa meal 31 25 16 116 288-290 Animal by-products 31-33 26 16 117-123 290-294 Brewers’ dried grains ... ... 35 26 15 141 284-285 Calf meals 39 29 17 164 310-311 Cocoanut by-products 33 26 19 123 277 Condimental feeds . 17 331-339 Condimental poultry feeds, registered.. 29 194-196 Condimental poultry feeds, not regis- tered 29 197-198 Condimental stock feeds, registered 29 190-192 Condimental stock feeds, not registered 29 * 192-194 Corn feed meal 33 26 14 125-127 226-270 Corn germ meal 33 26 14 127-128 286 Corn gluten feed 33 26 14 128-129 285 Corn gluten meal 33 26 14 129 Cottonseed, cold pressed 35 26 15 140-141 281 Cottonseed feed 34 26 15 131 281 Cottonseed hulls 281 Cottonseed m,eal 34-35 26 15 132-140 277-281 Distillers’ dried grains 35 26 14 141-142 283-284 Dried beet pulp 33 26 16 123 288 Hominy meal, feed or chop . 33-34 26 14 129-131 286-288 Linseed meal 35-36 26 14-15 143-145 282-283 Malt sprouts .. 35 26 16 143 285 Miscellaneous 39 29 206 Oat middlings 31 25 16 116 Poultry and scratch feeds 311-331 Mash 39 29 17-18 165-169 Without grit 39 29 17-18 169-180 With grit 39 29 17-18 180-190 Proprietary stock and molasses feeds 36-39 26-29 17 146-165 294-310 Screenings oil feed .. 283 Tinplate cleaning by-products . 36 26 17 145 303 Unscreened flaxseed oil feed 36 26 15 145 283 Velvet bean products . Yeast and vinegar grains "35 ”26 ”18 ’143 283 Mill by-products 226-270 Buckwheat mixed feed 30 24 14 101-102 226-270 Chop feeds containing cob meal or 1 other fillers 31 25 17 110 271-272 Chop feeds containing crushed ear corn 31 24-25 102-115 270-271 Chop feeds containing corn bran : 31 24-25 107-112 272-276 Chop feed miscellaneous 1 31 24-25 102-116 270-272 Corn bran 1 33 26 14 123-125 226-270 Corn red dog flour 33 26 127 226-270 Corn and oats feed ._ — . 1 31 24 102-106 226-270 Corn, oats and corn feed meal 1 31 25 112-114 226-270 Low grade Hour i 30 22 75 226-270 Mixtures miscellaneous mill by-products I 30 22-24 17 75-102 226-270 Red dog flour 1 30 22 13 74-75 226-270 342 INDEX (continued) CONTENTS OP TABLES Average complete analysis Summary results inspection Definition and description Details inspection Registra- tion Mill by-products ^continued) 226-270 Rye bran and middlings 30 ' 24 ”l4 ioi 226-270 Rye middlings 30 24 14 101 226-270 Rye middlings and screenings 30 24 14 101 226-270 Wheat bran 30 22 13 48-55 226-270 Wheat bran, corn bran 30 22 88-89 226-270 Wheat bran, corn bran, wheat screen- ings — 30 22 89-92 226-270 Wheat bran and middlings _ 30 22 81-84 226-270 Wheat bran, middlings and chaff 22 87-88 226-270 Wheat bran, middlings, cleanings 22 87 226-270 Wheat bran, middlings, corn bran.. .. 30 22 92-93 226-270 Wheat bran, middlings, corn bran, screenings ^ 30 23 93-97 226-270 Wheat bran, middlings, corn bran, screenings, salt 30 23 97 226-270 Wheat bran, middlings, low grade flour 30 _ _ 226-270 Wheat bran, middlings, screenings 30 22 84-87 226-270 Wheat bran, middlings, screenings, cleanings 22 87 226-270 Wheat bran, middlings, screenings, salt Wheat bran and screenings ”30 22 87 226-270 30 22 14 55-61 226-270 Wheat middlings or shorts (standard). 30 22 13 61-74 226-270 Wheat middlings, corn red dog flour... 30 24 100 226-270 Wheat middlings, low grade flour 23 99 226-270 Wheat middlings, low grade flour, screenings 30 23 99 226-270 Wheat middlings, red dog flour, screenings 30 23 99 226-270 Wheat and rye middlings 23 100 226-270 Wheat middlings and screenings 30 22 75-81 226-270 Wheat middlings, screenings, salt 30 k . _ 100 226-270 Wheat white middlings 30 22 13 74 226-270 PURDUE UNIVERSITY Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 210 February, 1918 Fig. 1. Corn on Bedford experiment field, 1&17. Each shock is the produce of one- twentieth acre No treatment 32.1 bushels corn per acre Manure 41.0 bushels corn per acre Lime and manure Lime, manure and 48.5 bushels com phosphorus per acre 62.0 bushels corn per acre THE VALUE OF PHOSPHATES 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 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....lNDiANA Horticultural Society ADMINISTRATION Charles G. Woodbury, M. S., Director Harry J. Reed Assistant to the Director Nellie Tracy Administrative Assistant Mary K. Bloom BookkeepeT 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., B. S Associate in Dairy Chemistry Harry M. Wueter, 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.