59 



The three lots of cottonseed meal all ran low. It is known that 

 two lots were packed in new sacks carefully sewn. Allowing a value 

 or $36 per ton, or 1.8 cents per pound, the money loss on the three 

 lots would be 44, 53 and 81 cents per ton. 



The one lot of linseed meal weighed ran 23 Ibs^ short., the average 

 weight of a sack being only 99.5 lbs. 



The two lots of gluten feed were quite uniform, and there was 

 evidently an attempt to give one ton net weight. 



Distillers' grains showed an excess of 14% lbs. Different bags 

 of this material tend to vary very much in weight, in this instance 

 there being a difference of about 14 lbs. between the weight of the 

 heaviest and lightest sack. It is believed that these wide variations 

 were due to careless weighing. 



With one exception the weights on the wheat by-products were 

 very satisfactory. Lot No. 12, which ran 45 lbs. short, was found 

 in the same storehouse as lot No. 11. 



In the one lot of dairy feed, No. 16, an attempt was evidently 

 made to give gross weight, as the average weight per sack was about 

 100 lbs. 



The lot of molasses feed fell nearly 100 lbs. short, with an average 

 weight of about 96 lbs. per sack. 



The lot of hominy weighed was quite satisfactory. 



Of the three lots of corn and oat feeds, No. 19 was evidently 

 weighed net and No. 20 gross. No. 21 ran 36 lbs. over, with an 

 average of 102 lbs. per sack, evidently an instance of manufacturer's 

 scales out of adjustment. 



On account of the small amount of data presented, it would not 

 be wise to draw too positive conclusions. The results indicate, 

 however, that gross weight is quite often given in place of net ; and 

 further, that carelessness, if not intentional deception, are not un- 

 common. It is the intention of the experiment station to follow this- 

 matter more closely in the future. 



