152 Annual Report for 1905 of the Consulting Chemist. 
recognised as being an “ offal,” it is allowable to class under it, 
or mix with it, any similar “ offal,” irrespective of its origin. 
This is an entire mistake, and it requires to be known that 
the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act is quite applicable 
to such cases, and to regulate that when a milling product 
is sold it shall conform to the description of it recognised in 
the trade. Thus “bran” is universally recognised as being 
one of the “ offals ” of wheat, but offals of grains other than 
wheat must not be included under this term unless bearing a 
special description indicating their origin. The following are 
cases in point : — 
( a ) Reported to Oouncil, October 4, 1905. “ Middlings ” 
adulterated with rice hush. 
In this case, a considerable admixture of rice husk was 
given to “ middlings,” and sold under the name of “ middlings,” 
at 51. 5s. per ton, for the use of poultry. The rice husk was so 
finely ground up that it was very difficult to detect it, and, on 
giving it to poultry, serious losses were experienced. The 
vendor maintained that, because “ middlings ” were “ offal,” 
he was entitled to use any “ offal ” he pleased. Ultimately, 
however, he paid 15?. by way of compensation. 
(5) “ Middlings ” adulterated with oat hush , &c. 
The foregoing case having, through its publication in the 
R.A.S.E. Council proceedings, drawn attention to the adultera- 
tion of “ middlings,” another member sent me a sample for 
examination, and this was found to contain considerable 
admixture of oat husk, together with weed seeds. 
(c) Barley Meal. 
My attention was called to the sale, under the name “ barley 
meal,” of a mixture of the latter with a material called “ oat 
sharps,” this being just the ground-up husk of the oat. 
( d ) Reported to the Council, October 4, 1905. Bran 
adulterated with coffee-bean hush. 
In an instance brought to my notice I found that in a 
purchase of “ bran,” there was a large admixture of the ground 
husk or “ parchment ” skin of the coffee bean. 
Unfortunately in none of the above cases, though strong 
representations were made, could the purchaser be induced to 
take proceedings under the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act. 
This is much to be regretted, as the publicity so given would 
act as a great deterrent in other cases. The Royal Agricultural 
Society meantime can do useful work by bringing such forms 
of adulteration to light, though its work would be much more 
effective if purchasers of these adulterated materials would 
