xt7xsj19n54w https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7xsj19n54w/data/mets.xml   Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station. 1940 journals 024 English Lexington. Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Regulatory series, bulletin. n.24 text Regulatory series, bulletin. n.24 1940 2014 true xt7xsj19n54w section xt7xsj19n54w Regulatory Series, Bulletin N0. 24 July, 1940
1.1
Ed . Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station
Ill- THOMAS P. COOPER, Director
lll.
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
111.
111.
:111.
lm- COMMERCIAL FEEDS IN KENTUCKY IN 1939
mi By J. D. TURNER, H. D. SPEARS,* W. G. TERRELL
“Q‘ and J. J. Ross
llll. __"?—
1111,
1111.
mil CONTENTS
`lNl· Page Page
Coininercial feed and livestock Rural mills ..,,,._.,....,,.,.,.,,.,_............,_.__ 10
‘llll- *“d“St"l"S ·**-·r··~··-·-~-*··r-·r*-··~-—-<---·~*·* 2 Miscellaneous samples, including
lim Results of inspection and samples suspected of poison-
analyses in 1939 .............. .- ....,...... 4 ing stock ...,. , ...,.......,.,.....,................ 10
imii Some abuses in feeds ,._.r................. 6 Method of calculating the
* Impormnce Of iiiiii-Ormity iii i)i.€_ analysis of feed mixtures .rrrrr.... 11
paring samples for analysis ..... S CI`I€ll`II(`ElI' standards and
*““- Table 1. name of iineness on r€s¤1¤¤¤¤S —,,,------—---, — ---—------»-»-»------ 12
¥11ll· the analysis of feeds .................. 9 Tonnage in 1939 ................................ 16
Ellll. Table 2. Increase from grind- Summary of results of inspection
ing the samples of feed ___,._.._,..__ 9 and analysis, 1939 __.........._._....... 1S
The quality of commercial feeds on sale in the State in
' 1939 generally was high, tho many irregularities were found
as shown by analyses of the samples collected. Users of com-
mercial feeds are becoming better acquainted with the feed con- .
trol service and are making more use of it as they understand
the protection and service it gives. They know that the Feed
Control Department of the Experiment Station, from many _
» years • experience, is familiar with the practices, good and bad,
of most of the manufacturers doing business in the State. The
honest and progressive manufacturer has come to realize his
responsibility to the livestock industry because his business
depends very definitely upon how it is translated into service
to this industry, This responsibility necessarily impels him
*Died May 4, 1940.
l
  ‘
I

 ` · 2 Kentucky riyriculturel Escpcrimemf Station
Q to not only exercise due intelligence but honesty as well in the I
manufacture and sale of reliable and productive feeds, if his Y
l business is to prosper. I Z1
‘ a
— COMMERCIAL FEED AND LIVESTOCK INDUSTRIES jg
_ The commercial feed industry and the livestock industry
, are definitely interdependent; the former cannot exist without tl
E the other and without commercial feeds the livestock industry S,
. would be greatly handicapped fo1· lack of by-product materials f,
I to balance their rations; besides commercial mixed feed is a ‘ tl
convenience and a time saver for which many a feeder is H
* willing to pay. Their interests are mutual and their respon-
sibilities one to the other a1·e equally important and must he 4 P
shared alike. The business of making commercial feeds has in
grown to large proportions. It involves a tremendous outlay ll
of capital and along with this an ever-increasing responsibility al
to the livestock industry. It is a big business in which many di
kinds of business men are engaged, The organizations repre- m
' sented by most of these men are honest and conscientious, are M
A I making good, honest feeds and selling them on their quality and YG
productiveness. Unfortunately there are some who produce th
, nothing but cheap feeds, low in price and productivencss, and
prey upon the unsuspecting feeder, as their unwholcsome con- th
tribution to the industry. Some p1·oduce both kinds of feeds in by
o1·der to meet competition. of
Many of the larger and more progressive manufacturers fil
have well—equipped laboratories with scientifically trained men H'
to supervise them. These men are usually selected from agri- wi
cultural colleges and experiment stations and are not only [Ol
capable of following the fundamental research done by expel`} W
ment stations and other laboratories but are conducting researell kl]
under their own plans and procedures. Many of the small of
mills, while not able to equip and maintain laboratories, an? _ le
doing a good job of making high-quality feeds because th0§’ hg
use only standard products the values of which are well known. (lll
Most Of the trouble in dealing with commercial feeds comes fl‘<>111 im
, manufacturers who have little, if any, regard for- quality and ° (ilk
l .

