SF REPORT FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION COMMERCIAL FEEDS MARCH 29, 1921 WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1921 Class. Book -E^ Xl^ ^z\ /? REPORT FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION COMMERCIAL FEEDS MARCH 29, 1921 WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1021 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. Huston Thompson, Cliairman. Nelson B. Gaskill. John Garland Pollaho. Victor Murdock. John F. Nugent. J. P. YoDER, Secretary. L1B«AHY OF CONGRESS AUQftatl21 CONTENTS. ^ Page. Acknowledgment jO Lettei' of Bubmitfal 11 Summary 15 Chapter I. — Origin and Scope of Report. Sec. 1. Origin of inquiry 25 Senate resolution 140 25 Feedingstufis covered 25 Period covered 25 Sources of information 25 Lack of authoritative information 26 Chapter II. — The Development of Animal-Feeu.s I.ndustry. Sec. 1 . Historical 28 Introductory 28 Early commerce in feeds 28 Necessity for regulation 29 2. Distribution of animal feeds 31 Introductory 31 Use of brokers 32 Use of jobbers 32 Retail feed dealers 32 Value of the various distributors 32 3. The guaranteed chemical analysis 32 Chapter III. — Production op Pri.ncipal Feeds. Sec. 1. The important commercial feeds 34 Introductory 34 Classification 34 Ilays and straws 34 Whole cereal grains 34 By-product feeds 35 2. Cereal mill by-products , 35 By-products of wheat milUqg 35 Bran ^. -C'. .': .*;.::::..:.-:•..•.. 36 Middlings 36 Red dog 36 Wheat mixed feed 36 Screenings 36 Chemical composition of wheat-flour by-prodncts 36 Production t.-.-..:f: .' .' 37 By-products of rye milling .;•.•. 37 By-products of barley milling 38 By-products of buckwheat milling 38 By-products of corn milling 39 Hominy feed 39 Corn bran and corn feed meal 40 Corn-oil cake 40 Other corn-mill feeds 40 Production 40 By-products of oat-nieal mills 41 Production 41 By-products of rice milling 42 Rice hulls 42 Rice bran 42 Rice polish 43 Pearling cone meal 43 Production 43 3 CONTENTS. Page. Sec. 3. Starch and glucose by-producte 43 Process of manufacture 43 Corn gluten meal 44 Corn gluten feed 44 Corn-oil cake or com germ cake, and corn-oil meal or corn genu meal 44 Production 45 4. Brewery and distillery by-products and yeast and vinegar by-products. 45 Processes of manufacture 45 Characteristics of brewery and distillery feeds 46 Production 46 5. Oil-mill by-products 47 Cottonseed by-products 48 Process of manufacture and description of by-products 48 Cottonseed hulls 48 Cottonseed cake 48 Cottonseed meal 49 Decline in protein content of cottonseed meal 50 Feeding value of cottonseed meal 51 Cold-pressed cottonseed cake 52 Production 52 Flaxseed l)y-products 53 Process of manufacture 53 Properties of linseed meal 53 Production 54 Flax-plant by-product 54 Peanut-oil by-products 54 Process of manufacture 55 Peanut cake and meal 55 Peanut hulls or shells 55 Whole pressed peanuts 56 Coconut cake or meal 56 Production 56 Soy-bean cake and meal 57 Miscellaneous oil-mill by-products 57 Palm kernel oil meal 57 Sesame cake , 57 6. Sugar by-products 58 Dried beet pulp 58 QuaUties of dried beet pulp 58 Production 58 Beet molasses 58 Cane blackstrap molasses 59 Production 59 7. Animal and fish by-products GO Packing-house by-products 60 Tankage. . . .". 61 Dried blood 61 Raw bone meal 62 Production 62 Fish scrap and fish meal 63 Production 63 8. Miscellaneous straight feeds 64 .Vlfalfa meal 64 Production 65 Velvet-bean meal 65 Dried buttermilk 66 Semisolid buttermilk 66 Palme niidds and palmo meal 66 9. Proprietary or ready-mixed feeds 67 Introductory 67 Dairy feeds 67 Stock feeds 68 Horse and mule feeds 68 Hog feeds .- 68 Poultry feeds 68 CONTENTS. O Sec. 9. Proprietary or ready-mixed feeds — Continued. Page. Calf meals 68 Condimental stock remedies or tonics 68 Methods of figuring costs of mixed feeds 68 Factors considered in purchasing mixed feeds 69 Sectional demand for mixed feeds 69 CiiArTER IV. — The Low-Grade Feeds. Sec. 1. Introductory 70 Feedingstuffs commonly classed as low grade 70 2. Roughages not commercially important 71 Miscellaneous 71 Sorghum bagasse 71 Flax-plant by-product 71 Ground peanut hulls 72 Flax feed or flax screenings 72 Ground corncobs 73 3. Grain screenings 73 Sources of screenings 74 Separation of screenings 74 Principal uses of screenings 75 Viability of weed seeds 75 Harmful weed seeds in screenings 76 Illegal use of screenings 76 Opinions of brokers as to the value of screenings 77 4. Elevator dust 77 5. Clipped-oat bv-product 78 6. Rice hulls. . . ." 78 7. Peat 79 8. Cottonseed hulls 80 9. Oat feed and oat hulls 81 Introductory 81 Oat hulls 82 Oat feed 83 Feed value of oat feed 83 Illegal use of oat hulls and oat feed 87 10. Controversy over use of oat feed 87 Criticisms of oat feed 87 Defense of oat feed 88 11. The problem of low-grade feeds 89 Relation of prices to feed values 90 Use of low-grade materials as adulterants 91 Ad-idsability of farmers buying roughages 91 Use of low-grade materials in mixed feeds 91 12. Proposals for settlement of the low-grade feed problem 92 Report of referee on feed adulteration, Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, 1019 96 13. Conclusions 100 Chapter V. — Wholesale Price.s. Sec. 1. Introductory 102 Character of statistics and method of treatment 102 Period covered by the statistics 103 Straight feeds 1 04 Mixed feeds 104 Food Administration Regulations 104 2. Comparison of prices of straight feeds with one another and with farm products and all commodities 105 3. Comparison of prices of commercial mixed feeds with prices of straight feeds, farm products, and all commodities 108 4. Prices of corn and oats 110 Prices of corn Ill Prices of oats 1 12 CONTKNTS. Sec. 5. Prices of flour-mill liy-proclucts 112 Prices of wheat bran and standard middlings, Minneapolis market. IH Period prior to Government control 114 Period of Government control 114 Period following withdrawal of Government control 116 Prices of wheat-mixed feeds, Hour middlings, and red dog, Minneapolis 116 6. Prices of hominy feed 117 7. Prices of reground oat hulls 118 8. Prices of rice bran and rice polish 119 9. Prices of starch and glucose by-products 1 20 Prices of corn gluten feed 120 Prices of corn oil meal 122 10. Prices of cottonseed by-productB 122 Prices of cottonseed meal 122 Prices of cotkuiseed hulls 124 11. Prices of linseed meal 124 12. Prices of dried beet pulp 12G 1.3. Prices of cane blackstrap molasses 127 14. Prices of digester tankage 128 15. Prices of alfalfa meal 128 Ifi. Prices of ready-mixed feeds 129 17. Prices of dairy feeds 131 IS. Prices of stock feeds 133 19. Prices of horse and mule feeds 134 20. Prices of hog feeds 135 21. Prices of calf meal 136 22. Prices of poultry feeds 136 23. Price decline last six months of 1020 139 Decline in prices of straight feeds 139 Decline in prices of ready-mixed feeds 140 Chaptek VI. — Costs, Profits, Investment, and Return on Investment OF Feed Manufacturers, 1913-1919. Sec. 1 . Introductory 142 Scope and companies covered 142 2. Definitions and adjustments 142 Net sales 142 Cost of sales — Inventories 142 Depreciation 143 Intercompany profits 143 Elimination of reserves 143 General and administrative expenses 143 Selling expense 143 Net operating profit 143 Investment 143 Rate of return on investment 144 3. Unit costs of producing and selling ready-mixed feeds 144 4. Investment, profits, and rat(> of return on investment 148 5. Comparative results of tjuakcr Oats C'o. with other companies 150 Chai'TEu VII. — Comi'Ktitivk ('()Nr)rnoNs in the Animai.-Fkkhs Industry. Sec. 1 . ( 'ompetition between factory and home-mixed feeds 152 Farmers independent of mixed feeds 152 Reasons tor this independence 152 Reasons for using ready-mixed feeds 154 Reasons for homo mixing 155 2. Feeders' methods of purchasing feeds 155 1 ntroductory 155 Direct purchases 155 Cooperative buying 156 The retail dealers 156 3. Competition in the animal-feeds industry 157 CONTENTS. 7 Page. Sec. 4. The American Feed Manufacturers' Association 158 Organization, membership, and purposes 158 Attitude toward price agreements 158 Propcsed price-fixing plan 158 By-product manufacturers and their opponents 159 The St. Louis open-formula resolution 159 5. Other feed manufacturers' associations 160 Sweet Feed Manufacturers' Association 160 The Pilot WTieel Manufacturers' Association 160 United Feed Manufacturers of the United States 160 6. Eastern Federation of Feed Merchants 161 7. Quasi control of by-products 161 Corn gluten feed 162 Uniformity of prices 162 Dried beet pulp 164 Cane blacl I'.ir.), iiirlii-ive 162 34. Quantity of dricd-hrct pulp liaiullcd by the Larrowe Milling ('o., by seasons, 1913-14 to 191S-I9, inclusive, and for part of the season 1919-20 165 35. Summary of results of the inspection of feedingstul'fs liy the Indiana feed-i'ontrol ollicials, in specified years, 1907-1918 180 CONTENTS. 9 DIAGRAM. Page. 1. Index numbers (1913 base) of wholesale prices of straight feeds, commercial mixed feeds, farm products, and all commodities, by months, January, 1913, to June, 1920 facing. . 110 APPENDIXES. 1. Explanation of chemical terms 1S4 2. Definitions of feedingstuffs 185 APPENDIX TABLES. I. Index numbers of wholesale prices of groups of 10 straight feeds, 12 com- mercial mixed feeds, farm products, and all commodities, by months, January, 1913, to June, 1920, inclusive 191 2. Average prices of mill feeds, sacked, f . o. b. Minneapolis, by months, Janu- ary, 1913, to June, 1920, inclusive 192 3. Average prices per ton of white hominy feed in bulk, f. o. b mill, Indian- apolis, and for New York City and Boston freight-rate points, by months, January, 1913, to June, 1920, inclusive 194 4. Average prices per ton of rice bran and rice polish, f . o. b. mills, by months, January, 1913, to April, 1920, inclusive 195 5. Average prices per ton of merchantable cottonseed hulls, f. o. b. mills, by months, February, 1913, to April, 1920, inclusive 195 6. Average prices of No. 1 alfalfa meal, carload lots, f. o. b. Colorado and Kan- sas mills, and average of quoted prices for Kansas City rate points, by months, January, 1913, to June, 1920, inclusive 196 7. Average prices per ton of three dairy feeds, f. o. b. Boston rate points, by months, January, 1913, to June, 1920, inclusive 197 8. Average prices per ton of eight dairy feeds, f. o. 1). factory, by months, Jan- uary, 1915, to June, 1920, inclusive 197 9. Average prices per ton of six brands of stock feeds, by months, January, 1913, to June, 1920, inclusive 199 10. Average prices of six brands of horse and mule feeds, f. o. b. factory, by months, January, 1913, to June, 1920, inclusive 200 II. Average prices per ton of four brands of hog feeds, f. o. b. factory, at central western points, by months, January, 1910, to June, 1920, inclusive 201 12. Average prices per ton of three lirandsof calf meal, f. o. b. factory, at cen- tral western points, by months, January, 191(i, to June, 1920, inclusive.. 202 13. Average prices per ton of four brands of scratch feed, by months, January, 1913, to June, 1920, inclusive 203 14. Average prices per ton of fi\e brands of scratch feed, f. o. b. factory, at specified points, by months, January, 1915, to June, 1920, inclusive 204 15. Average prices per ton of two brands of poultry mash, f. o. b. Boston and St. Louis, respectively, by months, January, 1913, to June, 1920, inclu- sive ". 205 IG. Average prices per ton of three brands of poultry mash, f. o. b. factory, at nortnern Illinois points, by months, January, 1917, to June, 1920, inclu- sive 206 ACKNOWLEDGMENT, The Commission desires to make acknowledgment especially of the services of Mr. Byron Phelps Parry, who had immediate charge of the inquiry, and of Mr. John H. Dynes. Valuable assistance was also rendered by Messrs. William W. Bays, Earl S. Haines, F. L. Hawes, William L. Mayo, George L. Townsan, and Walter M. Twombly. The Commission also desires to acknowledge the valuable coopera- tion of the Department of Agriculture, and especially the assistance of Messrs. J. K. Haywood and George L. Bidwell, of the Bureau of Chemistry, with respect to questions of animal nutrition and State and Federal regulation of commercial feeds. 