370 Annual Report for 1911 of the Consulting Chemist. 



on the application of such a test, could be deemed to be 

 absolutely " worthless." 



This would practically lead to it being impossible to stop 

 any form of adulteration whatever — a state of things certainly 

 not contemplated by the introduction of the Fertilisers and 

 Feeding Stufifs Act. 



I venture to express the opinion that what should be looked 

 at is — what was the real intention of the Act ? Further, that 

 when the Act speaks of " worthless " ingredients, it does not 

 mean materials which can be shown, by minute analysis or 

 under extreme circumstances, to have some small value, or can 

 at least be taken by animals witliout doing them harm, but 

 that it means those materials which, i)i the broad sense, are not 

 practical feeding materials, and which a stock-feeder would 

 not knowingly purchase or use for his stock. Could any one 

 contend that a farmer would give his cattle sawdust, or would 

 he be satisfied with the knowledge that because it had been 

 treated by some process or other, it had been converted into a 

 useful " food " ? I think not. 



In any case, I maintain that if such a material as " treated 

 wood " be sold, or put into cakes, its nature should be clearly 

 disclosed, as required by the Act. The Act does not stop the 

 sale of such articles, but it says " any ingredient worthless for 

 feeding purposes " must be disclosed at the time of the sale. It 

 ought therefore, in my opinion, to be definitely stated, when 

 " Bastol " is used in any form, that the food contains "treated 

 sawdust," or that other words be employed to clearly indicate 

 the nature of the ingredient, and that it should not be allowable 

 to disguise this by " wrapping it up " — as is now done — in such 

 terms as " cooked fibre." &c., which are quite unintelligible to 

 the ordinary farmer. So long as purchasers know exactly 

 what they are buying, I have nothing to say, but they should 

 be in no doubt as to the natvire of their purchases. 



Another and important feature is the price — (is. per cwt. — at 

 which " Bastol " is sold. Even granting that there be a certain 

 amount of feeding material in " treated sawdust," it is asking 

 too much of one to believe that a material from such a source, 

 when compounded with half its weight of molasses, can have 

 anything like the value represented V)y the price. In addition, 

 the meal, owing to the presence of resin in the wood (and 

 which is not altogether removed), has frequently a strong and 

 somewhat objectionable flavour. All materials of this kind — if 

 sold at all — should be sold at the prices of waste products, and 

 not those of staple feeding stuffs, and I question much whether 

 farmers would be willing to pay the above price if they knew 

 that what they were buying was merely "' treated sawdust " with 

 molasses soaked up in it. 