® State Chemist Edward G. Proulx, M. S.^.. Acting State Chemist Reuben O. Bitler, B. S...... Deputy State Chemist Paul B. Curtis, B. S.- Deputy State Chemist Omar W. Ford, A. B.^ Deputy State Chemist Mary J. Minton, B. S.^ Assistant Microscopist State Chemist’s Department Herman J. Nimitz, B. S. 2. .Deputy State Chemist J. Howard Roop, B. S,-.... Deputy State Chemist Samuel F. Thornton, B. S.- Deputy State Chemist Otis S. Roberts, B. S.2 Chief Inspector State Chemist’s Department Glenn G. Carter, B. S.^ Inspector State Chemist’s Department Benjamin F. Catherwood^ 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 THE VALUE OF PHOSPHATES ON INDIANA SOILS A. T. WlANCKO S. C. Jone:s SUMMARY Available phosphates are the most profitable fertilizers for ordinary Indiana soils. In the experiments reported in this bulletin, acid phosphate has given the best results. Basic slag and steamed bone meal have also given good results, standing next to acid phosphate in profitableness. Rock phosphate has given good results in certain cases, although it has been the least profitable of any of the phosphates used. On the Scottsburg field, acid phosphate used alone has given the largest returns. Where acid and rock phosphates have been used on limed land, the returns per acre have been about equal, but considering the cost of the applications, the acid phosphate has been the most profit- able. Where rock phosphate has been used in addition to manure, it has not produced profitable returns. On the North Vernon and Worthington fields, where acid and rock phosphates have been used in addition to lime and manure, the acid phosphate has produced returns averaging over three times as large as those secured from the rock phosphate. On the South Bend field, where acid phosphate, steamed bone meal and rock phosphate have been used in addition to lime and manure, the acid phosphate and bone meal have produced profitable returns, while the rock phosphate has been used at a loss. On the Bedford field, where acid and rock phosphates have been used on otherwise untreated land, the two phosphates have yielded about equally good returns. On limed land, the acid phosphate has produced large returns, while the rock phosphate has been used at a loss. On manured land, both of these phosphates have produced good returns, but the acid phosphate has been the most profitable. On limed and manured land, acid phosphate, basic slag, steamed bone meal and rock phosphate have all produced good crop increases and have been profitable in the order named. In a quantitative test of approximately equal money values of acid and rock phosphate on limed and manured land -on the Bedford field,^ the acid phosphate has yielded net returns per acre from over two to over 47 times as large as those secured from the rock phosphate. In immediate returns on the first and second crops after application, acid phosphate has yielded crop increases from three to over 25 times as large as those secured from rock phosphate. Neither acid phosphate nor any other phosphate will increase soil acidity or the need for liming, although Indiana soils needing phosphorus generally also need lime. 4 INTRODUCTION The ordinary soils of Indiana need available phosphates more than any other fertilizer. These soils have been deficient in phosphorus from the beginning and with the system of farming commonly followed dur- ing the last half century, they have been still further depleted of this element. The only means by which the phosphorus deficiency can be made up, is by the purchase and application of phosphatic fertilizers. Fortunately phosphatic fertilizer materials are plentiful in this country, and relatively cheap. With the prices of crops doubled, while those of phosphates have increased less than one-half, and with this country so largely depended upon to make up the world shortage of food, there has never been a time when the liberal use of phosphatic fertilizers has been so important or so profitable as at present. The farmer will find that he can get from loo to 900 per cent, on any