10 LETTER OF SUBMITTAL. ' Federal Trade Commission, Washington, March 29, 1921. To the President of the Senate of the United States. Sir: There is transmitted herewith in response to Senate resolu- tion 140, July 31, 1919, a report on the manufacture and sale of com- mercial feeds. Commerce in animal feeds has grown enormously in recent years. This has been due in part to the greater knowledge of feed values and of the varied requirements of live stock. Many of the feeding- stuffs now widely used are bj'-products which were formerly wasted. Farmers and feeders may purchase their feed requirements in the form of ready-mixed feeds or they may buy the separate commodi- ties and do their own mixing. Tlie Federal and State Departments of Agriculture, tlie agricultural colleges, their staffs and other au- thorities render valuable assistance to farmers by advice on feeding problems, especially with reference to feed values and mixing their own rations. An investigation of the animal-feeds industry to be complete in- volves a study of practically^ every industry which uses in its manu- facturing processes vegetable material and some which use animal material. The by-products of all these industries supply a large number of different kinds of feedingstuffs. In addition to these feeds there are numerous others which are not the result of manufac- turing processes. It follows, therefore, that to make a thoroughly comprehensive investigation of animal feeds would involve a study of the manufacturing processes and of results in a large number of industries which produce as by-products materials suitable for feeds. Some indication of the ramifications of the feedingstuffs industry may be a^^preciated from the following general classification of feed- ingstuffs : 1. The hays and straws. 2. The whole cereal grains. 3. Cereal mill by-products. 4. Starch and glucose by-products. 5. Brewery and distillery by-products and yeast and vinegar by-products. 6. Oil-mill by-products. 7. Sugar by-products. 8. Animal and fish by-products. 9. Miscellaneous feecls. 10. Commercial mixed feeds or proi)rietary feeds. 11. Condimental stock remedies or tonics. The American Feed Manufacturers' Association has listed over 3,000 manufacturers of commercial mixed feeds, and the president of this association stated that this is very likely less than half of the total number. As a result of the foregoing facts it will be ap- preciated that anything like a complete survey of the feedingstuffs industry would involve an enormous expenditure of time and money. Under these circumstances the inquiry was confined to a study of rep- resentative feeds wliich enter into commerce and covers the period from 1913 to 1920, inclusive. 11 12 tlOMMKRCIAL, FEliUS. There is a great lack of authoritative data in regard to many phases of the industry and there are numerous (luestions confronting this business which are highly controversial. This is particularly the case with reference to the feed value of certain products commonly known as roughages or low-grade feeds. It is contended by some agricultural authorities and a few feed manufacturers that the use of certain of tliese low-grade feedingstuffs should be restricted, since, it is alleged, these feedingstuffs are roughages of which farmers pro- duce, or should produce, an abundance. It is also frequently alleged that mixed feeds containing one or more of such low-grade in- gredients are sold at prices out of line with their feed value. A num- ber of plans have been suggested to check the use of these commodi- ties, the most common one being the proposal to require the state- ment on tags and labels of the percentage of each ingredient used. However, important objections have been offered against the adop- tion of such a requirement. The study of the prices of feeds is attended with considerable difficulty. In particular the comparison of the prices of commercial mixed feeds with one another or with the prices of the sti-aight feeds from which tliey are made is difficult. This will readily ap- pear when the great number of ingredients which enter into many brands of mixed feeds are considered, and also the very frequent changes in formulas of man}', if not most, of these feeds. Hence no such precision is to be looked for in conclusions derived from a study of prices of these feeds as is possible in the study of prices of fairl}' homogeneous commodities. Prices of all kinds of feeds, both the so-called straight feeds and the ready-mixed feeds, in common with the prices of practically all other commodities, increased greatly during the war period and for more than a year and a half following the armistice. Most feeds reached their highest prices in May or June, 1920. There were naturally considerable differences in the movement of prices of different feeds, due to their great variety and the different sources from which they are derived, there being at times a plentiful supply of some feeds, accompanied by scarcity of others. Demand, too, naturally fluctuates, but the price of every feed depends in some measure, greater or less, on the prices of other feeds, on account of the relative ease witli which one feed can be substituted for another within fairly wide limits. One of the most important influences affecting prices during the war and much of the time since tlie armistice has been the shortage of freight cars, which has not only delayed shipments of finished products but often held up receipts of raw materials. At times this shortage has been acute and has caused decreased production. This condition, of course, has not been peculiar to the feed business. The wholesale prices of 10 important straight feeds and 12 com- mercial mixed feeds, which as a whole may be considered repre- sentative, respectively, of the.se two clnsscs, were compared with the comi)osite wluilosale jirices of a gi'oup of ^52 farm jiroducts and of all conuiioditios. as registered by index nuniliei's compiled l)y the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Depaiiineiit of Tiubor. Tlu^se index num- bers give the prices of these grou])s of commodities by months and years relative to the average price of the year 1913 taken as a base. LETTER OF SUBMITTAL. 13 Composite index numbers were also computed for the group of 10 representative straight feeds and the group of 12 commercial mixed feeds. A comparison of these different series of index numbers shows that the price of all commodities in 1919 was represented by 212 as compared with the base price of 100, or the average price of the year 1913. The other index numbers for the year 1919 were as follows: Farm products, 234; straight feeds, 236; ready-mixed feeds, 220. There was a very close correspondence in the relative increase in prices of mixed fpeds and farm products, and also a rather close correspondence for straight feeds. The relative advance in prices from 1913 to 1919 in the two classes of feeds and also in farm prod- ucts was considerably higher than in all commodities. The prices of feeds as well as of all commodities continued to advance during the first half of 1920, but the second half of the year was marked by a very great decline in the prices of all feeds, both straight and ready mixed. The decline between June and December was as much as 57 per cent for some of the straight feeds. Different brands of mixed feeds declined in price from 20 per cent to more than 50 per cent. So far as general conclusions can be drawn from the study of the statistics of feed jirices the figures do not indicate a dispropor- tionate rise in these prices as compared with farm products in general. A study of the costs and profits of a representative group of nine mixed-feed manufacturers during 1915-1919 shows that during the period costs of materials about doubled, while with few exceptions all other items of manufacturing costs and expenses increased in about the same proportion. Since the average cost of raw materials for the period 1915-1919, inclusive, was about 83 per cent of the commercial cost of sales and about 80 per cent of the selling price, this wovdd indicate that by far the largest factor causing the high prices of ready-mixed feeds in 1919 was the great increase in the cost of raw materials. The net operating profit of these mixed-feed manufacturers was sufficient to net a fairly high rate of return on the investment in each year, while in 1917 and 1919 the rate of return was considerably larger, due probably in part to the fact that in these two years the net operating profit included some jnofit realized from an increase in value of raw materials during their period of conversion into mixed feeds. The average rate of return for the period 1915-1919 was 18.77 per cent. The percentages represent the profits on the total investment employed in the business, which includes borrowed capital. The rates of return would be greater on the capital stock and surplus, which is the net investment of these companies. On the whole, competition in this industry is very active. It is true that there were indications that prices had been discussed by members of the American Feed Manufacturers' Association at or ini- mediately following certain meetings of the executive committee. In 1919 also an attempt was made by certain members of this association to organize a bureau, which seems to have had price fixing as an object, but this organization was never completed. Although a care- ful examination was made of the correspondence files of various as- 14 rO.MJlKlUlAL FKEILS. sociations in the feedinpstuffs industrj^ and of a number of important feed manufacturers, no indications were found of any concerted action to advance prices. Altiiough the discussions of prices above referred to maj' have tended to advance prices, no evidence was found to establish this. On tlie whole, as already indicated, the evidence obtained in the inquiry indicates a very sharp competition in the manufacture and sale of feedingstuffs. The distribution of throe important feed commodities, corn gluten feed, cane blackstrap molasses, and dried beet pulp, is in each case in the hands of a few concerns. This does not appear, however, to exclude competition in these commodities, nor does there appear to be any collusion or combination between the manufacturers in any one of the throe groups. A number of manufacturers grant overages, i. e., a commission to old dealers on feeds sold to new dealers in the former's territory. It is possible that this may be a price discrimination, and the Com- mission has taken steps to determine whether it is in violation of section 2 of the Clayton Act or section 5 of the Federal Trade Com- mission Act. The use of alternate or different brand names for the same feed may be unfair unless the use of such alternate brands is fully under- stood by the dealer and the consumer. In any case it leads to an undue multiplication of brands, and it is questionable whether it is desirable from an economic standpoint. While the Eastern Federation of Retail Feed Merchants is opposed to direct selling to consumers by manufacturers, such opposition, according to a careful examination of this association's records, is in the nature of the " educational argument " and not by boycott or threats of boycott. Animal feeds are subject to regulation by practically all States and by the Federal Government. This regulation was foimd to be necessary because fraudulent practices such as adulteration and mis- branding were at one time quite common. The enactment and en- forcement of feed laws by the various States, however, has un- doubtedly resulted in great improvement so far as these practices are concerned. In most States feeds must be so labeled as to show the guaranteed chemical analysis and the names of each ingredient. The use of harmful or doloteiious materials is generally prohilnted. The results of feed law enforcement, as reported by the different States, indicate that the great bulk of the feeds which enter into commerce have been found to be substantially equivalent to the guaranty under which they have been sold. A comparison made from published sources by the Conunission of the extent to which the straight and ready mixed feeds varied from their guaranteed chemical analysis showed no consistent differences in the average per- centage of deficiencies and overages as between the two classes. Respectfully, Huston Thojipson, Chairman. Nelson B. Gaskill. John Gari^\nd Pollard. Victor Murdoch. John F, Nugent. SUMMARY. The inquiry into the manufacture and sale of commercial feeds for animals was undertaken pursuant to Senate resolution 140, Sixty-sixth Congress, first session, which reads as follows: Resolved, That the Federal Trade Commission he, and it is hereby, instructed to make an investigation of the manufacture and sale of commercial feeds for animals ; such investigation to include the gathering of statistics as to the supply of the various commodities which are used for animal feeds, together with the fluctuation in the prices of these commodities, the extent to which these commodities are converted into concentrated food by manufacturers ; what combinations or understandings, if any, exist between the feed manu- facturers and wholesale feed dealers and retail feed dealers ; and what fraud, If any, is practiced by dealers, in the way of misbranding or using inferior substitutes in mixed feeds. Resolved further, That the Secretary of Agriculture be, and he is hereby, directed to cooperate with the Federal Trade Commission in this investigation. Development of the industry. — Commerce in animal feeds has grown enormously in recent years. This has