These are just practical questions that men who have fed hogs and cattle and sheep and chickens and that have raised grain know. I happen to know them, and I think, after a reading of this bill, that it needs some very careful revamping. In fact, I think it has been drawn in reference to grains about as I might draw a bill with reference to cotton. Being wholly ignorant of cotton, I would be very likely to mix up the cotton situation. I am inclined to think a cotton man drew this bill. Representative HAUGEN. Is it not a fact, Senator, that the question of the use of screenings really is left entirely to the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture in the bill? Senator REED. Well, I have just read this part of it carefully. You may have put some discretion in the Secretary of Agriculture. The CHAIRMAN. I would like to say that in my judgment screenings ought to be excepted from this provision. Representative HAUGEN. Mr. Chairman, there are undesirable screenings; there is no question about that. The CHAIRMAN. Just one moment. Here is the point I want to get at, though: There is a very widespread misapprehension as to what this amendment proposes to do. This does not propose to prohibit the interstate shipment of damaged grains or timothy hay or cottonseed hulls. But those things are roughage, they are not concentrated feedstuffs, and they ought not to be covered up with black-strap molasses and palmed off on the farmer as concentrated feedstuffs. That is what this amendment undertakes to prohibit. Sell what you are actually selling and let the farmer know what he is buying. There is no disposition to prohibit the sale of any feedstuff that has any feeding value. Senator REED. Is that what the bill says? The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir; that is what it says. That it shall be unlawful, except as herein otherwise provided, for any person, firm, or corporation knowingly to ship, offer for shipment, or transport in commerce among the several States or for commerce with foreign countries any concentrated commercial feeding stuffs containing any damaged feed, mill, elevator, or other sweepings or dust Containing any of that. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; sold as concentrated feedstuffs; not sold as timothy hay or cotton hulls. Senator REED. All right. I was using timothy hay merely to illustrate; I was not using it as being completely within the bill. [Reading:] any concentrated commercial feeding stuffs containing any damaged feed, mill, elevator, or other sweepings And yet there are mill, elevator, and other sweepings that are unquestionably of food value. The bill mentions buckwheat hulls, cottonseed hulls, peanut hulls, and peanut shells; I know nothing about their food value, whether they have any or not. Rice hulls, oat hulls-I undertake to say that oat hulls have a food value. The CHAIRMAN. There is no doubt of that Senator REED. I have bought them as such and fed them as such. [Reading:] Corncobs ground, cocoa shells, clipped oat by-product, ground or unground hulls, screenings, chaff, or other cleanings derived from the preparation, clean ing, or milling of any seed or grain when separated from the standard product as an offal or by-product, or such preparation, cleaning, or milling, humus, peat, spagnum moss, ivory-nut turnings, ground cornstalks, flax-plant refuse, sorghum pulp, ground or shredded straw or hay, sawdust, cellulose, or dirt, or any other foreign material. That is all prohibited up to that point. Now, the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to issue a written permit for the shipment of concentrated commercial feeding stuffs containing a mixture of foreign material which in his judgment is inseparable from such prepared feeds or which does not detract materially from its feeding value. You have prohibited it, and then you allow him to permit it under this limitation. Read that. I do not want to argue this with you gentlemen, who are very patient with me, but read that and ask yourselves whether it does not in fact prohibit even the Secretary of Agriculture from permitting anything to come in except that which he considers is inseparable from such prepared feeds and that which does not detract materially from their feeding value. Everybody knows that a damaged article has subtracted from it a part of its food value, and yet it has a food value. It may have a food value of 90 per cent or it may have a food value of 25 per cent, but whatever it is it ought not to be lost at a time like this. (Reading :) Provided, That such feeding stuffs in packages or bales be so labeled as to show to purchasers and users thereof specifically the percentage of each ingredient entering into the composition of same, or if such feed stuffs are shipped in bulk in carload lots then the bill of lading and the bill from manufacturer to purchaser of same shall both show such analysis. Now, I think it