CORRESPONDENT K WITH M A N I" FACTURKKS. 69 



fad try over a year a-_ r o, r "\ '<T I \\ > years ago, for wo have n<>t mixed <hi'lls 



with it for many months. The food is composed ..f meal and wheat Hour 



r * * # 



Comment by authors. The microscopical examination was re- 

 peated and the results as given in the table obtained. 



ROSS BROTH KltS COMPANY. 



(No. 3920.) 



We have your notice of our Wyandotte chick food, No. 1920 * * *. Iniln-ii-i 

 of articles you report as Miiding. we IK.I ice hulled oats, hut no hulled oats are used j n 

 this feed; we use steel-cut oatmeal. The charlock and smart weed must he in the 

 millet seed. 



W. H. SMALL & CO. 



(No. 1960.) 



* * * What we fe^ir is that you have obtained a sample of an old chicken-feed 

 mixture (No. I960) that we formerly put out, but which has been abandoned for at 

 least a year. '' 



J. E. SOPER & CO. 



(No. 1852.) 



\Yo have your report No. 1852 gi\ing analysis of our brand of Blue Ribbon hominy 

 feed. Upon receipt of your report we took the matter up with the man- 



ufacturers, calling their attention to the low fat analysis, * * * and we quote 

 from their letter * * *: 



''The Government report on hominy which you inclose certainly does seem low in 

 the amount of fat. We do not remember any analysis that has given such 



a low per cent of fat * * *." - 



Comment by authors. The results on fat and protein were repeated, 

 and higher results were obtained on fat by a prolonged extraction. 



SPARKS MILLING COMPANY. 



(Nos. 1501, 1543.) 



We have received this morning the chemical and microscopical analyses of two of 

 our feeds, Nos. 1501 and 1543, Tri-me mixed feed * * *: The Tri-me mixed 

 feed is composed of pure wheat bran and middlings. * * * If there is any smart- 

 weed seed in the feed, it is evidently a very small proportion, as it could only be what 

 was mixed in with the wheat when it reached us direct from the farms. The same 

 applies to !he bran, chess, and yellow dock seed in sample 1543. * 



Comment by authors. Another microscopical examination was 

 made and the same weed seeds found, but they were present in very 

 small quantities. 



DAVID STOTT. 



(Nos. 1619, 1509, 1989.) 



Replying to your circular letter regarding samples of my feed, Nos. 1619, 3509, 1989, 

 I think especially your remarks under the head of "Microscopical examination" are 

 misleading. You probably recognize that the articles other than pure bran or mid- 

 dlings are impossible to separate from the wheat in the condition in which it is usually 



