422 ANNUAL, REPCTRT OF THE Off. Doc. 



they give better weight than some of our own manufacturers. 

 There is a custom prevailing in our State to give only 95 lbs. for 

 100 weight, claiming that the five lbs. pay for the sack. This is not 

 right. When a man buys 100 lbs. of feed, he should pay for the 

 same and also should be charged a sufficient amount to pay for the 

 sack. I know of some cases where millers were giving only 81 lbs. 

 for 100 weight. Our law does not regulate this. It only says that 

 the number of pounds shall be put on the sack. 



There is on file in the office a mailing list of 5,000 names. To 

 these persons there have been mailed bulletins and other informa- 

 tion in regard to the Feeding Stuff Law. This will give you some 

 idea how this work has grown in the last two years. 



SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING THE PRESENT FEEDING 



STUFF LAW IN ORDER TO SECURE GREATER 



PROTECTION TO CONSUMERS OF 



THE SAME. 



The following recommendations are suggested as result of our 

 experience in enforcing the Feeding Stuffs Law, during the past 

 two years. 



First. Elimination of the word ''minimum" in Section 1, thereby 

 providing for the guarantee of the actual percentage of crude 

 protein and crude fat. 



Second. Extending the definition of the term "concentrated 

 commercial feeding stuffs" to include all feeds used for live stock 

 and poultry, except hay, straws and corn stover, when the same are 

 not mixed with other materials, also whole seeds or grains of cereals, 

 when unmixed with other materials; and wheat bran or wheat 

 middlings, rye bran or rye middlings, buckwheat bran or buckwheat 

 middlings, or any mixture of two or more of these articles, which 

 must be sold under a guarantee of purity. 



Third. Prohibition of the adulteration of any feeding stuff with 

 foreign, mineral or other substance or substances, such as rice hulls, 

 peanut shells, corn cobs, oat hulls or similar materials of little or 

 no feeding value. 



It is important that you, as a State Board of Agriculture, be 

 informed on all points in regard to this important law, and this is 

 the reason I call your attention to the suggestions or changes that 

 we think would strengthen it. Twice during the year, lawyers for 

 the defense, have tried to get a decision on the constitutionality 

 of the law, and at this time the constitutionality of the law is before 

 court In Lehigh County. The argument is to b>e held on the first 

 Monday of March, next. 



The contention on the part of the defendants is based on that 

 part of Section 1, which says ''Wheat bran or wheat middlings, rye 

 bran or rye middlings used for feeding domestic animals, sold, 

 offered or exposed for sale within this State, at any other place 

 than at the mill where manufactured." This, they claim, is un- 

 constitutional, as it favors one class above another. 