been due in part to the greater knowledge of feed values and of the varied requirements of live stock. Many of the feedingstuffs now widely used are by-prod- ucts which were formerly wasted. Molasses, corn gluten feed, and flour-mill by-products, to name but a few, are some of the by- products which were at one time burned, run into streams, or buried for want of a better means of disposing of them. The scientific feeding of animals began to receive serious con- sideration in the United States during the period 1870 to 1880, and since then has steadily grown in importance. State agricultural colleges have devoted more and more care to feeding questions. Many State and private experimental farms conduct tests and ex- periments with various feedingstuffs. Dairy farming and the rais- ing of all kinds of live stock more and more demand scientific man- agement in feeding, as well as in other matters, if the maximum re- turn is to be realized. Although rapid progress has been made in recent years, nevertheless, most authorities agree that much is yet to be learned. The Federal and State Departments of Agriculture, the agricul- tural colleges and other authorities render valuable assistance to farmers by advice on feeding problems, especially with reference to feed values and mixing their own rations. The extent to which farmers use ready-mixed feeds can not be stated, since this is de- pendent upon many factors. However, the use of mixed feeds has grown tremendously in recent years and appears likely to continue. That ready-mixed feeds have a place is now undisputed. They serve a beneficial purpose and to many owners of animals are almost a necessity. Their increased use has been due largely to the demand for balanced rations; the increased use of by-products; the shortage of farm labor and desire of fanners for labor-saving devices; the growth of the dairy industry on small farms near centers of popula- 15 16 COMMERCIAL, FEEDS. tion and the increase in raising of poultry by dwellers in cities; and finally to the extensive advertising campaigns of the manufacturers of mixed feeds. Classification of feedingstuffs. — An investigation of the ani- mal feeds industry, to be complete, involves a study of practically every industry which uses in its manufacturing processes vegetable material and some which use animal material. The by-products of all these industries supply a large number of different kinds of feedingstuffs. In addition to these feeds there are numerous others which are not the result of manufacturing processes. It follows, therefore, that a thoroughly comprehensive investigation of animal feeds would involve a study of the manufacturing processes and of results in a large number of industries which produce as by-prod- ucts materials suitable for feed. Some indication of the ramifica- tions of the feedingstuffs industry may be appreciated from the fol- lowing general classification of feedingstuffs: I. The hays and straws. 2'. The whole cereal grains. 3. Cereal mill by-products. 4. Starch and glucose by-products. 5. Brewery and distillery by-products and yeast and vinegar by- products. 6. Oil-mill by-products. 7. Sugar by-products. 8. Animal and fish by-products. 9. Miscellaneous feeds. 10. Commercial mixed feeds or proprietary feeds. II. Condimental stock I'emedies or tonics. The American Feed Manufacturers' Association has listed over 3,000 manufacturers of commercial mixed feeds and the president of this association has stated that this is very likely less than half of the total number. As a result of the foregoing facts it will be appreciated that anything like a complete survey of the feeding- stuffs industry would involve an enormous expenditure of time and money. Under these circumstances the inq^uiry was confined to a study of the representative feedingstuffs which enter into commerce and covers the period from 1913 to 1920, inclusive. Production of FEEniNosTUFFS. — In discussing the production and supply of animal feeds the numerous feedingstuffs which do not enter into commerce must, of course, be considered. Pasturage and grazing lands are very important factoi's in feeding animals and the condi- tion of suderal authorities in charge of enforcing feed laws have formed an association known as the Association of Feed Control Officials of the United States, which has served to bring about more uniformity in matters pertaining to feed regulations. These officials adopted the policy of publicity in respect to fraudulent practices. For example, as early as 1898 Massachusetts issued a bul- letin regarding the inspection of feedingstuffs in that State. This SUMMARY. 23 bulletin contained advice to farmers regarding feeding matters, and cautioned them against the use of certain feeds. The results of feed-law enforcement, as reported by the different States, indicate that the great bulk of the feeds which enter into commerce have been found to be substantially equivalent to the guar- anties under which they have been sold. A comparison made by the Commission from published sources of the extent to which the straight and ready-mixed feeds varied from their guaranteed chemi- cal analyses showed no consistent differences in the average percent- age of deficiencies and overages as between the two classes. It is undoubtedly a fact that the enactment and enforcement of feed laws has resulted in great improvement so far as fraudulent practices are concerned. There are being found to-day comparatively few cases where feedingstuffs have been adulterated with substances considered deleterious or as having practically no nutritive value. COMMERCIAL FEEDS. Chapter I ORIGm AND SCOPE OF REPORT. Section 1. Origin of inquiry. This investigation was undertaken pursuant to a resolution of the United States Senate which reads as follows: Senate Resolution 140 Resolved, That the Feaeral Trade Commission be, and it is hereby, instructed to make an investigation of the manufacture and sale of commeriial feeds for animals; such investigation to include the gathering of statistics as to the supply of the various commodities which are used for animal feeds, together with the fluctuation in the prices of these commodities, the extent to which these commodities are converted into concentrated food by manufacturers; what combinations or understandings, if any, exist between the feed manufacturers and wholesale feed dealers and retail feed dealers; and what fraud, if any, is practiced by dealers in the way of misbranding or using inferior substitutes in mixed feeds. Resolved further , That the Secretary of Agriculture be, and he is hereby, directed to cooperate with the Federal Trade Commission in Jhis investigation. Feedingstuffs covered. — The inquiry dealt chiefly with those commodities which enter into commerce either as ingredients in commercial or proprietary mixed feeds or those which are purchased for use in home-mixed rations. Inasmuch as the use of commercial mixed feeds is increasing yearly and there is considerable discussion regarding the feeding value of some of the ingredients used in such mixtures, especial attention was given to these feeds. The investiga- tion did not include the whole gi-ains and the hays and straws, except as they are used as ingredients in mixed feeds. Period covered. — On account of the disturbed conditions created by the war it was deemed advisable to study and compare condi- tions during recent years with those prevailing in 1913 and 1914. This inquiry, therefore, as a whole reviews conditions existing in the animal feeds industry during the period 1913 to 1920, inclusive. Sources of information. — The Commission through its field agents covered the principal producing and consuming centers of animal feeds in the United States with the exception of the Pacific coast, wlfich was not included because of the expense and time it would have involved. Representatives of all factors interested in feedingstuffs were interviewed and data as to the manufacture and sale of commercial feeds for animals were collected. In order to ascertain the profits realized by mixed feed manufacturers the Com- mission secured data on the subject from a representative group of manufacturers of such feeds. 1 Sub.sequent to the presentation of this report to the Senate in manuscript, a few minor changes in text and figures were made in the copy submitted to the printer. 26 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. Production figures for most of the feedingstuffs and their ingredients which were covered by the investigation aid not exist and the Com- mission was in many instances forced to rely upon estimates and computations based upon average conversion percentages. In other cases questionnaires were used to secure production data. In several instances the quantities produced could not be ascer- tained with sufficient accuracy to justify presentation. Statistics of wholesale prices were secured from manufacturers and jobbers, and monthly averages of the figiu^es from these sources are presented in this report. Price figm-es from the trade press and other public sources were also compiled and were used for purposes of comparison. Average prices for a few feeds computed from these published figures have been used in the tables in this report where no satisfactory figm-es were secured from manufacturers or jobbers. An investigation of competitive conditions in the industry was made to determine whether or not combinations or understandings existed. The files of many feed manufactm'ers, dealers, and associa- tions were examined, and the information developed therefrom was supplemented by interviews. Many State and J'ederal officials charged with the enforcement of laws regulating the manufacture and sale of feeds were also inter- viewed. From these interviews and from published reports of these officials certain facts m regard to adulteration and misbranding have been ascertained and are here presented. Lack of authoritative information. — The animal feeds business is of considerable size and importance. Aside from hays, straws, and the whole grains, however, feeds are largely by-products of a wide variety of industries, such as cereal milling, cornstarch and glucose factories, cottonseed, linseed, and other oil mills, sugar factories, etc. (Chap. Ill, sees. 2-8.) Each one of the thousands of little country flour and grist mills is a producer of feedstuS's, as are also each of the hundreds of cottonseed-oil mills, as well as a large number of small Slants in various other industries scattered over the length and readth of the United States. It is estimated that the value of feedingstufi's which enter uito commerce greatly exceeds a billion doUai's annually, which is probably conservative. R. W. Chapin, president of the American Feed Manufacturers' Association, nas stated that the association has listed the names of over 3,000 manirfac- turers of mi.xed feeds alone, and that tliis very likely is less than half the total number. While, therefore, it is impossible to measure the feedingstuffs industry in any exact terms, such as total volume of pro- duction, value of feedingstuffs produced, or the number of producers, it engages the activities of a very large number of manufacturers and is geographically probably one of the most widely distributed of all manufacturing industries. As has ah-eady been indicated, there exist only very meager statis- tical data concerning the feed industry. The extent oi the by-product character of the feed industry, its size, and its widespread geograph- ical distribution, explain in a considerable degree why statistics of some commodities could not bo secured without the expenditure of time and money far in excess of the value of the results which might have been secured. Furthermore, it is desired to point out that accurate information respecting several important phases of the business could not be se- OKIGIN AND SCOPE OF REPORT. 