Division of Foods and Feeding. 



Joseph B. Lindsey.* 



RESULTS AND SUGGESTIONS. 



1. Nearly all of the cottonseed meal had a guaranty of compo- 

 sition, and the protein content was above the average. Consumers 

 are advised to purchase only guaranteed vieals. 



2. A few of the linseed products were guaranteed; most of the 

 new process meals were of average quality, while many of the old 

 process were inferior. Purchasers are cautioned against unguaran- 

 teed linseed products. 



3. A large portion of the gluten products were guaranteed, but 

 failed to maintain their protein guaranty in many cases. Several 

 lots were noticeably below the average in protein. It is advisable 

 to observe the guaranty before purchasing. 



4. Nearly all the wheat bran and middlings were free from for- 

 eign admixtures and of good quality. A number of samples of 

 mixed feed contained ground corn cobs and wheat screenings. Of 

 these, some were marked Ke?itucky Milling Co., others Kentucky, and 

 a few were unmarked. Consumers are urged to give the preference 

 to those, wheat by-products bearing the name of reputable manu- 

 facturers. 



5. Corn and hominy meals were of good quality. 



6. The larger portion of the oat offal upon the market was as 

 usual decidedly inferior in feeding value. Many brands cost nearly 

 as much as corn meal, and were only one-half to t7vo-thirds as valuable. 



7. Most of the mixtures sold as corn and oat feed consisted of 

 oat offal, together with cracked corn or hominy meal. They are 

 quite distinct and not as valuable as true provender, which is a mix- 

 ture of whole or crushed oats and cracked corn. 



8. For further information see the Analytical Tables and the 

 article entitled, " Discussion of the Results." 



♦With the cooperation of E. B. Holland, P. H. Smith, Jr., and J. W. Kellogg. 