is entirely proper to require any animal food that is sold to be honestly labeled, to tell just what it is; there is no reason why that should not be true of everything we use. But if it has been honestly labeled then can not the farmer and others be trusted to protect themselves? Senator KELLOGG. Will the chairman allow me to add one thing? The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. Senator KELLOGG. I should have said to the committee that in Minnesota the amount of screenings that are taken out, the sale of them, and the whole subject is under regulation by the Minnesota Railroad and Warehouse Commission, under which every elevator in Minnesota is operated. I have never heard of any complaint of any fraud in the sale of screenings, which is a matter of very large commercial importance. The CHAIRMAN. I would like to say in that connection that any Member of the Senate or House who has telegrams that he desires to file may do so. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. SHAFROTH, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO. Senator SHAFROTH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have 3 or 4 minutes. I will state that the parties from whom I have received. telegrams are very much interested in alfalfa meal. That is an , industry that has grown up in our State and is attaining large proportions. We ship 210,000 tons. It is mixed with nothing; there is no adulteration contained in it at all. Our interest in this matter is not from the standpoint of anything deleterious being placed in the meal but in the fact that it might destroy the market so far as the meal is concerned by hindering the sale of the mixed feeds in which our alfalfa meal adds so much to the general feeding quality of the mixtures. We have 44 mills out in Colorado, and it is an industry that has grown up very recently. It is evident from the discussion that has been going on here that this is a matter that requires a great deal of close investigation and technical learning. I have great confidence in the chairman of this committee, and I know he wants nothing but what is fair and right. His desire is to prevent adulteration if it is bad. I am satisfied this bill will be amended by this committee, if it wants to report a measure, but inasmuch as this is an amendment that has never been reported nor investigated by a committee, at least in the Senate, and as it comes as a rider upon an appropriation bill, which often is productive of hasty legislation, I would like to suggest that this be deferred in some way until you get a bill of your own, a bill that is separate. The Agricultural Committee of the Senate is a great committee, and it can put before the Senate at any time a measure of this kind. after thorough investigation upon your part, and it seems to me that would be better than to take a measure that is introduced upon the floor of the House without a committee report. These are very serious matters-serious matters to my State, I know, as to whether our alfalfa market is going to be destroyed. There is one item in this measure which relates to the question of hay. Alfalfa is hay, and it may be that that is one of the things that is prohibited in this mixture. I know it was not the intention of the chairman to include that, because alfalfa is one of the finest ingredients in the make-up of this mixed food, and on that account I want to suggest the question whether or not the word "hay" there would not have a tendency to prevent the putting into the compound of one of the very best ingredients. Inasmuch as this measure has not had that deliberation which this committee always gives, and as this very hearing will aid very materially in forming an opinion as to what should go into it, I suggest the question whether it would not be wise to introduce a separate bill, or let it go over until the next general appropriation bill this winter. Senator SMITH of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I may be a little mixed in my definitions, my terminology. Senator Reed has interJected here the question of hay. What is the recognized difference in the trade, if any, between what you are denominating here concentrated feeds and the ordinary feeds that are sold? The CHAIRMAN. I will try to bring that out in the course of the hearing, the distinction between roughage and concentrated feeds. Hay is, of course, specified as roughage, and so are cottonseed hulls, both of which have a very high feeding value but are not concentrated feeds. 