27 cured because representatives of the trade did not have the records from which such information could be obtained. Thus it was not Eossible to obtain the costs and profits of retail feed dealers, chiefly ecause such dealers rarely kept their records of account covering a sufficient period; and, secondly, because such few accounts as were available could not be put upon a comparable basis. In the feedstuffs industry there are several very much disputed questions. While great progress has been made m the science of animal nutrition, authorities on the subject are not entirely in accord, and the numerous theories held by these scientists render it difficult to determine the truth. Furthermore, there is a deficiency of authori- tative data supporting a number of these theories, which increased the difficulty of arriving at accurate conclusions. For example, vv'hile a number of scientists hold that certain feedingstuffs should not be used because of their low feed value, they appear to be without sufficient authoritative data, such as feeding tests, to support their contentions. Chapter II. THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANIMAL FEEDS INDUSTRY. Section 1. Historical. Introductory. — The scientific feeding of animals is of fairly recent origin. Prior to 1870 domestic animals in this country were fed in a ratner haphazard manner. The feedingstuffs used were those pro- duced by the owner of the stock, the only commerce in feeds being the comparatively small amount required by dwellers in cities and towns. The feedmgstuffs of 50 or 60 years ago were the forage crops and cereal grains. By-product feeds, i. e., the by-products of various milling and converting processes were not used for feeding m the early days, for the reason that little or nothing was known as to the utility of these products for this purpose. For the want of a better means of disposal they were frequently burned, run into streams, or buried. This is the early history of most of the by-products now commonly recognized as valuable for feeds. Flour mill by-products, molasses, corn gluten feed, to name but a few, were thus wasted. The ready-mixed feed of the present day, i. e., a feed produced by a manufacturer and containing two or more ingredients, did not of course exist at this early date. Such mixing or rations as there may have been was done by the individual farmer, who realized that stock produced to better advantage on some feeds than on others without knowing why this was true. There was nobody to explain the beneficial results that could be expected from discrimination in the use of the farmer's various home-grown products. Intensive feeding for high production of milk, fat, or work was practically unknown. The first step from the feeding of home-grown feeds, as hays, some roots, and whole grains, toward the use of converted products, was the grinding of the whole grains before feeding them. This, however, was not a commercial proposition, strictly spealdng, since the farmer carried his grains to the country gristmill to be ground. Early commerce in feeds. — It is not the purpose of this report to give the history of each feedingstuff. Indeed it \vould be difTicult to ascertain when many of the commodities now used as feeds were first utilized for this purpose. It may be stated with assurance, however, that it was not until after the early eighties that most of the present important by-product feeds began to be seriously considered as feed for animals. Even at that time many were still allowed to go to waste. The first commercial, or ready-mixed, feeds came into the market about this time. They were simple mixtures, such as corn and oat chops, and one oatmeal miller claimed to have been using oat hulls in a mixture. It was in the period from 1870 to 1880 that scientific feeding of animals in the United States may be said to have begun. It was 28 DEVELOPMENT OF THE INDUSTRY. 29 not until about 1S80, however, that the teaching of scientific feeding of animals was undertaken. About this time Dr. W. O. Atwatcr began teacliing this subject at the Connecticut Experiment Station at Middletown, Conn. In 1883 Dr. H. P. Armsby and Prof. W. A. Henry also beo;an teaching and demonstrating the science of feeding at the Univei-sity of Wisconsin.' This study of animal nutrition has undoubtedly accounted for much of the success in the introduction of many of the by-product feeds. Wheat bran was one of the by-products to be first considered as a feed. About 1883 - a Minneapolis miller became convinced that bran, which at that time was being run uito the river, should be utilized commercially as a feed. Experiments were made with cattle fed on bran and the results were so satisfactory that this miller published a report of the tests. Shortly thereafter a demand for this product developed which has steadily increased. Other by-products were gradually discovered to be of value as feeds for animals, but European nations have been quicker than this country to realize the feed value of some of the by-products. Linseed cake for use as animal feed has been exported for 30 years, and until the advent of the European war much oi this product produced in the United States was exported. A number of by-products of various industries were first used by farmers in the vicmity of the source of supply as a supplement to the home-grown ration. The farmers hauled away these by-products and were rarely if ever charged for them. A niimber of by-products, how- ever, required considerable missionary work on the part of the pro- ducers before they became widely accepted by the farmers and other feeders. , Necessity for reculatjon. — There being at first little or no commerce in feedingstuffs there was, of course, no necessity for regu- lation. As commerce in feeds increased, however, various forms of fraud and deceit began to be practiced. Feeds were quite often adulterated and misbranded, and these fraudulent practices were the direct cause of the enactment of laws regulating commerce in feeds. In 1895 Connecticut enacted the first feed law in this country. Shortly thereafter other States began to pass feed laws. The officials enforcing the State laws, and also the aOTicultural colleges teaching the scientific feeding of animals, early adopted the policy of publicity in respect to fraudulent practices. In 1898 Massachusetts issued a bulletin regarding the inspection of feeding- stuffs in that State. This and other early pamphlets and bulletins contained advice to farmers and cautioned them against the use of certain feeds, both straight (single ingredient) and mixed (two or more ingredients). Feeds were classified as concentrates and rough- ages, much as they are to-day. The study of the science of animal nutrition steadily became of more importance. This was particularly true in sections thickly pop- ulated, where farms were small and intensively cultivated, because of the necessity of utilizing the farm products to the best advantage. State agricultural colleges devoted more and more care to feeding questions and more State legislatures enacted laws designed to 1 Thp Feed Industry in the United States, G. A. Chapman. 2 Bran had been nsed iTT some localii ies i)rior to this as a teed but so far as tho CoionussiQJi was able to ascertain it was not then widely regarded as a feed of value. 30 COMMCTCTAT. FREnS. firotcct purchasers of feeds and also honest manufacturers. Dairy arminw and the raising of all kinds of live stock demanded scientific management in feeding, as well as in other matters if the maximum return was to he realized. In 1006 the Federal Food and Drugs Act was passed and a numher of States without legislation affecting feeds adopted the Federal act for the regulation of commerce in foods and also feeds. Nearly all States now have some legislation regulating commerce in feeding- stuffs, but there are some of these that have not undertaken exten- sive activities along these lines. As a whole, however, animal feeds are subject to constant and careful policing, with the result that fraudulent practices have been greatly lessened. The officials enforcing the State and Federal laws have formed an association for the purpose of cooperation in working out their common problems. The science of aiiimal nutrition absorbs the attention of many scien- tific men. Theories of feeding are developed frequently and rapid progress has been made along these lines in recent years. Numerous leeching theories have been discarded. Great as has been the advance in the scientific feeding of animals, most scientists of to-day agree that much is yet to be learned. The activities of agricultural scientists and feed-control officials have been of great service to the animal-feeds trade. Farmers receive valuable aid and advice from them and manufacturers are also assisted by the efforts of these scien- tists. Farmers and feeders of today do not as a rule depend entirely upon home-grown feeds. The importance of variety in a ration is realized. Many farmers buy the concentrates to supplement their home-grown feeds. Others buy practically all their feed requirements, either ready mixed or unmixed. This latter is particularly true of the Eastern and Northeastern States and of the tenitory in close prox- imity to the larger cities where farms are small. The use of mixed feeds has grown steadily and appears likely to continue. That these rations have a place is now unnisputed. They serve a beneficial purpose by utilizing many commodities valuable as feeds which would otlierwise be wasted or poorly utilized. To many owners of animals the ready-mixed feeds are almost a necessity. It is also true that mixed-feed manufacturers have done much to educate feeders and farmers in the proper care as well as the feeding of stock. As a part of the work of the agricultural scientists many of the State agricultural institutions maintain experimental farms where feeding tests and experiments are conducted. The results of these experiments are frequently made public. Some manufacturers also conduct private experimental farms. The growth of the mixed-feed industry has been due to several fac- tors: The increased use of by-products; the demand for balanced rations; the shortage of farm labor and desire of farmers for labor- saving methods; the extensive advertising and educational campaigns of the manufacturers of mixed feeds; the growth of the dairy industry on small farms near the large cities; and the increase in the raising of poultry by dwellers in the cities and towns. All of these factors have played a part in this int^rease. The actual growth of the mixed-feed industry is difficult to meas- ure. The Purdue Agricultural Experiment Station (Indiana) com- DEVELOPMENT OF THE INDUSTRY. 31 pares the sales of this class of feed with those of by-product feeds in the State of Indiana. These figures are probably typical of the important middle western territory. There are States where the percentage of mixed feeds is much higher, and some of the prairie States use a much smaller percentage. Table 1. — Comparison of sales ofviixedjeeds with by-product Jeeds, in the Slate oj Indiana, by years, 1914-1919, inclusive. Year. Compounded manu- factured feeds.' Straight by-product Tons. Percent. Tons. Per cent. 1914 69,821 78,646 85,826 lOS, 154 145, 545 201,486 26 29 27 29 34 40 201,930 191,693 231,838 263,062 288,654 299,608 74 1915 71 1916 1917 71 1918 66 1919 60 1 Includes calf meals, poultry scratch feeds with and without grit, poultry mashes, chop feeds, and pro- prietary mixed feeds, including molasses, horse, dairy, and hog feeds. 3 Includes such feeds as cottonseed meal, tankage, linseed oil meal, corn germ meal, hominy feed, mill by-products, bran, middlings, shorts, red dog, etc. It is undoubtedly true that the animal feeds industry is yet in its mfancy. Nevertheless it has already reached such proportions that it must be regarded as one of the important industries of the country. Many changes in the present feeding theories and practices may be expected. The movement of the population of the country to the cities is "bound to have its effect upon the feeding situation. It is highly probable that the primary result will be the further increase in the use of ready-mixed rations. The situation is one which calls for much additional information as to feed values. Section 2. Distribution of animal feeds. Introductory. — Feedingstuffs for animals reach the ultimate pur- chasers through a system of distribution common to other commodi- ties, particularly loodstuft's. Brokers, jobbers, commission men, wholesale and retail dealers, and other distributors, are frequently used as the connecting links between manufacturei's or producers of feeds and the purchasers. Then, too, as is common with many other commodities used by farmers, there are cooperative purchasing organ- izations through which farmers buy their feeds without the interme- diary services of any of the above-mentioned distributors or middle- men. The consumer may also, under certain circumstances, purchase his feeds direct from the manufacturer or producer, as will appear later. The number of manufacturers is so great that it is only natural to find considerable diversity in general sales policies and distributive methods. Certain trade practices are substantially imiform. Others differ widely, due to various reasons — some geographical, some de- pendent on iolierent characteristics of the material handled, and some growing out of differences of opinion as to the best way of developing a profitable business. The functions performed by the distributors of animal feeds are too well known to require discussion in tliis report. There are, how- 32 COMMERCIAL l^EEDS. ever, a few points in connection with (ho distribution of animal feeds to wliich attention should he called. Use of brokers. — The producers or manufacturers of the by- product