Na 1. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 421 



produce satisfactory crops of alfalfa, at which time, there will be 

 less necessitv for the purchase of nitrogenous commercial feeding 

 stuffs. 



During the year 1907. prosecution was brought on -iT adulterate 

 or misbranded samples. These were all favorably tei-minated by 

 the Department. In 190S. there have been brought 128 prosecutions. 

 One hundred and eleven have been tei-minated and 17 are now pend- 

 ing. Ln different sections of the Commonwealth. The majority of 

 these cases were based on that section of the law that makes it a 

 penalty for adulteration or a number were based on the section 

 that makes it a penalty for false analysis or guarantees, and others 

 for not giving any analysis. pKJStoffice address, weight or composi- 

 tion. Thf-se cases were all gone over by the .Secretary of Agri- 

 culture, the Chief Chemist and myself. More prosecutions might 

 have been brought under some technicality of the law, but as the 

 purpose of the Department of Agriculture was to secure obedience 

 to the law, rather than to collect revenue for the Commonwealth, 

 it was thought best, in order to avoid appearances of being 

 oppressive, to pass by the instances in which the violation was 

 trifling and apparently unintentional, when a pledge upon the part 

 of the manufacturer and dealer could be secured, to give closer 

 attention to the provisions of the law. and to faithfully observe 

 the same in the future. In every case, however, where the violation 

 was such as to indicate the disposition to defraud, proceedings were 

 instituted. 



We find that the following states have Feeding Stuff Laws: 

 Eastern. Middle and Middle West: Maine. Rhode Island. Vermont- 

 Connecticut. Massachusetts. Xew Hamj^shire. New York, Xew 

 Jersey. Pennsylvania. Michigan. Wisconsin. Indiana. Ohio. Illinois. 

 Southern: Xorth Carolina. -Georgia. Florida. Virginia. Texas, 

 Arkansas. Louisiana. Kentucky. Tennessee. Maryland. Western: 

 Xorth Dakota, South Dakota. Washington. Iowa. Kansas. Oklahoma. 



The first state to pass a Feeding Stuffs Law was Connecticut. 

 This will give you some idea of the interest that is being taken by 

 the different states on this subject. 



Prof. T. D. Fuller. Chief Chemist of the Department is in charge of 

 the office and laboratorv work which has grown in the last vear. 

 Over 4.000 letters have been written. A large number of these 

 were written in answer to letters from manufacturers, millers and 

 dealers throughout the United States, seeking information in regard 

 to the Feeding Stuff Law and other information that they were 

 desirous of obtaining from this office. The millers of the State 

 have given the law a good support. This is to be commended, as 

 every ton of poor feed or adulterated feed sold in Pennsylvania by 

 the compounders of by-products feed, just takes the place of that 

 amount of good feed. With the water facilities that we have in 

 Pennsylvania and the large amount of coal, we should have double 

 the number of mills that we have at this time, and I am glad to gee 

 a disposition on the p»art of our people to buy feeds also flours, 

 manufactured in our own State. This should be encouraged: but I 

 would not want you to think that all manufacturers of by-product 

 feeds are poor and that the said manufacturers set our laws at 

 nausht. This is not the case. Some of those who obev the law the 

 verv best are the western manufacturers of feed. The truth is. 