66 Senator SMITH of South Carolina. I can not follow this discussion intelligently until I get some clear understanding as to what is meant by concentrated feed. Do you mean by concentrated feed " a compound of elements which, singly and alone are concentrated? Is that what you mean? The CHAIRMAN. I do not think it would mean that entirely. It would mean the exclusion of anything that had no feeding value or very low feeding value. Mr. ABBOTT. May I interject a suggestion at this time? Mr. ABBOTT. You have sent for a representative of the Department of Agriculture, from the Bureau of Chemistry. I understand Dr. Haywood is in the room, and undoubtedly he is in a position to answer these technical questions such as Senator Smith has just brought up. I should appreciate it if you would call upon him at this time. The CHAIRMAN. We will hear Dr. Haywood next. STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN K. HAYWOOD, CHIEF OF MISCELLANEOUS DIVISION, BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, AND CHAIRMAN OF THE FEDERAL INSECTICIDE AND FUNGICIDE BOARD. The CHAIRMAN. How long have you been connected with the department, Dr. Haywood? Dr. HAYWOOD. Twenty-two years. The CHAIRMAN. Doctor, you may go ahead and state whatever occurs to you in connection with this amendment. You might first discuss concentrated feeding stuffs. Senator SMITH of South Carolina. I should like to hear that, Doctor. I should like to know the distinction in the trade between a concentrated feed and the feed that is ordinarily sold. Dr. HAYWOOD. Senator Smith, there is one trouble with this amendment according to my view, and that is that there is no fixed definition for a concentrated commercial feeding stuff. The term "concentrated commercial feeding stuff" has a different definition in nearly every State. Each State law gives a definition of what is meant by "concentrated commercial feeding stuff" in that particular State, and in any one State the definition differs from what it is in another State. In general they mean by "concentrated feeds" those that have high digestibility and low crude fiber; they usually have a high protein value and have a narrow nutritive ratio. That, in general, is what is meant by "concentrated feeding stuff." But there is no fixed definition in this country that I know of. Senator SMITH of South Carolina. So that in producing a concentrated feeding stuff they just use whatever in their judgment has a high protein content, no matter whether it is alfalfa, corn, or wheat, or a combination of all of them? Dr. HAYWOOD. Yes, sir; they use many things that have a high protein content in making these commercial concentrated feeding stuffs, and they are recognized as concentrated commercial feeding stuffs by the laws of the different States. The CHAIRMAN. In that you would not include sawdust, would you, doctor? Dr. HAYWOOD. No. sir; that has no feeding value. Dr. HAYWOOD. I believe they make buttons from ivory nuts, and they get turnings from these, which are very hard and woody and very low in protein and fat, but they have carbohydrates in them. There is considerable feeding value in ivory-nut turnings. The CHAIRMAN. Then would you regard it as a concentrated feed? Dr. HAYWOOD. I would not call it a concentrated feed by itself; no, sir. Representative HAUGEN. Has it any food value whatever? Dr. HAYWOOD. It certainly has, sir. The Department of Agriculture has published a bulletin on that. Representative HAUGEN. How about the buckwheat hulls? Let us take them in the order they occur in the amendment. Dr. HAYWOOD. Buckwheat hulls have some feeding value. Representative HAUGEN. How much? Dr. HAYWOOD. Small; I can not tell you how much. Representative HAUGEN. How much? Dr. HAYWOOD. Small; probably 4 to 5 per cent of protein. Representative HAUGEN. How do they compare with corn or oats, for example? Dr. HAYWOOD. A good deal less; I can not give you the exact figures. Representative HAUGEN. How about peanut hulls? Dr. HAYWOOD. Peanut hulls-making a distinction between them and peanut shells-have quite a little feeding value, because there is a good deal of fat in them. Representative HAUGEN. Can you give it in percentage in comparison with other feeds? Dr. HAYWOOD. Perhaps I can find it. The CHAIRMAN. What is the difference between peanut hulls and peanut shells? Dr. HAYWOOD. The peanut shell is the outside white part of the peanut that is taken off. The peanut hull is that little red part that is around the nut itself. Representative HAUGEN. How about rice hulls? Dr. HAYWOOD. They have practically no feeding value. Dr. HAYWOOD. They have some feeding value, but low. Dr. HAYWOOD. I would say they contain in the neighborhood of from 4 to 5 per cent protein. Representative HAUGEN. And how about corncobs? Dr. HAYWOOD. Corncobs have a low feeding value; I would say probably-I am guessing now-about 3 to 4 per cent protein. It is low. Representative HAUGEN. Well, is it worth paying the freight? Dr. HAYWOOD. I do not know whether it is or not; it should not be thrown away. Representative HAUGEN. It should not be thrown away; of course not; but is it worth manufacturing? Dr. HAYWOOD. I think so. Representative HAUGEN. It is worth the price of manufacture? Dr. HAYWOOD. I think it is. Representative HAUGEN. And paying the freight? Mr. WARD. If you sell it in these foods, it is well worth it. |