feeds usually sell their by-products through brokers. Thus, the flour mills of Minneapolis sell a large part of their wheat feeds through brokers. Cottonseed-oil crushers dispose of much of their cake, meal, and hulls, in a similar manner. It is largely because of the fact that the commodities are by-products that they are thus handled, the producers usually devoting most of their efforts to the sale of their primary products — in the foregoing cases flour and cot- tonseed oil. Then, too, the brokers are a never-failing outlet and furnish a channel of distribution which the producers of the by- products can apparently utilize more cheaply than to maintain their own distributing organizations. Mixed-feed manufacturers do not distribute their feeds through brokers to as great an extent as do the producers of the by-product feeds. Most mixed-feed manufacturers maintain rather extensive sales forces and many of the larger companies have branch offices in different sections of the country. Use of jobbers. — Feed manufacturers do not distribute their products through jobbers to any great extent except in the Southern States. In that section the feed jobbers, who are usually wholesale grocei-s, are used because of credit conditions. These jobbers pay cash for the feeds and in turn sell on credit to the local dealers. Retail feed dealers. — The bulk of the feeds bought by farmers and others are purchased from retail feed dealers. Attempts ap- parently have been made by some retail dealers and some associations of such dealers to place their business upon a cash basis, but without much success. It was stated by the secretary of the largest associa- tion of retail dealers that the establishment of a strictly cash feed business would be almost impossible. Value of the various distributors. — Manufacturers and pro- ducers of feeds were practically unanimous in asserting that all the various types of distributors were necessary to the efficient conduct of trade in feedingstuffs. Brokers and jobbei"s, so it is asserted, afford outlets for feeds at practically all times, and serve to broaden the market without adding unduly to the expense of distribution. During the car shortage and other transportation difficulties of the past few years brokers and jobbers, it is alleged, rendered an important service in that they were able to maintain the feed supply of the retail dealer, and hence the farmer. This was due to the ship- ments which these distributors were able to make either from goods in transit or in their warehouses at nearby points. The retail dealer is also alleged to be a necessity. Unless a supply of fecdiiigstufi's is constantly and immediately available to feeders their feecling program is bound to suffer. Section 3. The guaranteed chemical analysis. It is not the intention to give in this report a history of the devel- opment of the science of animal imtrition, nor to discuss the various theories and practices of animal feeding. The Commission is not equipped to give this information except in so far as it may be obtained by study of published material. Much of this is available to the public in numerous works on the subject. The information nee- DEVELOPMENT OF THE INDUSTRY. 33 essary to enable the reader to understand the chemical and scientific terms used in this report will be found in Appendix 1. At the present time mixed feeds are sold on a guaranteed chemical analysis.^ This guaranty consists of a statement of the minimum amount of crude protein, the mmimum amount of crude fat, the maximum amount of crude fiber, and in some States, the total car- bohydrates, contamed in the mixture.* Some of the straight un- mixed feedingstuffs, for example, cottonseed meal and linseed meal, corn gluten feed, etc., are also sold on a guaranteed chemical analysis, although there are a few of these feedingstuffs, such as screenings and the straight grains, which are not required to be guaranteed in this manner. Chemists usually determme the amounts of moisture and ash contained in samples of feeds analyzed, in addition to the content of protein, fat, fiber, and carbohydrates. The guaranteed chemical analysis as an index or measure of the value of a feed is disputed. Scientists have determined, for example, that there are several kinds of protein. The proteins differ both m digestibility and in other qualities. The same is true of fat and fiber. Consequently merely to state that a feed contains a given percentage of protein, fat, and fiber does not, it is maintamed, tell the complete story. However, in spite of the fact that the chemical analysis as a standard does not give all the information that is desirable, still it is of much value, serves a very useful purpose, and apparently must suffice until scientists have developed a better one. 3 Except in a few States not having laws requiring such guaranty. * See Appendix 1. Chapter III. PRODUCTION OF PRINCIPAL FEEDS. Section 1. The important commercial feeds. Introductory. — Scores, if not hundreds, of different kinds of feeds for live stock are used in the United States.' Many of these are fed almost entirely on the farms where they are produced or in the neighborhood, and enter little if at all into commerce. A large number of these feeds are of importance to the farmer, dairyman, and feeder. This report, however, does not deal with this class of feeds as such, but only with those which are commonly bought and sold — in other words, the commercial feeds. It is the purpose of this chapter to give a brief description of the principal commercial feeds, together with the statistics of their pro- duction so far as these have oeen secured. As already explained, however, no accurate statistics or even satisfactory estimates are available for several of the important feeds. Even less information is available concerning the extent to which the so-called straight feeds are used as ingredients in commercial mixed feeds. Classification. — All the commercial feeds, both roughages^ and concentrates,^ may be divided for convenience of discussion into 1 1 main groups, as follows: 1. The hays and straws. 2. The whole cereal grains. 3. Cereal mill by-products. 4. Starch and glucose by-products. 5. Brewery and distillery by-products and yeast and vinegar by- products. 6. Oil-mill by-products. 7. Sugar by-products. 8. Animal and fish by-prod>icts. 9. Miscellaneous straight feeds. 10. Commercial mixed feeds or proprietary feeds. 11. Condimental stock remedies or tonics. Hays and straws. — Hays and straws may be classed as rough- ages, much the greater part of the production of which is consumed on the farms. While tlie commerce in these commodities is large, it is not, however, of primary importance in the consideration of com- mercial feeds, and the Commission did not include them in this inqiiiry.^ Whole cereal grains. — Great quantities of the whole cereal grains, particularly com and oats, are sold for feeds. Much of this whole grain is used as feed for animals. Large quantities are also purchased by the manufacturers of mixed feeds. Part of this is 1 WoU, F. W., Productive Feeding of Farm Animals, 2d ed., p. 163. ' Roughages are the coarser feedin^stuffs, wiiicli are higher in liber and supply a lower percentage of digestible matter. (Henry and Morrison, 17th ed., p. 10.) > Concentrates are feedingstnlTs of condensed nature, which are low in fiber, and hence furnish a large amount of digestible matter. (Henry ami Morrison, 17lh ed., p. 10.) * .\lfalfa meal, which is manuifactured from alfalfa hay, is an important feed which is given consideration later. 34 PRODUCTION OF PRINCIPAL FEEDS. 35 chopped or ground for use in mixed feeds, while part finds its way as whole grain into the mixtures known as scratch feeds, which are sold for poultry feeding. No complete statistics are available to show the quantities of the whole grains which are sold directly to feeders or to manufacturers of mixed feeds. By-product feeds. — It will be noted that OTOups three to eight, inclusive, in the above classification include only by-products of in- dustries which furnish food and drink for human consumption. Many of these by-products are sold directly to feeders for use in home mixing, but large c[uantities of all the by-product feeds are used as ingredients in commercial mixed feeds. Certain of these by- products are high in fiber and are usually classed as roughages or low- grade feeds. These feeds are considered in Chapter IV, and will therefore be only briefly mentioned in this chapter. Other by- product feeds are generally recognized as having high feeding value, and most of them are widely used both in home-mixed and in commer- cial-mixed. feeds. These feeds are described in this chapter. Brief descriptions of the processes of manufacture by which . they are derived are. given in order to furnish a clearer idea of their source and character. The general opinion of the feeding value of each of the most important feeds is stated, as is the chief purpose which each serves in the nutrition of live stock. The average content of crude protein, crude fat, and crude fiber is stated for each of the more important feeds, in order to give the reader a more definite idea of their qualities. In the description of the various by-product feeds, and of proc- esses of manufacture, in addition to information secured by the Com- mission's representatives from manufacturers and others, published sources have been freely used.^ Section 2. Cereal mill by-products. By-products of wheat milung." — This group is a large one and may be conveniently divided on the basis of the different kinds of grain. The by-products from the manufacture of wheat flour, gen- i The Association of Feed Control Officials of the United States has adopted deHnitious of a large number of the by-product feeds. This association is composed of feed-control officials of the several States and representatives of the Bureau of Chemistry of the United States Department of Agriculture. The adoption of deflnitious by the association, therefore, gives them an official character and they are generally recognized by feed-control officials and by the trade. In addition to these official deflnitions, the association has tentatively adopted definitions of other by-product feeds. The tentative deflnitions are considered by the association at its annual meetings and if found satisfactory are adopted as official definitions. Both the official and tentative deflnilions will be found in full in Appendix 2. 8 Following is a brief description of the modern process of manufacturing wheat flour. The process of milliiie flour from rye, barley, and buckwheat is sufficiently simUar not to reciiiire description in coimection with the description of the by-products derived from the milling of those grains. By the use of a series of sieves, separators,scourcrs,and washers the foreign material is separated from the grain and the latter thoroughly cleaned. When wheat has been thoroughly dry cleaned by these processes,it is not generally considered necessary to wash it, but some millers prefer to wash all the wheat, afterwards subjecting it to a drying process. The grain is then tempered to make it easier to separate the outer part of the wheat kernel. This is accompUshod by any one of several methods which consist in softening the grain by heat and moisture. The grain is then subjected to a gradual process of reduction by passing between successive sets of rollers placed at decreasing distances apart, and the flour is separated from the offal by sifting. Each stage in 1 he roUing process is called a " break." When the partly crushed grain passes from the first roU or " break" it goes to the " scalper," where it is sifted by means of a series of screens covered with wire or bolting cloth. The resulting material then passes through successive processes of roUing and sifting, the nimiber dltlering in different miUs. The middlings obtained from the various rolls and sifters are mixed and constitute the part that is to be made into flour. Three important machines are used in this operation— the purifier, the smooth rolls or pulverizer, and the bolter. In the " purifier" the small particles of remaining bran are removed by the use of sieves and a current of air. The ''smooth rolls" pulverize the purified middlings, and in the ''bolter!' the resulting material is sifted tlirough many sieves of silk bolting cloth. ' The fine flour is then separated from the middlings and anj remaining bran. The coarser parts are passed repeatedly through the purifier and smooth roUs and are finally separated by the bolter. The germ is ordinarily removed by boltmg and purifying in the early stages of the refining process. Cf. Food Industries, by ViUte and VanderbUt, 2d ed. (1916), Chap. v. 36 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. ernlly referred to as "offal," constitute from 25 per cent to 33 per cent of the weiojht of the entire gi'ain and arc among the most im- portant and widely used feeds for live stock.' The composition and qualities of these by-products will be better understood from the following brief description of the wheat grain. The wheat berry is covered by three different coatings of tough, thick-walled cells, which contain a considerable proportion of fiber * * *. Dirertly beneath the innermost seed-coat is a layer of cells, very rich in protein, called the aleurone layer; inside of this is the soft white pcjrtion (endosperm) or the berry, made up of cells largely filled with starch grains. These also contain protein suKstances, known under the name of gluten (gliadin and glutenin). Within the inner starchy portion of the lierry is found the germ containing the embryo of the wheat plant. * * * The aim of the miller is to ol)tain all the starch cells and gluten possible from the wheat, and to avoid the germ and the bran, including the aleurone layer, which would give an undesirable yellow tinge to the flour and lower its keeping quality.