ExploreUK home

0-9 | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z

6 > Image 6 of Kentucky farm and home science, vol. 2 No. 3 summer 1956

Part of Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station

.. I problems involved and realizing the condition of the ia . ` V wr _ 7 feed industry with respect to adulteration of p10ClUCtS, A ` ' recognized a need for microscopical analysis in this 4 rVV ;i`_ T work. The test tube of the laboratory might show ri V i' I ! . Microscopic anaiy_ chemically what a product contained but it Would not it ir ` 3 ii 5 Sis by a skilled tech, show from what substances these chemicals were do- it ; , r t . nician sometimes rivcd. i e ii. reveals adultera- ____ { r V tl tions and injurious Microscopic Analysis Essenhul d ~ . . " l ' if mawfials in fd The first report of the Kentucky Experiment Station t V, _ fi . i zzzfzipiiolisgiuclglgg covering analysis of feed samples contains microscopic kl _ , made Such angiysgs reports as well as reports of chemical analysis. This j( continuously Since method of examination has consistently proven to be T i i rh e beginning of the primary basis for detecting adulterations and must 4 I .. ih 0m10l work in in large part be credited with meeting the problem of . Mll" ; 1906 adulteration that was primarily responsible for the ..1-j Vie- T passage of the law. Ti" ~ r~s s V . # irur . ,7* ` _ ; A uvuv . " ; H { l ~ i ' . ,r_- , >" . i' rr i r`rr * Milf i i T TT Feed Regulatory Service . ays In ivyyy aj; Q 5 t __ i_ T 'Cenlinuarl from page 5) I , iili if feed was made of a mixture of two or more grains, , ,, i as corn and wheat or corn, wheat and oats or products . ` - A :. ~ ~ i such as cottonseed meal, bran, oats, etc. The third type A V _A i )__V i __pV__ , was a yellow tag attached to a feeding stuff contain- ; T`` mf; Vu,_ , ,y;. i l.i A ing substances of little feeding value, such as cotton- I ., . seed hulls, oat hulls, corn cob meal, grit, oyster and 7- `_ _`i\ T - V T __`lii _, V _ `iu- clam shells, etc. Yellow tags were primarily used to i ` ` show that a product was not pure. For example, ni , at i Ii a cottonseed meal containing less than 41-percent pro- ji 4/I:_ T. . tein required a yellow tag because the product was ' V, _,T, T N i ` made up of a mixture of eottonseed meal and cotton- Q In `i V r_ seed hulls. Likewise, bran, shipstulf, etc., containing , T ` TT ll: corn cob meal, hulls, screenings refuse could not be Drying weighed Samples in a vacuum Oven is a Part or the { G sold as bran or shipstull but as a mixture and must procedure used in determining the moisture Content of the have a yellow tag attached. It is clear how the "yel- feed, tg low" tag idea arose in Kentucky, especially in view of widespread dilution of products at the time of pas- Chemical analysis likewise was appreciated as the sage of the law. basis for detecting deficiencies in protein and other ed chemical values. Over the years the matter of chemi- Lb"frY Findings Imprf"f cal analysis has been amplified to include many fea- , The back bone. then as now. for the enforcement tures that are more than just a matter of determining 4, of the law rested in the findings of the laboratory. deficiencies. Drugs, vitamins and minerals are now i Through the years it is the work of the laboratory that vital in formula feeds. Fifty years ago the laboratory has lifted and held these standards of operation to was concerned only with protein, fat and fiber and to Al todays high level of quality in representing feed prod- some extent moisture and ash. Today over a score of Ai uets to the purchasing publie. drugs and an equal number of vitamins and minerals ll It is worthy of note that even before the law was require attention. Certain toxic items must also be sw passed (in .\pril 1906) Dr. Seovell. anticipating the checked for, such as fluorine which may appear in ,_ l (5 KENTUCKY AGRICULTURAL Exenaixnzxr STAT1oN ifi ri