While the word feedingstuff does not appear in all the above titles, 

 no publication is included which does not discuss some aspect of the 

 use of feedingstuffs. 



HOW COST OF INSPECTION AFFECTS PRICE 



The cost of a feedingstuff inspection includes the drawing and 

 the analysis of the samples, and the publication and mailing of the 

 annual bulletin. The funds from which these costs are paid are 

 accumulated from the license fees which the manufacturer is required 

 to pay annually on each brand of feedingstuff offered for sale within 

 the state. Since manufacturing and distributing costs are finally 

 paid by the consumer, the purchaser of feedingstuffs is interested 

 in the effect of the cost of the inspection on the retail price per ton. 

 The sixteenth census of the United States Department of Commerce 

 under the heading, specified farm expenditures, 1939, reports the 

 retail value of feeds for domestic animals and poultry sold in New 

 Hampshire in that year as $7,619,245. A calculation based on this 

 valuation and on the known costs of the inspection shows that the 

 cost to purchasers is less than four cents per ton of feed, a fraction of 

 a cent per 100-pound bag. The 1939 figure for the retail value of 

 feedingstuff sold annually in the state is used, since it is the most 

 recent authoritative figure available. It is estimated the present 

 figure is more than double that amount. If the estimated valuation 

 is used, the cost of the inspection is less than two cents per ton. 



CONFORMITY TO THE GUARANTEES 



Of the 348 brands analyzed, 91 brands, or 26.1 per cent, were 

 below the guaranteed amount of protein. Thirty of these were less 

 than one-half per cent below guarantee. Thirty-nine brands, or 11.2 

 per cent, were below guarantee in fat. Eight of these were less than 

 one-fourth per cent below guarantee. Fifty-one brands, or 14.6 per 

 cent, contained an excessive amount of crude fiber. 



Resolution 20, p. 14 of the Official Publication of the Association 

 of American Feed Control Officials, referred to above reads in part 

 "that urea is to be used only in such limited quantities as to insure 

 that the total amount present does- not exceed 3% of the (grain) 

 ration." Five brands contained urea as one of the ingredients. None 

 exceeded the 3 per cent urea permitted under the resolution. 



In the tabulaton of the analytical figures (p. 10 to p. 19 inclusive) 

 those figures one-half per cent or more below guarantee in protein, one- 

 fourth per cent or more below guarantee in fat, and one per cent or 

 more above guarantee in crude fiber are printed in bold face type. 



Table I shows the percentage of samples failing to conform to the 

 guarantee in each of the last 21 years. 