* Somewhat different terms are used in different parts of the country to designate these feeds, but those most commonly used are wheat bran, standard middlings or shorts, white or flour middlings, red dog, and wheat mixed feed. Bran consists of the coarse outer coatings of the wheat kernel. It is light and chaffy and carries a considerable amount of fiber. It is Erobably more widely used in feeding live stock than any other single y-product. Its chief use is as a feed for dairy cattle." Middlings consist of the finer bran particles and some low-grade flour and some of the germs. Standard middlings or shorts contain little flour, while white or flour middlings contain more flour and less bran and sweepings. Middlings are very largely used as a feed for hogs.'" Red dog is a low-grade dark flour wliich generally contains some of the wheat germs and is therefore rich in crude protein and fat.'" Wheat-mixed feed is the entire mill-run of the residues of the wheat kernel left after separating the commercial flour.'" Screenings. — In addition to these by-products of flour milling the cleaning oi" the wheat yields more or less screenings. This product consists of broken and imperfect wheat kernels, weed seeds, and other foreign materials.'" A comparatively smaU part of the screenings which enter into commerce is obtained from the cleaning preparatory to miUing. Much more is obtained from the cleaning and grading of the wheat at the elevators. The characteristics and feed value of screenings are discussed in some detail in Chapter IV, section 3. Chemical composition of wheat-flour by-products. — The av- erage protein, fat, and fiber content of the chief wheat-flour by-prod- ucts, as determined by Henry and Morrison (17th ed., p. 634) from a very large number of analyses, is shown in the following statement: B J -product. Bran Standard middlings (sliorts) Flour middlings Red-dog flour Wheat feed Crude Fat. Crude protein. fiber. Per cent. Per cent. Per cent. 16.0 4.4 9.5 17.4 4.9 6.0 17.8 5.0 4.7 16.8 4.1 2.2 16.8 4.6 7.6 ' Feeds and Feeding, by Henry and Morrison, 17th ed., p. 157; Principles of Feeding Farm Animals, by SIcoter Bull, p. 194. « WoU, Productive Feeding of Farm .\nimals, pp. 179-180. See also Jordan, W. H., The Feeding of Ani- mals, pp. 243-244. » Henry and Morrison, 17th cd., pp. 156-157; Bull. p. 194. " Henry and Morrison, 17th ed., pp. l.')7-159; Bull., pp. 194-199. PEODUCTION OF PRINCIPAL FEEDS. 37 Production. — The United States Grain Corporation has published statistics of tlie total output of wheat-flour offal for the crop years 1917-18, 1918-19, and 1919-20. Similar figures for earlier years are not available, but estimates have been made for the crop years 1913-14 to 1916-17 on the basis of the total weight of wheat used in milling " by assuming that 30 per cent of the wheat is recovered as mill feed. The following table shows the total estimated produc- tion in tons of wheat-flour by-products for the crop years 1913-14 to 1919-20: Table 2. — Estimated production oj wheat feeds, by crop years, 1913-14 to 1919-20, inclusive.^ Year. Tons. Year. Tons. 4, 924, 000 4, 785, 000 6, 133, OOO 4,672,000 1917-18 4,383,000 4,300,000 5,338,000 191S-19 1915-16. . 1919-20 ' Figures for 1913-14 to 1915-17 are estimates on basis of wheat used as shown by the report of the Federal Trade Commission on Commercial Wheat Flour Milling, p. 95, by using 58 pounds per bushel to obtain total weight and assuming null feed equals 30 per cent of tlie total weight. Figures for 1917-18, 1918-19, and 1919-20 are from the United States Grain Corporation figures published in supplement to Grain and Flour Statistics Durmg the War, Table 22, p. 22. Imports of bran and middlings entered for domestic consumption and exports of bran and middlings were, according to Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, as follows; Year. Imports. Exports. Year. Imports. Exports. 1913-14. . Tons. 60,751 36,077 41,625 32, 717 Tons. 2,570 11,426 14,613 7,428 1917-18 Tons. 61,608 20,796 4-1, 597 Tons. 6,833 6,213 2,907 1918-19 1915-16 1919-20 1910-17 E- The estimated output of mill feeds for the first four years ranged from 4,672,000 tons for 1916-17 to 5,133,000 tons in the year preceding. For 1917-18 the estimated production fell to 4,383,000 tons and for 1918-19 to 4,300,000 tons. The 1919-20 production was 5,338,000 tons or more than 1,000,000 tons greater than for 1918-19. The Food Administration secured reports durmg a part of the war eriod from most of the wheat-flour mills, showmg the quantities of ran, shorts, and middlmgs produced. The figures for the crop year 1917-18 are as follows: Bran, 1,797,000 tons, or 41 per cent; shorts, 1,183,410 tons, or 27 per cent; middlings, 569,790 tons, or 13 per cent, out of the total of 4,383,000 tons, as given above; the remaining 19 per cent being mixed feeds. '^ Similiar figures are not available for the other years, and it is doubtful whether these percentages applied to the totals for other years would give correct results, on account of the differences in milling practices during the war. By-products of rye milling. — Bran, shorts, and middlings are mentioned by the writers on animal feeds as the by-products of the manufacture of rye flour, The bran and middlings are usually combined as rye feed. The Association of Feed Control Officials recognizes only rye middlmgs or rye feed and rye red dog flour, the n Federal Trade Commission Report on Commercial Wheat Flour Milling, p. 9.5. u War Industries Board Price Bulletin No. 8, p. 5, and No. 9, p. 15. 38 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. latter consisting of low-grade flour with some particles of bran and other offal, while the former consists of the products other than flour. The rye flour by-products are said to resemble closely the corresponding wheat flour by-products, but authorities differ with regard to their feeding value as compared with the latter.''' The average of 186 analyses of rye feed snows the content of protein, fat, and fiber, respectively, as 15.3 per cent, 3.2 per cent, and 4.7 per cent. These figures show a somewhat lower content of crude protein and fat and considerably lower fiber content than the corresponding figures for wheat flour by-products. Statistics of the total production of rye flour offal are not available, but the quantity is very small as compared with that of wheat flour offal. The census figures for 1914 show the total quantity of rye f round in that year as 12, 81 4,000 bushels as compared \vith 54.5,728,000 ushels of wheat ground.'** While figures for this particular year may not be typical, they will answer for the purpose of a rough comparison. The corresponding figures for the census of 1919 are not yet available. By-products op barley milling. — Barley mills produce barley flour and pearl barley for human consumption. The latter is made by removing the outer and inner husk of the gram, after which it is ground to a round form and put through a polishing process.'^ Writers on the subject of animal feeds refer to the by-product from both these processes as "barley feed" or "barley meal. The Asso- ciation of Feed Control Officials, however, distinguishes in its official definitions between " barley feed " and " barley mixed feed," the form- er being the by-product from the manufacture of pearl barley, and the latter that from the milUng of barley flour. The barley by-products closely resemble wheat bran in composition and are said to have about the same feeding value.'" The averages of 13 samples of barl(\y feed (Henry and Morrison, 17th ed.) give protein, 12.7 per cent; fat, 3.4 per cent; fiber, 7.8 per cent. Statistics of the quantity of barley by-products produced have not been secured. They are, however, quantitatively unimportant as compared with wheat feeds." By-products of buckwheat '* milling. — In the manufacture of buckwheat flour the by-products are hulls, and shorts or middlings. The black, woody hulls have little feedino; value, but the middlings are recognized as a valuable feed, which is used almost entiiely for dairy cows. Sometimes the hulls are mixed with the middlings and the product is sold as buckwheat feed, wliich is said to contain ordinarily from one-half to two-thirds of hulls.'" The average con- tent of protein, fat, and fiber, respectively, in buckwheat middlings (54 analyses) is 28.3 per cent, 7.4 per cent, and 4.8 per cent. Similar » Henry and Morrison, 17tli cd., p. 1G4; BuU.p. 203. » Census of Maiiutnctiirers. 1914, Vol. 11, Table 13, p. 401. " Vulte and Vanderbilt, Food Industries, p. 49. i« Henry and Morri,son, 17th ed., p. 164; W'oll, p. 1S3, Ofllcinl Definitions, Appendix 2. " The census statistics for 1914 give the quantity of barley milled as 20,2H.s,(iO{l bushels, wliilc, as stated above, the quantity of wheat iniUcd in 1914 was. '">4.i,72S,flOI) bushels. Tlu'Mnaiuity (■flvirley milled in that year was, however, considerably hirecr than that of rye (l-.^l ',""" bushrls>, :iii= 17th ed., p. W7. "a At the tune of these tests the product now known as oat feed was commonly called oat hulls. 84 COMMERCIAL FKF.nS. mittcd to make thein public. H. J. Patterson , of the Maryland Exper- iment Station, stated that in all tests made by the institution the right is always reserved to state whatever the experiments may dis- close. In the experiments with the oat hulls the men who made them did not know where the oat hulls came from or whether the institu- tion paid for them or not. Every precaution was taken by Dr. Pat- terson that the tests be made with the usual care exercised in such matters. The results of the tests made of the car of oat hulls were published in a bulletin." According to this bulletin the oat hulls used in the test "appeared to be li^ht in weight, of good color, and extremely dusty." There were also considerable oat germs present. The analysis of this lot of oat hulls showed (p. 2G) : Amilyifis ii.i siimplril.'' Per cent. Moisture 8. 220 Ash 6. 300 Protein 4. 318 Fat or ether extract 3. 040 Cnide fiber 28. 750 Other carhohydrates 49. 372 In the first test of the oat hulls three animals were used — a young pig, a mature mule, and a mature Jersey bull. This was purely a maintenance test. The pig was fed on oat hulls for 41 days and at the end of that period had lost 21 pounds, or a loss of 28 per cent. Commenting on this test the bulletin says (p. 23) : It ■will be seen, however, that the excessive loss was partially due to the limited amount consumed and not entirely to the poor food A'ahie in itself. At the end of the period, however, the pig was very weak and would probably have died in a short time on this exclusive diet. The mule was fed for 41 days and aside from the oat hulls received hay as a part of the ration. According to tlie bulletin (p. 24) : In this test it wotild seem that with hay the oat hulls would have supported the animal fairly well at light work. The general condition of the mule was good through- out the entire period. The comment regarding tlie test with the bull was as follows (p. 25) : At the end of the 41 days' period the bull had gained 2!) pounds in weight. During the first nine days, however, ho received hay in adtUtion to oat hulls, and when hay was discontinued he had up to tliis lost apparently 15 poimds. This was an error, probalily due to his ha\-ing been watered shortly before the initial weighing. For the remainder of the time he gradually improved on an exclusive oat hull diet, and at the end of the period was in excellent condition in every respect. It has been asserted that the results of the above series of tests were so satisfactory that the manufacturer instituting them was unable to use the data to decry his competitors' feeds. Oatmeal millers and mixed-feed manufacturers who use oat feed in their feeds, commenting on these tests, stated that in their opinion the pig would have done much better had the oat hulls been finely ground. » Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station Bui. 168, July, 1912. «Cf. analyses p. S3. THE LOW-GRADE FEEDS. 