 V Commercial Feeds in 1939 3
nutritional value of feeds. They make and sell inferior products.
with extravagant claims, to a class of feeders that can least
` afford to purchase unproductive feeds. Such manufacturers
are a menace to the feed industry as well as to the livestock
industry.
Another common practice in the commercial feed business
that should not be condoned is making unwarranted claims thru
salesmen and advertising matter. Some advertisements go so
far as to say that diagnosis of animal diseases will be made and
l their treatment will be prescribed by mail. Other claims are
made of certain feeds as having preventive and curative
· properties of infectious animal diseases. Such claims are not
only unwarranted but dangerous to the livestock industry and
the practice should be condemned by reputable manufacturers
and feeders alike. If animals are healthy they do not need -
drugs; if they are unhealthy or sick they need specific treat—
ment by a veterinarian. There should be reasonableness about
advertising and claims of manufacturers so that they will be
respected as a medium of imparting tl1e truth about feeds and
thei1· use.
The more alert and discriminating feeders understand
these advertising claims and are 11ot tempted and influenced
by them, but the less experienced and unsuspecting ones are
often deceived. Many feeders have become nonplused and con-
fused Hlld are skeptical of all feeds regardless of the producer.
However, to the feeder, to a large degree, must he laid the -
responsibility for the irresponsible manufacturers who make
, low—grade, uneeonomical feeds a11d feeds claimed to have pre-
ventive and curative properties for infectious diseases. Just so
long as the feeder buys them on price alone, with no thought
of quality, nutritive value and economic production, there will
be manufacturers who will make for l1i1n just such feeds. If
he will exercise due diligence in selecting his feeds, hc will not
only be assured of better results but will do a distinct service
fO1`,lTll(T feed and livestock business in making for honesty and
— quality in feeds and a better livestock industry.
V ‘ f .

 I I 4 Keizitueky Agricultural Experiment Station I
l RESULTS OF INSPECTION AND ANALYSES IN 1939 hz
, The Feed Control Department analyzed chemically and W
Q mic1·oscopically during the year 1,412 samples of different p]
, classes of commercial feeds found on the Kentucky market. The
results generally were encouraging but in some respects dis- CO
‘ Y appointing. It is noteworthy that the higher grades of special- Of
I purpose feeds, especially the poultry feeds, were more uniform di
', in composition and quality than in previous years. Wliile the Sk
higher grades of dairy feeds were very uniform in composition
I I and quality, yet the low-grade filler dairy feeds were irregular
> in composition and poor in quality. It is thru these feeds that du
I screenings, screenings waste, hulls, chaff, weed seeds and m
materials of little or no feeding value are sold to the unsuspect- pq
ing feeder at attractive prices. Such feeds are the costliest a ml
feeder can buy because of their low productiveness as compared  
with high-quality feeds and considering the chance he is taking Of
I with the health of his animals. Most of the irregularities found y mi
,_ _ in mixed feeds come thru the use of screenings and screenings of
waste. tm.
Considerable confusion has been created in the minds of mi.
many buyers of commercial feeds because of overemphasis and ad
unwarranted claims of merit for certain kinds of feeds, in ing
advertisements and sales talk. Example: certain poultry and or
hog feeds are advertised to contain as many as 6 to 8 mineral ma
supplements and a similar number of vitamins, and the need sar
for them is emphasized by salesmen. It is very unlikely that wh
no1·mal feeds are deficient in these materials and that poultry Wl]
and hogs would need, at most, not more than one or two of i fllil
. those claimed to be in the feed. Many of these supplements lll
are composed of common materials which ordinarily ge to make GOP
up a normal ration, together with small quantities of a few lng
I materials of a medicinal or specific nature to becloud the mind (Wl
of the feeder. Every practical feeder knows the value of the _ 1085
common feed ingredients but often they are shrouded with
_ supplements, many of which have no nutritive value, to gi\'€ fcc,
'   mystery to the feed. Some of these materials are claimed te the
I