investment in available phosphates judiciously applied to the land. This bulletin presents the results that have been secured by this sta- tion from the use of different phosphates on five experiment fields on dif- ferent soil types in different parts of the State during the last 12 3^ears. PHOSPHATE EXPERIMENTS AT SCOTTSBURG, SCOTT COUNTY The Scottsburg experiment field is located on Volusia silt loam, commonly called “yellow clay,” which is the predominating soil type on the hill lands of southern Indiana. The field was laid out in the fall of 1905 with three series of similarly treated plots for a corn, wheat and clover rotation and the various treatments first applied to wheat on each series. The field was underdrained in 19 ii with three parallel lines of four-inch tile laid crosswise of the plots, spaced about 59 feet apart in such a way as to give uniform drainage to all plots. The land had been cropped continuously for at least two generations, with no manure and but little fertilizer applied, and was considerably run down. The soil is naturally poor in phosphorus, showing only .07 per cent, of total phosphoric acid in the surface soil and .03 per cent, in the subsoil. Only the plots concerned in the phosphate comparisons are to be discussed in this bulletin. These have been treated as follows: Plots 8 and 9 received an application of ground limestone at the rate of 1000 pounds per acre on the first wheat crop and 4000 pounds per acre in 1911. At this time, plots 12, 13, 14 and 15, which had not been previously limed, also received ground limestone at the rate of 4000 pounds per acre. Plots 9 and ii have received an application of 130 pounds per acre of 16 per cent, acid phosphate on each wheat crop. Since 1915, the ap- plication has been repeated on the corn, so that now these plots are re- ceiving 300 pounds of acid phosphate per acre per rotation. Plots 12 and 14 received a dressing of rock phosphate at the rate of one ton per acre on the first wheat crop and a second ton per acre in 1911-12. On plots 14 and 15, manure has been applied at the rate of 10 tons per acre per rotation. The first application was made on wheat. Since then the manure has been plowed under for corn. Plot 10 has received no special treatment. 5 In Table I are shown the average yields of corn, wheat and clover on the phosphated plots and on the otherwise similarly treated but un- phosphated plots alongside. The small average yields of clover have been due to repeated clover failures, caused by unfavorable weather con- ditions and the impoverished condition of the soil brought about by many years of exhaustive cropping. In these experiments, all the produce has been removed from the land except the small amount of second growth clover, which was plowed under. Table I. — Results from Phosphates on Corn, Wheat and Clover Rotation — Scottsburg Experiment Field, 1906-1917 « Treatment .o P P-i c 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 re- turns 10 Nothing 22.9 2271 8.0 738 333 11 Acid phosphate alone ^ 32.4 2576 13.1 1201 618 a - Increase for acid phosphate 9.^ 305 5.1 463 285 $24.60 $2.39 $22.21 8 Lime 29.9 2551 10.2 915 578 9 Lime, acid phosphateN. 33.3 2861 14.1 1166 731 Increase for acid phosphate 3.4 310 3.9 251 153 $14.32 $2.39 $11.93 13 Lime 30.6 2674 9.2 887 574 12 Lime, rock phosphate^— 39.0 3025 12.6 1181 682 Increase for rock phosphate 8.4 351 3.4 294 108 $18.06 $7.07 $10.99 15 Lime and manure 50.2 4064 18.4 1891 1305 14 Lime, manure and rock phosphate ^ _ 50.9 4167 19.0 1953 1422 Increase for rock phosphate 0.7 103 0.6 62 117 $3.52 $7.07 $-3.55 ERRATA In Table I under “Cost of treatment,” the acid phosphate cost should be $2.55 instead of $2.39, and the rock phosphate cost should be $5.27 in- stead of $7.07, and the corresponding corrections should be made in the “Net returns” column as well as in the discussion of this table at the top of page 6. In the first note under the table, the amount of acid phosphate should be 204.5 pounds instead of 187.5 pounds. These errors also appear in the Scottsburg data in Circular No. 79 of this station. - — , -i-r ............ j. «,i. tiie ynces prevailing at this time, as follows: acid phosphate (16 per cent.), $ 25.00 per ton; rock phosphate (30 per cent.), $ 10.00 per ton; steamed bone meal (25 per cent.), $ 35.00 per ton; basic slag (18 per cent.), $ 25.00 per ton; corn, $ 1.00 and wheat, $ 2.00 per bushel; stover, $ 6 . 00 , straw, $ 5.00 and hay, $20.00 per torT^ 6 ceived a total of 4000 pounds of rock phosphate per acre, while plot 9 has received a total of only 750 pounds of acid phosphate. After deducting the cost of the fertilizer per rotation to date, the net returns per acre per rotation have been $10.99 for the rock phosphate and $11.93 for the acid phosphate. Per dollar invested, the acid phosphate has yielded a net profit of $5.00 as against $1.55 for the rock phosphate. On the limed and manured land (plots 14 and 15), the addition of two tons of rock phosphate has produced only small additional crop in- creases. Evidently the manure (10 tons per acre per rotation), has sup- plied all the phosphorus that could be utilized under the conditions, and something else has become the limiting factor on this soil. At any rate. Fig:, 2. Effect of phosphate on corn, Scottsbiirg: field, 1917. Each shock is the produce of one-twentieth acre Acid phosphate No treatment 48.2 bushels corn per acre 29.4 bushels corn per acre the manure does not seem to have increased the availability of the rock. A number of dry seasons have kept down the average corn yields, and fly damage has several times seriously reduced the wheat yields. Acid phos- phate was not used with manure on this held. PHOSPHATE EXPERIMENTS AT NORTH VERNON, JENNINGS COUNTY The North Vernon experiment held is located on the naturally poor, acid, flat, whitish-gray silt loam soil commonly known as “crawfish,” “slash land” or “white clay,” which is widely represented in southeastern Indiana. This soil is naturally very poor in phosphorus, showing only .03 per cent, of total phosphoric acid in the surface soil and .035 per cent, in the subsoil. This means only 600 pounds of phosphoric acid in the plowed surface of an acre. The field was laid out and tile drained in the fall of 1911. In the spring of 1912, the plots to be limed were treated with four 7 tons of ground limestone to the acre and the whole field was planted to soybeans. In 1913, the various fertilizer treatments were begun. The crop rotation is corn, wheat and clover. All the produce is removed from the land except the second growth clover. Only the plots concerned in the phosphate comparisons are to be discussed in this bulletin. The treat- ments received by these plots and the average crop yields produced are shown in Table II. In addition to the application of four tons per acre of ground lime- stone mentioned above, all of these plots have been manured at the rate of six tons per acre plowed under for corn once in three years. On plot II, acid phosphate (14 per cent, up to 1916 and 16 per cent, since then) has been applied at the rate of 200 pounds per acre for corn, broadcasted and harrowed in shortly before planting. On plot 12, rock phosphate (30 per cent.) has been applied at the rate of 350 pounds per acre for corn, broadcasted and harrowed in up to 1916 and since then 400 pounds per acre plowed under with the manure. These acid and rock phosphate applications were considered practically equal money values at the time the experiment was begun. Taelf. II. — Results from Phosphates on Corn, Wheat and Clover Rotation — North Vernon Experiment Field, 1913-1917 Average yields per acre Average totals per acre per rotation 1 Plot number Treatment Corn bushels stover pounds Wheat bushels straw pounds Hay pounds Value of in- crease Cost of treat- ment Net re- turns 10 Lime, manure 77.3 5330 16.3 1600 3260 11 Lime, manure, acid phosphate 82.0 5950 17.8 2045 3933 12 Lime, manure, rock phosphate 81.3' 5845 16.1 1760 3700 ' 13 T>ime, manure 78.4 5123 15.5 1545 3413 Increase for acid phosphate Increase for rock phosphate 4.4 3.3 6i76 646 1.8 0.3 464 197 378 216 $14.98 8.50 $2.25 1.79 $12.73 6.71 In Table II are shown the average annual crop yields, the increases from the acid and rock phosphate over lime and manure and the financial results. The table is so simple that explanations are hardly necessary. Both phosphates have yielded large profits, although the combination of drainage, lime and manure had already lifted the yields to a high plane, especially the corn yield. Two of the five wheat crops were badly dam- aged by Hessian fly. It will be observed that the acid phosphate has been considerably more profitable than the rock phosphate, yielding a net return of $12.73 per acre per rotation and $5.66 per dollar invested as against $6.71 per acre per rotation and $3.80 per dollar invested for the rock phosphate. 