85 Immediately after the maintenance test with the bull was finished a digestion test with the exclusive oat hull diet was carried on for a period of 16 days. Commenting on the results of this digestion test the station -^ states: It was determined, therefore, that this luill kept in condition and gained slightly in weight on a ration consisting of: 9.17 pounds dry matter. .21 pound digestible protein. 4.32 pounds digestilile carbohydrates. .23 pound fats. Having a nutritive ratio of 1 : 22 : (i. Approximately 170,000 tons of oat feed were produced in 1919. (See Chap. Ill, sec. 2.) A comparatively small percentage of the total production is sold to feeders to be used as a part of a home- mixed ration ; the balance is used by mixed-feed manufacturers as an ingredient in their feeds. It is the common practice to grind it to the desired degree of fineness before mixing.^" Oat feed is used for its carbohydrate content and to give bulk, or to lighten a ration. The following summary of statements of three Illinois feeders who jointly purchased a car of oat feed is of interest. The car of oat feed was purchased through a local dealer at -127 per ton, in sacks. The first feeder interviewed usually mixed and fed the following ration : 100 pounds corn ground \rith the cob. 100 pounds bran. 100 poimds ground oats and barley. • Six of his best cows were selected and fed this mixture for one week. The milk and feed for each cow were carefully weighed during the test. Tlu-ee days after the above test was made, and after all the above mixture was out of the cows' systems, he substituted 100 pounds of oat feed for the 100 pounds of bran and a similar test was made, covering one week. The new mixture was somewhat more bulky because of the lightness of the oat feed. A comparison of the results of the two tests showed that as good a flow of milk had been obtained from the mi.xture containing oat feed as from the other, in fact the feeder stated that the tests showed that 2 pounds more of milk were produced during the week when the oat feed was used. The milk was not tested during either period so it is not known whether there was a difference in the quality. The saving per ton of feed to the feeder by using oat feed in place of bran was quite marked. He had paid $43 per ton for one parcel of bran and $47 per ton for another lot, while the oat feed had cost but .127 per ton. Notwithstanding the apparently good results obtained this feeder (lid not believe he would advocate the use of oat feed. He also doubted if he would ever use it again and stated he certainly would not at a price higher than that which he had paid, namely, $27 per ton. He believed the product contained only hulls and mill sweep- ings and that the best part of the oat had been removed, but at the price he paid the product was worth the money. According to his =■■ Bulletin 16X, p. 27. " The grinding depends upon the character of feed in which the oat feed is to be used. Thus, for hog feed the product is ground more finely than for a horse teed. 86 (lOMMKRCIAI. FEEDS. belief oat feed was valuable principally as a filler when heavy feeds were used. He believed it to be as good as his average timothy hay. Just why this feeder would not use the pj-oduct again is not clear, nor was he positive on the point. He stated that his cows would not eat oat feed when fed alone and that the product was so light that it would blow and scatter all over his farm. It is not improbable that the local cow testing ofTicial had had some effect on this feeder's judgment, since this official, who was also interviewed, was very much opposed to low-grade feeds in general and advised feeders, including the one interviewed, not to use them. A second feeder taking a part of the same car of oat feed, also used the product as a substitute for bran or middlings to lighten his feed. While he did not know but that the mixture contaniing oat feed would produce as much milk as the one in which bran or middlings were used, he stated that he would never buy oat feed again. He did not believe that the oat feed could be as beneficial to the cow as bran. His cows, too, would not eat the oat feed alone, although they would eat the bran when it was fed alone. The farmer who had persuaded the two feeders just mentioned to join him in purchasing tne car of oat feed, stated that in his opinion oat feed had proved to be just as satisfactory as bran. This feeder did not base his opinion on the one test but had used oat feed in the spring of 1919 as well as in the wnter of 1919-20. Not only was the milk flow as large as when bran was used, but from the appearance of the CQws they were in as good condition. Furthermore, this feeder estimated that by using oat feed a saving of $20 per ton had been effected. When asked why the other feeders interviewed had discontinued using oat feed the third feeder stated that many people were preju- diced against oat feed and that even a careful test showing good results would not convince them that the product had value. An analysis of oat feed used by these three feeders is not available. Below is given the analysis of a sample of the same brand of oat feed as was used by these tm-ee feeders as determined by a state experi- ment station: Protein, 5 percent; fat, 2 per cent; fiber, 28 per cent. Another Illinois feeder who had tried 2 tons of oat feed stated that he could not be induced to use it again at any price. He called it a worthless product. However, this feeder used considerable quantities of a ready-mixed feed (about two carloads per year) which contained on an average over 25 per cent of oat feed and he believed it to have been "worth the money." Manufacturers of mixed feeds containing oat feed claim that in making their feeds the properties and values of the oat feed are recognized and properly useci in their mixed feeds. They supply the carbohydrates and lighten the rations in which they are used. The percentage of oat feed used by manufacturers in their mixed feeds differs with the various feeds. It is, however, used in a more constant quantity in these mixtures than most of the other ingre- dients and is varied only when absolutely necessary since it is the product used as the base, or filler, in most of the mixtures in which it is found. It is for this reason that the manufacturer varies the proportion of the other ingredients rather than the amount of oat leea. However, changes in the percentage of oat feed in mixtures THE LOW-GRADE FEEDS. 87 are frequently necessary. Oat feed is present in some feeds in as small an amount as 5 per cent and in others in an amount as high as 28 per cent. In one mstance, at least, as high as 40 per cent was used in a dairy feed for a short time and then the amount was reduced to the usual percentage, about 25 per cent. Illegal use of oat hulls and oat feed. — Oat hulls and oat feed are at times used as adulterants. They become adulterants, for example, when the mixture is said to contain crushed oats when as a matter of fact only the hulls or oat feed is present. It is also an easy matter, in so far as detection is concerned, to omit these products from the statement of ingredients of a feed which contams both crushed oats and oat hulls or oat feed, provided the quantity is not unduly excessive. Since it is difficult and frequently impossible to determine the fact that a feed is adulterated with oat hulls or oat feed, the extent to which this practice exists can not be stated, though it is probable that most manufacturers do not follow it. The difficulty of detecting this form of adulteration is illustrated by the case of a manufacturer who through an error in his registra- tion of a feed for sale in Texas declared only one-half the quantity of oat feed actually present in the feed. This feed was shipped into Texas for a year under this erroneous registration, and although inspected and analyzed, the presence of the excess of oat feed was evidently not detected, since the manufacturer was not penalized. Critics and defenders of oat feed are found among all branches of the business. The criticisms range from the unsupported assertions that it is a worthless product, to the carefully guarded statements of scientific men that oat feed is of value if sold at a proper price. Those wHo defend the product do not contend that it is unequalled as a feed or that it is a fully efficient feed of itself, but rather that it is a valuable commodity especially as a source of carbohydrates, and as such serves a useful purpose and has been grossly maligned. Section 10. Controversy over use of oat feed. Criticisms of oat feed. — The feeling against oat feed is often expressed in very bitter terms. Manufacturers of feeds that do not contain this product frequently refer to it as "junk," "trash," "worthless," or "adulterant." Many feed manufacturers advertise that their feeds do not contain "cheap fillers (roughage), such as oat hulls, ground screenings, etc." One manufacturer stated in an advertisement: We do not buy nor use any oat hulls, cottonseed hulls, rice hulls, or other low-grade feeding materials of any description. It is interesting to note that this manufacturer used as an ingredient in a mixed feed unhulled peanut meal which contained peanut shells, a product admittedly much inferior to oat feed. Feeders frequently voiced their opinions of oat feed in strong terms, similar to the above. Agricultural college authorities, feed control officials, and representatives of the Bureau of Chemistry, were not as a rule as outspoken. Men of this last group more often called it a "cheap"-' or "low-grade" product, but few would say that its use should be prohibited. Practically all such authorities believe oat feed to have a place provided the product is sold at prices »' "Cheap "in that it is of little feed value. 88 COMMKIUUAI. I'KKDS. commensurate with its feed value and in proper relation to the prices of the recognized high value feeds. In fact, the severest condemna- tion of oat feed made hy most agricultural authorities was that the price at which the product sold was out of proportion to its feed value. This situation has existed, apparently, for many years, since in November, 1898, the Massacliusetts Agricultural College stated that "Such feeds have a very inferior feeding value and are not worth over one-half as much as corn meal."^" Prof. L. A. Maynard, of the New York State College of Agriculture, in an address before the Association of Feed Control Officials of the United States, November 19, 1920, said: The New York farmer * * * can not afford to buy oat hull.'! until he has fed nil his oat straw, and rather than feed his dairy animals on either one he had lietter gel rid of them, for he is losing money. However, one of the large producers of this product takes issue with such statements and submits data compiled by his company showing the relative prices of 12 leading feed materials, including several mixed feeds, based on total digestible nutrients. According to these data oat fced,^*'' from January 1, 1914, to October 1, 1919, was frequently 'the cheapest source of digestible nutrients among the feeds listed and seldom worse than the second or third cheapest in the list. A mixed feed containing oat feed averaged about the fifth cheapest on the list. The opposition of at least some feed manufacturers to oat feed must be viewed with suspicion. Undoubtedly one of the prin- cipal reasons for opposition from this source to the use of oat feed is the fact that the larger producers of this product use it in mixed feeds and that they can and do sell these mixtures at prices which are frequently below those of competing manufacturers. Add to this the fact that mixtures containing oat feed have the largest sale of any mixed feeds, and it is readily understood why the opposi- tion to the product is so widespread and persistent. Some of the manufacturers who are opposed to the use of oat feed have advocated that its shipment and sale be prohibited. These manufacturers, however, have admitted that the product could be utilized to good advantage by feeders and farmers near the source of supply — in this instance the oatmeal mills. In other words, a farmer near Cedar Rapids, Iowa, could haul oat feed from a large mill near that point to his farm and feed it to good advantage. But these manufacturers contend that it is a great economic waste for a farmer located in Virginia or any point far removed from an oat- meal mill to buy and transport oat feed from such distant points, because the feed value of the oat feed is relatively too small to stand the transportation costs. Defense of oat feed. — Those who defend the product point to the series of tests made by the Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station as partial proof of the value of oat feed. They also compare the chemical composition and digestibility of oat hulls witn that of timothy hay, as presented in the following table, and ask why oat feed, which is bettor than oat hulls, should be condemned and not timothy hay. w Bulletin 66, p- 19- "Bft The price figures were taken from the Boston Chamber of Commerce .statistics for "reground oat hulls," which are probably the same as oat feed. THE LOW-GRADE FEEDS. 