 Commercial Feeds in 193.9 5
have not only minerals and vitamins, but laxatives, regulators,
worm remedies, appetizers and similar agents which have no
place in a feed.
Sometimes salesmen inadvertently criticise feeds of their
competitors, pointing out their weak points and the fallacies
of the claims made for them, in such a manner as to create
distrust in the mind of the feeder and many are becoming
skeptical about the feed business.
Because nutritionists have found that a number of other
substances besides protein, carbohydrates and fat are needed
in the diet to effect perfect nutrition they advocate diets com-
posed of several different kinds of feed. Manufacturers of
mixed feeds recognize a possible need of this kind in certain
commercial feeds and are trying to meet it intelligently.
Unfortunately, some manufacturers have taken up multiplicity
of ingredients as a selling point and are including in their
mixed feeds a large number of materials, regardless of the nature
of the nutrients contained in them. Persistent advertising has
tended to make the feeder believe that the more ingredients a
mixed feed contains, the better it is. This tends to give an unfair
advantage to the dealer who sells a feed in which a dozen
ingredients are claimed, over the one who sells an equally good
or better feed in which only four or five are claimed. Some
manufacturers even repeat names that imply practically the
same thing, in order to make the list longer. For example;
wheat mixed feed was declared by one as being composed of I
wheat bran, wheat middlings, wheat shorts, wheat white mid-
_ dlings and red dog. Another, who used ground shelled corn
in his feed, declared as ingredients, corn meal, hominy meal,
corn germ meal and corn bran. Sometimes the most important
ingredients are used in the smallest amounts permissible, in
order to get the names on tl1e label, and the main ingredients are
less desirable mate1·ials.
Honesty is a very important factor in the manufacture of
feed. It is frequently lost sight of. It is too often left out of
the formula. It is that factor which should be closely associated

 , - 6 Kentucky Agrtoultiwal Experiment Station ·
5 with every nutrient in a feed whether it be protein, fat, carbo-
Q hydrates, minerals or vitamins. A great deal depends on the
l honesty of the manufacturer. `
l
. SOME ABUSES IN FEEDS _
, Some of the abuses found in feeds in Kentucky during the
, I year are pointed out in the following paragraphs, for the ·
Q benefit of the feeder, who is the backbone of the livestock
» ‘ industry, and the manufacturer, who stands for honesty and
L quality in the feed industry, with the hope that both will join
`. with the Department in an endeavor to eliminate as much as
Q possible the economic cheats and frauds practiced in the feed
e industry.
Alfalfa Products. Alfalfa products are used in special-
purpose and mixed feeds. The feeder has no way to know their
quality and depends on the service of the Feed Control Depart- ·
ment and the honesty of the manufacturer to protect his
, interest. Much inferior alfalfa meal is being used in low-grade
4 , feeds. Often alfalfa that has been stripped of part ol? the
leaves is ground and mixed in feeds, under the name of alfalfa
meal. Sometimes alfalfa stems are used in the same way. Most
‘ of the inferior meals and deleafed meals are used in low-
grade dairy feeds. Much of it has been treated with molasses `
to disguise its quality. The better grades of alfalfa and leaf 1
meals are used in poultry and hog feeds.
Animal Products. Some samples of meat scrap and tankagc `
were found to be adulterated with soybean oil meal, cotton- *
seed meal and whale meal. Some of the adulterations were (
traced to shipments of adulterated materials from South i
= America. These adulterations were detected by the aid of the <
microscope and this fact emphasizes the importance of the *
microscopist in the feed control work. °
The quality and use of milk by-products were irregulzlli "  
Some manufacturers used poor quality of milk products in their il
mashes while others guaranteed the presence of a milk product  
; in some feeds in which it was not found on analysis. __
V  
I