8 PHOSPHATE EXPERIMENTS AT WORTHINGTON, GREENE COUNTY The Worthington experiment field is located on Knox silt loam, com- monly called “clay,” which is the predominating soil type of the rolling uplands of that section of the State. The land had been farmed for many years and was considerably run down. This field was started at the same time and is in every respect a dupli- cate of the North Vernon field so far as the phosphate experiments under discussion are concerned, except that the soil being less acid, it received only two tons of ground limestone to the acre. This soil is considerably better supplied with phosphorus than the North Vernon soil, showing .12 per cent, of phosphoric acid in both sur- face and subsoil, or 2400 pounds in the plowed surface of an acre. In Table HI are shown the average annual crop yields, the increases from the acid and rock phosphate over lime and manure and the financial results. Table III. — Results from Phosphates on Corn, Wheat and Clover Rota- tion — Worthington Experiment. Field, 1913-1917 Treatment Oh g Average yields per acre Average totals per acre per rotation Corn bushds stover pounds Wheat bushels Straw pounds Hay pounds Value of in- crease Cost of treat- ment Net re- turns 10 Lime, manure 43.7 2616 11.2 975 3325 11 Lime, manure, acid phosphate 51.7 2836 14.2 1265 4940 12 Lime, manure, rock phosphate 49.6 2711 13.2 1181 4383 13 Lime, manure 50.8 2733 13.9 1280 4263 Increase for acid phosphate 3.2 ^183 ~2.r 188 1302 .$21.44 $2.25 $19.19 Increase for rock phosphate 17 -0.2 3 432 3.98 1.79 2.10 On this field, the returns from the rock phosphate have been very small, while the returns from the acid phosphate have been much larger than at North Vernon. At present crop and fertilizer prices, the acid phosphate has yielded a net return of $19.19 per acre per rotation and $8.53 per dollar invested as against $2.19 per acre per rotation and $1.22 per dollar invested for the rock phosphate. PHOSPHATE EXPERIMENTS AT SOUTH BEND, ST. JOSEPH COUNTY The experiment field at South Bend is located on the County Farm on a brown sandy loam soil of somewhat better than average quality but fairly representative of large areas of sandy soil in St. Joseph and neigh- boring counties. The experiment was started in the spring of 1914 with the object of comparing the relative merits of acid phosphate, steamed bone meal and rock phosphate used as additions on limed and manured land in a corn, 9 wheat and clover rotation. The land was uniformly limed with limestone screenings at the rate of four tons per acre. The manuring has been at the rate of six tons per acre on all plots. The phosphates have been ap- plied in three different proportions. The average results so far secured from the different phosphates are reported in Table IV. The three different rates of application of the phosphates are averaged at this time because the bone and acid phosphate are differently proportioned for corn and wheat and will not be even until the end of the second round of the rotation. The acid phosphate and steamed bone applications average 70 pounds of phosphoric acid per acre per rotation, part applied for corn and part for wheat. The rock phos- phate applications average 280 pounds of phosphoric acid per acre, all put on at the beginning of the experiment. In Table IV are shown the average annual crop yields, the increases from acid phosphate, steamed bone meal and rock phosphate over lime and manure, and the financial results. Table IV. — Results from Phosphates on Corn, Wheat and Clover Rota- tion — South Bend Experiment Field, 1914-1917 Average yields per acre Average totals per acre per rotation I Plot number P 3 a Corn busln Is j stover pounds Wheat bushels j Straw pounds Hay pounds Value of in- crease