oFF'iciAr, INSPECTIONS 31. 59 



some feeders do continue to buy them when mixed with wheat 

 bran, and dealers that think more of the money they are get- 

 ting than the quahty of their goods will continue to handle 

 them. Their sale should be discouraged by both dealer and 

 feeder and the goods thereby driven from the State. It is 

 gratifying to say that the inspector found the goods on sale 

 only in a few places. 



The miscellaneous feeds of various kinds carry guaranties 

 ranging all the way from 5.75 to 37.00 per cent protein, the 

 lower grades usually having the highest sounding names. Some 

 of these feeds are legitimate mixtures no doubt worth the price 

 asked for them, while others are made up solely with the object 

 of getting rid of soreenings, sweepings, and the refuse from 

 cereal breakfast food mills. Some of them contain an excess 

 of hulls and chaff and some contain large quantities of ground- 

 up weed seeds. 



The byproducts of breakfast food mills, oat hulls, and such 

 materials have a feeding value and the feeder of the future 

 will no doubt use them in their proper place. They should not 

 be forced upon him under high-sounding names, ground into 

 a fine powder and further disguised with cheap molasses. The 

 attention of the public is continually called to this important 

 point by the bulletins of the various experirnent stations and 

 still the mixtures of ground corn cobs, oat hulls, and weed seeds 

 seem to find a ready sale. 



Rebates to Retainers. 



There appears to be a tacit agreement between the manu-- 

 facturers or shippers of cottonseed meal into the State with 

 the retailers to give a rebate of 50 cents per unit for each unit 

 which the goods fall below the guaranty in protein. The re- 

 tailers are very active in claiming these rebates whenever oppor- 

 tunity ofi'ei-s. This fact, probably, is a great incentive to 

 them to send samples to the Station for analysis. The 

 allowing of such rebates is certainly very commendable and 

 shows that the manufacturers are acting in good faith in making 

 their guarantees and a willingness on their part to make good 

 any loss that has occurred through the goods falling below. 

 The question then arises, who actually suffers loss from the 

 goods running under the guaranty. The retailer receives a 