 Commercial Feeds in 1939 7
Corn Products. Degermcd corn and products from it have
V been used in stock and poultry feeds. The result of this practice
was that the feeds were not only deficient in the valuable germ
but the fat content was correspondingly low. A mixture of
` corn bran, corn meal and a small amount of corn germ has bee11
sold as hominy feed. Finely ground corn bran has often been
l substituted for corn feed meal.
Cottonsced Products. Cottonseed meals generally met their
guaranties, but frequently too much hull was present which made
tl1e fiber too high and the protein correspondingly low.
Screenings and Screenings Waste. A substantial amount
of screenings and screenings waste was used in low—grade dairy
‘ feeds. The materials varied widely in chemical and physical
composition. Some screenings have value, some have very little
while others are worthless and even dangerous to the health
of animals. Feeders are urged to beware of feeds containing A
screenings.
Soyl2eu»1t Produlcts. Soybean oil meal was increasingly
used in all classes of stock feeds during the year. The solvent-
processed meals were almost devoid of fat, dry in texture and
unpalatablc. Some soybean oil meals contained an excess of
water due, it would seem, to the addition ol? water by some
manufacturers. —
Wheat Products. There were more irregularities in
wheat feeds during tl1e year than usual. Sonic mills partially .
dcgerm tl1e wheat and use the germ for special purposes, while
Others are adjusting their milling process so as to retain the
germ in the flour for its vitamin content. The by-products,
except bran, are correspondingly low in fat, protein, vitamins
and minerals, as tl1e germ is rich in these inaterials. Some
of the wl1eat feeds contained excess water which indicated that
water had been added in some way during tl1e process of milling
and sacking tl1e feed. lt is claimed that the high water content
is due to "tempering" tl1e wheat in milling. Many mills also
make a number of wheat feeds by including screenings, inferior
ground wl1eat and inferior wheat by-products without regard to

 \ ` 8 Kentucky Agrricnltnmt Experiment Station
l
i any standard of quality. Many of these irregularities were
A claimed to be caused by natural and seasonal conditions, but
E most of them are man—made.
' IMPORTANCE OF UNIFORMITY IN PREPARING SAMPLES FOR _
Q ANALYSIS A
E i The procedure of the Association of Official Agricultural
{ Chemists requires that in preparing a sample of feed for
i analysis it shall be ground until all passes thru a sieve having ‘
.   circular openings one millimeter in diameter. The object of this
Z procedure is to promote uniformity and to have the particles `
i of the sample so small that the several small portions weighed ·
out for analysis shall be identical in composition. Obviously, _
the action of solvents may be affected by the degree of fineness
of a material; the smaller the particles, the more efficient the 1
action. The following experiment was made to observe the _
effect of grinding on the findings for ether extract and fiber, i
determinations which are made by means of solvents. Findings
I I of protein should not be affected by degree of fineness except (
i that small portions taken from a mixture containing coarse —
A particles may not be uniform in composition. C
In this experiment, each sample of feed was divided into —
two parts, one of which was ground until it all passed the S
l-mm sieve, illld analyzed, as usual. Later, the other part which ¢ —
had been kept in a closed jar, was analyzed without having been
ground. Only single determinations were made and water was -
not determined. Table l gives the average findings in the
original samples and the difference obtained by subtracting D
the average for the unground sample from that for the ground D
, sample. The difference has the minus sign when more was Vx
obtained from the unground sample than from what had been
ground. Table 2 gives these differences calculated as percent M
y of the findings in the ground samples, and also the range of A
the individual determinations. O]
As was expected, grinding increased the percentage of ether T2
extract obtained, decreased that of fiber, and affected that of . ._
  protein least. Sonic of the differences are striking, espcci21ll)'  
I
l