Cost of treat- ment Net re- turns 1 , 0 , 10 , 14 Tn'inp^ mannrp 1 38.2 3413 1 25.4 2202 3039 3, 9, 13 Lime, manure, acid phosphatp 40.2 3591 29.8 2291 4036 4, 7, 11 Lime, manure, rock phosphate 40.2 3370 25.7 2054 3962 2, 8, 12 Lime, manure, steamed bone 41.9 3262 28.1 2418 4107 Increase for acid phosphate Increase for rock phosphate Increase for steamed bone— 2.0 2.0 3.7 178 -43 -151 4.4 0.3 2.7 89~ -148 216 97 23 168 $12.52 2.34 10.87 $5.46 4.76 4.92 -2.42 5.95 Table IV shows that acid phosphate has yielded a net return of $7.06 and steamed bone $5.95 per acre per rotation, while rock phosphate has been used at a loss of $2.42. On the basis of returns per dollar invested, the acid phosphate and steamed bone stand about equal. PHOSPHATE EXPERIMENTS AT BEDFORD, LAWRENCE COUNTY This experiment is located on the Moses Fell Annex Farm about six miles northwest of Bedford, d'he soil is a yellowish brown silt loam, rep- resentative of most of the uplands of Lawrence and neighboring counties. Although underlaid by limestone and probably of limestone origin, the soil was found to be acid and the subsoil very acid. The held was thor- oughly underdrained in the spring of 1915 and planted to soybeans. This crop made a fair growth and was plowed under in the fall, at which time 10 Fig:. 3. Effect of phosphates on corn, Bedford field, 1916. Each shock is the produce of one-twentieth acre Lime, manure and acid phosphate Lime, manure and rock phosphate 64.0 bushels corn per acre 42.0 bushels corn per acre Lime and manure without phosphate yielded 38.1 bushels per acre the first wheat crop was sown and the limestone and various phosphate treatments were begun. The experiment was designed to study the relative merits of different phosphates used alone, with lime, with manure, with both lime and ma- nure and with nitrogen and potash in fertilizer instead of manure. The limestone, manure and phosphate treatments have been as follows: limestone, four tons per acre ; manure, six tons per acre ; acid phosphate at four different rates, supplying 24, 48, 72 and 160 pounds of phosphoric acid per acre, respectively ; rock phosphate at four different rates, supply- ing 96, 192, 288 and 600 pounds of phosphoric acid per acre, respectively; steamed bone meal, 48 pounds of phosphoric acid per acre ; basic slag, 48 pounds of phosphoric acid per acre. In Table V are shown the various treatments, the average annual crop yields, the increases produced by the different phosphates and the financial results to date. II Table V. — Results from Phosphates on Corn, Wheat and Clover Rota- tion — Bedford Experiment Field, 1916-1917 Treatment per acre per rotation 33 Nothing 14 Acid phosphate, 300 pounds 15 Rock phosphate, 640 pounds Increase for acid phosphate Increase for rock phosphate 31 Lime 11 Lime, acid phosphate, 300 pounds 12 Lime, rock phosphate, 640 pounds Increase for acid phosphate Increase for rock phosphate 32 Manure ^ 8 Manure, acid phosphate, 300 pounds 9 Manure, rock phosphate, 640 pounds Increase for acid phosphate Increase for rock phosphate 7 Lime, manure ^ 5 Lime, manure, acid phosphate, 300 pounds 6 Lime, manure, rock phosphate, 640 pounds 2 Lime, manure, steamed bone, 192 pounds 3 Lime, manure, basic slag, 261 pounds Increase for acid phosphate Increase for rock phosphate Increase for steamed bone.- Increase for basic slag Average yields per acre Average totals per acre per rotation Corn bush. Is Stover pounds Wheat bushels Straw pounds Hay pounds Value of in- crease Cost of treat- ment Net re- turns 30.8 1730 1.3 265 1040 46.0 2245 5.8 715 1800 43.3 2077 4.6 725 2960 15.2 515 4.5 450 760 $34.46 $3.75 $30.71 12.5 347 3.3 460 1920 40.48 3.20 37.28 34.2 2076 2.0 310 1366 46.8 2120 5.6 752 1720 32.7 1884 2.7 465 1320 12.6 44 3.6 442 354 $24.58 $3.75 $20.83 - 1.5 -192 0.7 155 -46 -.75 3.20 -3.95 41.2 2012 1.7 385 1000 52.1 2715 5.1 670 1420 46.5 2367 4.9 640 1500 10.9 703 3.4 285 420 $24.72 $3.75 $20.97 5.3 355 3.2 255 500 18.41 3.20 15.21 37.1 2287 2.7 381 1047 51.4 2459 6.1 827 1560 47.9 2510 3.7 595 1222 46.3 2429 4.2 580 1340 44.4 2275 5.7 730 1580 14.3 172 3.4 446 513 $27.86 $3.75 $24.11 10.8 223 1.0 214 175 15.74 3.20 12.54 9.2 142 1.5 199 293 16.06 3.36 12.70 7.3 12 3.0 349 