 li 
Commercial Feeds in 1.93.9 9
in the dried grains and wheat feeds. The findings confirm
the Well-recognized principle, that standard directions for
preparation of the sample for analysis should be followed
- faithfully by the analyst. I
· Table 1. Effect of fineness on the analysis of feeds. The percent
l obtained from the original sample is stated and below it the increase obtained
` by analyzing a finer-ground portion. (The minus sign means decrease.)
Kind or Feed I Protein}   Fiber- !£§,'§§},§§§j
Percent Percent Percent
Dried grains (2 distillers’; 1 brewers’) .... 25.00 6.05 13.75 3
Increase or decrease (-) from grinding 0.84 2.37 -1.49
Tankage ......................... 1 ................ - ..................... 54.28 9.02 1.87 3
Increase or decrease (-) from grinding 0.20 0.83 -0.64
Wheat feeds . ...... . ....... - ............... . ........................ 15.68 4.15 6.43 13
Increase or decrease (-) from grinding 0.22 0.68 -0.42
Dried beet pulp ....................... I ........ - ................. 8.95 0.18 20.40 1
Increase or decrease (-) from grinding 0.30 0.45 -0.02
Mixed feeds (4 corn, 3 dairy, 5 poultry,
1 hog, 1 dog) ............................................ 14.10 5.14 5.01 14
Increase or decrease (-) from grinding -0.16 0.25 0.12
Oil meal (3 linseed, 5 cottonseed) .............. 40.11 6.44 8.62 8
Increase or decrease (-) from grindingl 0.07 0.08 I -0.13
General average .....................................»........... I 23.97 I 5.60 I 7.16 I 42
Increase or decrease (-) from grinding 0.13 0.52 -0.28
Table 2. Increase or decr·ease_from grinding the samples of feed,
expressed as percent of the constituent determined. (The minus sign
means decrease.)
. . Number of
Kind of Feed Protein Gggifgt Fiber analyses
averaged
I
Percent I Percent ' Percent
_ I
Dried beet pulp ...-. 3.2 I 71.4 -0.1 1
Dried grains ............ . 3.3 28.2 -12.2 3
Range 1.4 to 6 25 to 31 -5 to -19
. Wheat feeds .............. 1.4 14.1 -7.0 13
Range 0 to 3.4 1.6 to 28.6-15 to 9
Mixed feeds ........._._.. -1,2 4.6 2.3 14
Range -3.8 to 3.1 -3.9 to 12 -10 to 15
Ol] meals _.,.,__.,_._....... 0.2 1.2 -1.5 8
Range -2.2 to 4.1 -3.6 to 4.9 -5.8 to 3.2
Talikage _..,__.._._..,.._,,.,. 0.4 0.8 -52.0 3
· Range -0.1 to 7 4 to 11 -67 to -28
I General average   I 0.4 I 8.4 I -6.3 I 42

 l V 10 Ko2Itr1r·lty Agricttttiztrat Ecvperiimcint Station
l
{ RURAL MILLS -
  It has been tl1e custom of the Feed Control Department
Q for a number of years to encourage small mills in rural com-
L munities in developing cooperative community projects of an ’
agricultural nature, in an advisory way, by analyzing their
  feeds, helping them make their feed formulas and advising the  
g kind of supplements to use with the home-grown feeds and
  l where they can be obtained.
ip The arrangement is between the mill and fa1·mers in the
i ? community, whereby the mill takes the home-grown materials
S at local or fixed prices, mills them, adds the necessary supple-
ments to balance the feeds and sells them back to the farmers
at a low cost. Other agricultural products are handled in the
same manner. In this way home markets are established for 4
the farmers and mills for home-grown feed materials. Such
an arrangement encourages farmers to grow more and better
crops, raise more farm animals at less cost and at the same time
· improve their farms by raising more grass and livestock. lt
i I stimulates other community activities, especially of a coope1·ative
i nature. lt not only helps the community economically but in
a general. way forms a basis which makes for better and more
successful living. '
MISCELLANEOUS SAMPLES, INCLUDING SAMPLES SUSPECTED `
OF POISONING STOCK
During the year, one hundred and sixty-four samples were .
sent to the Department for help to solve certain feed problems;
of these, thirty were suspected of containing poison. The
samples were examined microscopically and, when thought
advisable, a chemical analysis was made for suspected poisons.
All these feeds were found to be sound, of good quality and " —
free from suspected poisons. l
` `\\'henever production from poultry or f1·om dairy cows
falls off or the animals become sick or die, the first thought in
the minds of many feeders is to blame the feed rather than to
, look for some other cause such as changing the feeding prac- 5
{ tices, disease, parasites, ete. This is often unjust to the manu-
' .