533 19.54 3.33 16.21 1 The clover crop has not yet had the benefit of manure By referring to the first part of Table V, it will be seen that when used alone, both acid and rock phosphate have produced large crop in- creases. In this case the rock phosphate, through the increase of 192c pounds in the clover crop on plot 15, has been more profitable than the acid phosphate, although plot 9, which has had identically the same treat- ment for clover, shows only 500 pounds increase in the clover crop. 12 Taking the average clover yield of plots 9 and 15 for the rock and the average of plots 8 and 14 for the acid phosphate, the net returns where the phosphates have been used alone are $29.01 for the acid phosphate, and $30.18 for the rock phosphate, per acre per rotation. For each dollar invested, the acid phosphate has yielded a net profit of $7.75 and the rock phosphate $9.43. Where the phosphates were used on limed land, as shown in the sec- ond part of Table V, the acid phosphate has produced a net return of $20.83 pel* ^ere per rotation and $5.55 per dollar invested, while the rock phosphate has been used at a net loss of $3.95 per acre per rotation and $1.23 per dollar invested. Fi>j. 4. Kffect of phosphate on clover, Bedford field, 1917. Each shock is the produce of one-twentieth acre Idme alone Eime and acid phosphate 1600 pounds clover ha.v per acre 4000 pounds clover hay per acre Where the phosphates were used on manured land, as shown in the third part of Table V, the acid phosphate has yielded a net return of $20.97 the rock phosphate $15.21 per acre per rotation. For each dollar invested the acid phosphate has yielded a net profit of $5.59 and the rock phosphate $4.75. Where the phosphates were used on limed and manured land, as shown in the fourth part of Table V, the acid phosphate has yielded a net return of $24.11; the rock phosphate, $12.54; the steamed bone, $12.70, and the basic slag, $16.21, per acre per rotation. For each dollar invested, the acid phosphate has yielded a net profit of $6.43 ; the rock phosphate, $3.92; the steamed bone, $3.78, and the basic slag, $4.87. QUANTITATIVE TEST OF ACID AND ROCK PHOSPHATE ON THE BEDFORD FIELD In Table VI are shown the returns from different quantities of acid and rock phosi)hate used on limed and manured land. In each case, the quantity of phosphoric acid applied is four times as large in rock phos- phate as in acid phosphate. 13 Table VI. — Results from Different Quantities of Acid and Rock Phos- phate — Bedford Field, 1916-1917 S Treatment per acre per rotation Pu a Average yields per acre Average totals per acre per rotation Corn bushils stover pounds Wheat bushels straw pounds Hay pounds Value of in- crease Cost of treat- ment Net re- turns 22 Lime, manure 47.1 2470 2.7 445 1340 23 Lime, manure, acid phos- phate (16 per cent.), 150 pounds 55.6 3000 4.9 715 1880 24 Lime, manure, rock phos- phate (30 per cent.). 320 pounds 47.6 2595 3.2 520 1500 25 Lime, manure 47.4 2567 2.5 510 1600 Increase for acid phosphate 8.4 407 2.3 251 453* $19.64 $1.87 $17.77 Increase for rock phosphate 0.3 60 0.7 38 -13 1.86 1.60 0.26 4 Lime, manure 3 . 7.8 2170 2.7 435 1060 5 Lime, manure, acid phos- phate (16 per cent.). 300 pounds _ 51.4 2459 6.1 827 1560 6 Lime, manure, rock phos- phate (30 per cent.). 640 pounds 47.9 2510 3.7 595 1220 7 Lime, manure 38.9 2535 2.7 390 1020 Increase for acid phosphate 13.2 168 3.4 407 447 $25.98 $3.75 $22.23 Increase for rock phosphate 9.3 97 1.0 190 153 13.60 3.20 10.40 25 Lime, manure 47.4 2567 2.5 510 1600 26 Lime, manure, acid phos- phate (16 per cent.). 450 pounds 56.1 3022 6.8 995 2600 27 Lime, manure, rock phos- phate (30 per cent.). 960 pounds 49.1 2597 2.7 455 1680 28 Lime, manure 43.8 2472 2.7 440 1600 Increase lor acid phosphate 9.9 487 4.3 508 lOOO' $31.22 $5.62 $25.60 Increase for rock phosphate 4.1 94 0.1 -8 . 80 5.36 4.80 0.56 28 Lime, manure _ 43.8 2472 2.7 440 1600 29 Lime, manure, acid phos- phate (16 per cent.). 1000 pounds 63.5 3052 7.8 1070 4000 30 Lime, manure, rock phos- phate (30 per cent.). 