 Coimncroial Feeds in 1939 11
faeturer of the feed. The gnaranties made by manufacturers
are not absolute 1I"l€8Sll1`GS of Value; llO\\'QV€1', these and the 111211111-
facturer’s reputation are the best criteria that a feeder has.
More often, when the trouble is due to the feed, it can be laid
to the use of cheap filler feeds containing screenings composed
- of weed seeds, trash and inferior and diseased grains. lt
could be possible that a malicious person might put poison into
a neighbor’s feed, or that the stock might get wilted wild cherry
leaves sudanerass eontainin¤· irussic acid or other Joisonous
p 7 D D
materials. However, instances of this sort are rare.
In ease of death of animals under unusual or suspicious
circumstances, a reliable veterinarian should be called immedi-
ately to make an investigation.
METHOD OF CALCULATING THE ANALYSIS OF FEED MIXTURES
Requests are often received for a method for calculating the i
analysis of a given feed mixture. Examples are given of two
classes of feed most commonly mixed by the feeder, in 1,001)-
1)()ll11(l batches, for his stock.
Example 1. 2(Lpercent protein dairy feed.
1 l 2 l Il i ~1
 
Percentage llnndreds of Pounds of
1Hg,·Gdi€.ntS of protein, pounds of protein 1'rom
Y or pounds eaeh earh
in 100 ingredient ingredient
150 pounds wheat bran...... l 15 4 1.5 l  
200 pounds ground shelled eornl 0 2 i 1N.0
150 pounds hominy meal   l 11 l 1.5 l 10.5
ly0 pounds eottonseed meal . l 11 l 1.5 1 01.5
150 pounds soybean oil meal ...f 41 ` 1.5 l 01.5
100 pounds ground oats .     l 11 1 l 11.0
_ l-UU Dvlllids alfalfa meal   W {l 14   1 l 14.0
l   {
1000 pounds ___,.._,,..___,,,_, __ _,_r, _ _rr_ I l 10 i 205,0
l l I
 
Then 205.0 divided by 10:20.5, the pewentage of protein in this feed.

 I ` 12 Kcnfuclry Agrz`cIIHiIr<1Z E.B])(’}'I.l)iC’?lt Sllflllil-()7lI
I
I Example 2. 20—percent protein laying mash.
1 I 2 I zz I 4
I Percentage Hundreds of Pounds of
I Ingredients (Jf])l`()tt*1Il, poundls of proteinlfroin
or ponm s eae 1 eae i -
I in 100 ingredient ingredient
I I I
I 150 pounds wheat bran ,r,r_. . ,.,_.,. I 15 I 1.5 I 22.5 I
. 200 pounds wheat middlings  16 I 2 I 32.0
200 pounds ground yellow t·ornI fl 2 I 18.0
I 100 pounds ground oats ,,,,__,,,,,,, I 11 I 1 11.0
I 150 pounds meat scrap .,,,,,,,..... I 50 I 1.5 I 75.0
I 100 pounds alfalfa meal   ..... I 14 I 1 I 14.0
i 100 pounds soybean oil meal  | 41 I 1 41.0
_ I I I
. I I I
I 1000 pounds _   ,.,,. . __ ,,.,,, WI I 10 I 213.5
i I I I
I Then 213.5 divided by 10:21.35, the pcreciitage of protein in this feed.
Explanation:
1. List the number of pounds and ingredients in column 1. .
 
2. Get from the guaranty on the official tag or from the average
analysis the protein content of each ingredient and put it in column 2
3. Place the hundreds of pounds of each ingredient in column 3.
For example, 150 pounds of an ingredient is listed as 1.5 hundred
' pounds.
· . . .. . . . , .
I 4. Multiply the figure for each ingredient in column 2 by that
in column 3 to get the figure in column 4. This is multiplying the
number of pounds of protein in a hundred, by the 11llll1l)€l` of hundred
pounds of each ingredient, to get the total pounds of protein fur-
nished by each ingredient.
5. Add column 3, which gives the total weight of the mixture,
in hundred pounds. »
6. Add column 4, which gives the total weight of protein in the
mixture.
7. Divide the sum of column 4 by the sum of column 3. This
gives the percentage of protein in the mixture.
The percentages of otl1e1· substances such   fat or fiber can
, be calculated i11 a similar way.
CHEMICAL STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS
I (`ll(‘llIl('tll standards I`or feeds and regulatioiis to be l'0l- —
lowed by the trade have been establislied by the Director oI’ the
,\I.ll'lt'lllllll'&ll Experinieiit Station, under autliority of the feed
law. These standards are modil’ied I`rom time to time as sul`- _
I fieient experimental evidence and conditions justify. The
I

 O0mm0re1`al Feeds in 1939 13
Hllllfllllllll for protein is sufficiently higl1 in by-product feeds
to assure good quality products Zllltl i11 special-purpose feeds
to require a desirable SOll1`(3€. Alllllllllllll fat requires the by-
- products to be from grains that have 110f bee11 degernied a11d
the special—p11rpose feeds to be composed of 11liL‘[(:‘1'l?llS that l1ave
1 11ot b9Gl1 degermed and excl11des excessive fillers of low fat
co11te11t. The standard for fiber assures good—quality b}'—])1`OClllC1Z
feeds illltl excludes excessive fillers a11d materials of highly
fibrous nature, 2111Ll assures a high percentage of 1]lt1`()g‘011—f1'(·]€
extract.
1. Ch8mlC3l Sfahdafdsl Hunk puny ;MaXi_
n1u 111 11111111 11111111
protein fat fiber
(a) Standard By—Pr0duets: percent percent percent
Alfalfa leaf Il1€21l .....,.........,....1..,.e..._....,. . ........ . ...... 18.00
Alfalfa meal ................r......................... 13.00 1.50 32.00 A
Barley, ground ___,............._...................... . .,...... . ...... 6.00
‘ Buttermilk, dried .................................. . ........ 5.00 .........
Cor11, chopped, cracked (Screened) .. 8.00 3.50 3.00
Corn, chopped, cracked, ground ........ 9.00 3.75 2.50
Co1·n feed 111eal .................................... S.00 3.75 4.00
Cottonseed HIGH], 41% protein ............ 41.00 5.00 12.00
Cotionseed meal, 43% protein ............ 43.00 5.50 10.00
H0111i11y meal, h0111i11y feed .................. 10.00 7.00 6.00
Oats, ground ............................................ 11.00 4.50 12.00
» Rye niiddlings or shorts ...................... 15.50 3.50 6.00
Wl1eat lJl`H11 ..,......................................... 14.50 3.75 10.00
VVheat brown niiddlings or sl1o1·ts .... 16.00 4.00 7.50 ·
VVheat flour or white 11ll(l(ll1l1§,`S or
shorts ................................................ 16.00 3.50 3.50
W'heat gray middlings or Sl10l'[S ........ 16.00 4.00 6.00
\Vl1eat l0w·grade feed flour ___.........,... 13.00 2.50 1.50
\Vheat mixed feed _............................... 15.50 4.00 8.50
Wheat red dog (Hard wheat) ............ 16.00 4.00 4.00
Wheat 1·ed dog (Soft wheat) ............ 14.50 3.50 3.50
A (b) ·SD€Cl{ll·Plll'])OS€ Mixed Feeds:
_ Dairy feed ____.....,........................ . ..... . ..... 16.00 3.50 15.00
I Hog feed (Fattening) .......................... 13.00 3.50 7.00
_ Hog feed (Growing) .............................. 10.00 3.50 7.00
Horse and mule feed .......................... 0.00 2.50 15.00