2000 pounds 52.0 2725 2.8 550 1660 31 Lime, manure 44.1 2407 2.6 485 1440 Increase for acid phosphate 19.6 602 5.1 615 2454 $57.68 $12.50 $45.18 Increase for rock phosphate 8.0 297 0.2 80 167 11.16 10.00 1.16 Average increase acid phosphate 12.8 438 3.8 445 1088 $33.63 $5.93 $27.70 Average increase rock phosphate 5.4 137 0.5 75 96 7.90 4.90 3.09 14 Table VI shows that in all cases the acid phosphate has produced very much larger increases than has the rock phosphate. On the average, as shown at the foot of the table, the acid phosphate has yielded a net re- turn of $27.70 per acre per rotation, as against $3.09 for the rock phos- phate. For each dollar invested, the acid phosphate has yielded a net profit of $4.67 as against $0.63 for the rock phosphate. RELATIVE IMMEDIATE RETURNS FROM ACID AND ROCK PHOSPHATE At this time it is especially important to secure immediate crop in- creases. It is therefore important, in determining whether to use acid or rock phosphate, to ask which of the two will be more effective in the first year or two after application. On this point, very conclusive evidence is presented on all the experiment fields where the two phosphates have been directly compared. The increases produced on the first and second crops after application have been from three to over 25 times as large from the acid phosphate as from the rock phosphate, averaging nearly six times as large in a total of 3 o tests on the different fields. THE EFFECT OF PHOSPHATES ON SOIL ACIDITY Acid phosphate does not increase soil acidity or the need for liming; this is also true of the other phosphates used as fertilizers. It is some- times said that the continued use of acid phosphate will make the soil acid. This is an assumption contrary tO' the facts so far as actual field results are concerned. The experiments of this and several other stations show that the use of acid phosphate rather reduces the need for lime on acid soils. On the old experiment field on the Purdue farm, the plot where heavy applications of acid phosphate alone have been used for the last 28 years, is less acid than the plot alongside which has never received acid phosphate. In Bulletin No. 298 of the Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, Williams, in connection with data showing the results of liming acid soil receiving different fertilizer treatments, calls attention to the fact that lime produced larger results on the plot receiving its phosphorus in bone meal than on the plot which gets its phosphorus in acid phosphate, and says ; “Apparently, acid phosphate has not increased the need of lime.” In the summary of Bulletin No. 162 of the Massachusetts Agri- cultural Experiment Station, Brooks states: “Finally, no injurious sec- ondary effects are known to be associated with any reasonable use of dis- solved phosphates. Our experiments indicate that they do not increase the necessity for the use of lime.” In Bulletin No. 160 of the West Vir- ginia Agricultural Experiment Station, Bear and Salter, in discussing the effect of manure and fertilizer on the lime requirement of the soil, state: “This work verifies the statements published by certain other experiment stations and indicates that the belief that the soil will become acid from the use of acid phosphate is without foundation.” The results on the Scottsburg and Bedford experiment fields reported in this bulletin also show that liming is less needed on land where acid phosphate is used than on untreated land. 15 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 perma- nent 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. i6 The Value of Phosphates How to Grow More and How to Grow More and 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. The Value of Lime on Indiana Soils Experiment Station Circular No. 23. Better Wheat Experiment Station Circular No. 25. Better Corn Experiment Station Circular No. 36. How to Grow Alfalfa Experiment Station Circular No. 49. Farm Manures 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. phates Department of Extension Bulletin No. 22. 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. The Value and Man- agement of Clover Department of Extension Leaflet No. 53. Alfalfa for Indiana Department of Extension Leaflet No. 55. More and Better Wheat in Indiana Department of Extension Leaflet No. 62. Sweet Clover Indiana Soils Need Phos- Hints on Soil Im- t