 t ' 1+1 Kcutizcky Ag2·1`cuZz‘uraZ Etcpcrimcnt Sfahon
j Mini- Mini- l\Iaxi—
mum 11111111 mum
protein fat fiber
l Poultry: percent percent percent
‘ All-mash broiler ration ............._.. 15.00 4.00 6.00 E
~ All-mash growing ration .,.......,.. 15.00 4.00 6.00
All-mash laying ration ................ 15.00 4.00 7.00
° All-mash poultry ration ._...,.......... 15.00 4.00 6.00
l All-mash starting ration ____..._..,. 15.00 4.00 6.00
Q ° All-mash starting and growing 4
ration ......__....._.....,.................... 15.00 4.00 6.00
— Chick grains ...,................................ 9.00 2.50 3.50
` 2 Scratch grains ................................ 9.00 3.00 5.00
  Fattening mash .............................. 13.00 4.00 6.00
I Growing mash, broiler mash ........ 17.00 3.50 7.00
Laying mash .................................. 18.00 3.50 8.00
Starting mash ____............................ 17.00 3.50 6.00 5_
Starting and growing mash ........ 17.00 3.50 7.00
Turkey all-mash ration ____............ 16.00 4.00 7.00
Turkey growing mash ................ 17.00 3.50 7.00
Turkey laying mash ...................... 18.00 3.50 $.00
Turkey starting mash ................ 18.00 3.50 0.00
' Turkey starting and growing
k » mash ___l____,_______,_________,_,,__________.. 18.00 3.50 7.00
2. General Requirements:
(a) In making registrations, care should be exercised to make
the chemical gnaranties reasonably close to the actual content;
of the feed. In other words, arbitrary guaranties will not D6
accepted as final. V
(b) It a material change is made in the guaranty of a feed, in 0·
effect lowering the value of the feed, the name of the feed must
be changed also.
(c) The percentage of protein must form part of the name in
all higlrprotein materials and special-purpose feeds. Example:
41% Protein Cottonseed Meal, 60% P1·otein Tankage, 20% Protein
` Dairy Feed, 17% Protein Growing Mash. ,
(dl Oil»mill by-products containing hulls, screenings and similar
materials, thus niaterially lowering the percentage of crude pro-
` tein, cannot be called meals, but may be called meal and hulls.
or meal and screenings. o1· feed, or by some proprietary name. T
(e) Any feed containing less than 9 percent of protein must be
called by the names of its ingredients. ·
i (f) I11 naming feeds, the terms "feed" and "ration" should 09
I

 Commercial Feeds in 1939 15
distinguished. A feed 1nay or may 11ot be a 1`2ltlO1l. A ration is a
complete feed and does not require other feed to be fed in addition
to it. `
3. Essential Organic Ingredients:
A feedstuff must not contain less than 3 percent of any essential
organic food ingredient stated in the guaranty. If an ingredient
· so stated is found to be less than 3 percent the feed will be
classed as misbranded.
4. Mineral Ingredients:
Mineral ingredients, generally regarded as dietary factors
essential for the normal nutrition of animals, except bone, when
added to a feed must not exceed 3 percent. The amount of salt
in any stock feed, including poultry feeds, should not exceed 1
percent.
5. Screenings:
(a) Percentage of screenings in wheat feeds and statement
whether grou11d or unground, must be given.
(b) When screenings are used in mixed or special—purpose feeds,
the percentage must be stated, and the minimum amounts of ‘
protein and fat and the maximum amounts of fiber and ash for
such screenings must be stated in the registration. Samples of
such screenings may be required to be furnished on request by
the Department.
(c) If all or part of the immature, broken and light grains and
other seeds of commercial value have been removed from screen:
ings, the material must be called "screenings refuse" or "screen-
ings waste."
* 6. Materials of Little or No Feeding Value:
(a) Percentage of material of little or no feeding value must
be stated. T
(b) \Vhen organic materials of little o1· no feeding value as con—
centrates are used in mixed or special-purpose feeds, the open
formula must be given in the registration. The open formula will
not be printed on the tag unless there is a good reason why it
should. The Depa1·t1nent reserves