89 Table 16. — Average chemical composition ' and digestihility - of oat hulls as compared with timothy hay.^ Pro- tein. Digest- ible Fe£. Fat. Digest- ible tat. Fiber. Digest- ible fiber. N.F.E. Digest- ible N.F.E. Total di- gestible nutrients perlOO pouBds. Perct. 4.0 6.2 Per ct. 50 48 Perct. 1.7 2.5 Perct. 77 50 Perct. 29.2 29.9 Perct. 60 50 Per ct. 52.3 45.0 Perct. 53 62 Per cent. 50.1 ' Average of 16 analyses of oat hulls and 221 analyses of timothy hay. 3 One test of oat hulls and average of .58 tests of 'timothy hay. 3 Henry and .Morrison. 17th ed. Users of oat feed contend that, in the interest of conservation, all products having a feed value should be utilized. They state that it is more economical that oats be milled and the offal, or oat feed, fed to stock and the oatmeal to mankind than that whole oats should be fed to stock. In support of this contention these supporters of oat feed cite Dr. Henry Prentiss Armsby, director of the Institute of Animal Nutrition of the Pennsylvania State College. In his book, The Conservation of Food Energy, Dr. Armsby gives the per- centage recovery of energy from feeding whole oats direct to stock as compared with the percentage recovery of energy from milling oats and feeding only the offal, or oat feed, to stock and using the oatmeal as human food, as follows: Recovery of energy. Cattle. Sheep. Hogs. Dairy cows. Per cent. 15 58 Per cent. 17 58 Per cent. 38 64 Per cent. Oats milled As a final argument for the use of oat feed the mixed-feed manu- facturers using it point to the many thousands of testimonials from satisfied customers who have used mi.xtures containing oat feed for years and who have obtained satisfactory results. Many of these were entirely unsolicited. Owners of prize herds frequently tell in these testimonials of the beneficial results secured from mixtures con- taining oat feed. Section 11. The problem of low-grade feeds. The use of the low-grade materials previously discussed as feed for animals has been the cause of a great deal of controversy. The more important angles of the controversy are set forth in the fol- lowing sections, and such conclusions and recommendations as the Commission believes pertinent are also given. Apparently little has been done to determine definitely the merits of the arguments. It must be concluded that scientific data regard- ing the utility of these materials do not exist, since even the most outspoken opponents of low-grade feeds were unable to furnish or even suggest the source from which proof for their assertions might 90 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. be secured. Similarly, the most ardent supporters of these low-grade feeds were in most instances without authoritative data with which to support their claims. Much of the material secured by the Com- mission consisted largely of criticisms based on selfisn grounds. This was particularly true of some of the information given by manufacturers. It is natural that producers of these materials would vigorously defend them, but the bitterness with which some manufacturers attacked their use was startling, especially so as many of their criticisms were not substantiated. In view of the fact that the business is highly competitive, the Commission has concluded that much of the opposition to the low-grade feeds is due to this competition. Aside from the above factors personal prejudices have much to do with the attitude taken, and this is particularly true in the case of farmers. Locality also has much to do with the opinions held by various opponents of the so-called low-grade feedingstuffs. Feeders and agricultural experiment station authorities in New England are practically agreed that cottonseed hulls should not be fed in that section oi the country. They hold that since this product has a very low feed value the transportation charges from the South to New England make it a very expensive feed, aside from the initial Erice of the product. On the other hand, cottonseed hulls are very ighly prized as a roughage by southern feeders, and their use is advocated by most southern agricultural experiment station authori- ties, provided the price at which they can be secured is sufficiently low. Southern manufacturers, as a rule, are not willing that the sale of this product should be prohibited. The use of ground corncobs in a mixed feed, for example, is opposed by many feeders, agricultural experiment station authorities, and some manufacturers. Yet these same feeders and agricultural authorities believe farmers should grind their corn with the cob and feed both as a part of a home-mixed ration, as is frequently done. The criticism in this case is that when buying a mixed feed containing corncobs the farmer is purchasing a roughage of which he frequently has, or should have, a sufficient supply, if not a surplus, and that he may be paying an unduly high price for this roughage. Relation of prices to feed values. — It is often alleged by those opposing the use of low-grade feeds that the prices at which they are sold are entirely too high, feed value considered. It is, of course, im- possible to state the actual feed value of these low-grade feeds since there are no recognized scientific data upon which such statements may be based. However, while the charge is one that might be expected during the past few years of high prices, this complaint has existed for many years. Since most of these low-grade feeding stuffs are by-products, it is maintained by some that to have sold them at lower prices would have meant higher prices for the principal product. It is frequently alleged that purchasers of mixed feeds containing oat feed, or any otber of the products commonly listed as roughages, pay for the oat feed or other feed of a similar nature at a rate per ton equal to the price of the mixture. Thus, if a mixture containing oat feed sold at .SSO per ton, many believe tbey would be paying $50 i)er ton for the oat feed. It may be stated with absolute assurance that such is rarely, if ever, the case. Competitive conditions in the in- dustry will not permit following sucn a practice. Reference to THE LOW-GRADE FEEDS. 91 Chapter III, section 9, will show the method followed by practically all manufacturers in figuring their costs. If the chemical analysis were a proper standard by which the feed value of a feed could be measured it certainly would substantiate the assertions that some of these low-grade feeds, or roughages, have been sold at comparatively high prices. For example, oat feed, which analyzes low in protein and fat and high in fiber, at $50 per ton would be, for some purposes at least, a poor purchase compared with corn gluten feed, which analyzes much higher in fat and protein and much lower in fiber, at $80 per ton. But oat feed is not intended as a substitute for corn gluten feed and is not sold or used as such. The defenders of oat feed contend, and rightly so, that for some purposes corn gluten feed would be valueless and oat feed would meet the requirements. Use of low-grade materials as adulterants. — It is alleged by some that the low-grade materials are frequently used as adulterants in mixed feeds. Since these materials are usually cheaper than high-grade products, it is to be expected that when adulteration is practiced the former or cheaper materials would be used. The adulteration of feeds is discussed elsewhere in this report. It may be stated here, however, that the reply made by mixed-feed manufacturers to the charge of adulteration is that manufacturers can not afford to adulterate their products; that they are in business permanently and can not imperil their investments by such practices. They admit using some low-grade materials in their mixtures, but not as adulterants, contending that such ingredients are used for other specific purposes. Advisability of farmers buying roughages. — Agricultural au- thorities maintain that farmers should produce and not purchase their roughages. Many of these authorities contend that a farmer who does not produce sufficient roughages to meet his requirements is not farming efficiently. Although it might be better if farmers produced all the roughages necessary to feed their stock, the fact remains that there are many who do not and who therefore must purchase them. Liverymen and dwellers in and near cities owning a few animals are often practically forced to purchase all, or nearly all, their feeds, including roughages. This is also true of many large dairymen, particularly those in the Eastern States, where farms are small and cities and towns are numer- ous. Dr. Patterson, of the Maryland Agricultural Experiment Sta- tion, has stated that in Maryland there are many such dairymen, and in his opinion the same condition exists in practically all the States of the northeast section of the country. Use of low-grade materlils in mixed feeds. — While as has been previously pointed out, there is a manifest lack of scientific or authoritative data to support many of the criticisms of low-grade feeds, the agitation against their use in mixed feeds is to be expected when the formulas of some mixed feeds are examined. It is true that most of such feeds are made to meet a demand and that they probably are used for specific purposes, which they fill. Nevertheless, if it is necessary to manufacture mixtures containing 50 per cent, 60 per cent, 70 per cent, and even 80 per cent, of these low-grade materials to meet the demands of certain purchasers, it would seem desirable so to label these mixtures as to prevent the purchase of them by those who 92 (lOMMI'.RCIAl. FKKDS. are inclined to believe that such mixed feeds are not economical or fit for their purposes. It is, evidently, mixtures containing Inw-^rade ins;redicnts to the extent shown below that have had much to do with the opposition to mixed feeds. Clipped oat by-product 30 per cent and ground flaxseed screenings 40 per cent, a total of 70 per cent low-grade ingredients; screenings 44 per cent, oat feed 30 per cent, a total of 74 per cent; clipped oat by-product .50 per cent, and 30 per cent of flaxseed screenings, in all SO per cent of low-grade materials, are but a few instances of many mixed feeds sold which have unfloubtedly been responsible for much of the opposition. Lacking any other st.nndard of measurement it would seem that mixtures with such high percentages of low-grade materials as are given above might well be called low-grade mixed feeds. In buying some mixed feeds the purchaser does not know what he is buying. It is claimed that it is his right to know how much of each ingredient the mixture contains. Mixed-feed manufacturers frequently answer such assertions with the reply that it is asking for information which would be of no benefit to the farmer because, they say, he is too ignorant, usually, to know what he needs. vSuch answers are, of course, beside the point, unjustifiable, and imworthy of consideration. A knowledge of the percentage of ingredients in a mixture may not interest some purchasers of mixed feeds. Others, however, may need this information if for no othcj' reason than to enable them to discriminate in purchasing such products. Section 12. Proposals for settlement of the low-grade feed problem. It is to be expected that numerous solutions would be advanced in a matter over which there is so much controversy. The most fre- 3uently proposed solutions are given below in brief form and each is iscussed later. None of the solutions is advanced by the Commis- sion. They have been proposed by men directly interested in the animal feeds business. 1. To prohibit the shipment and sale of the low-grade products. 2. To limit the shipment and sale of the low-grade products to a short distance from the point of production. 3. To rec(uire mixed-leed manufacturers u.sing any of the low-grade feeds in their mixtures to state on tags and labels one of the follo\ving: (ff) The percentage of each of the low-grade ingredients in the mixture. (6) The percentage of each ingredient in the mixture. (c) To use a tag of a distinctive color, as yellow, or red, on each parcel of feed containing certain low-grade materials. id) A combination of in) and (c) or (h) and Penna. Dept. of Agr. Bui. 342. Feed manufacturers attempt to maintain their formulas as constant as possible. They find it more economical from an operating stand- point and for commercial reasons to have their product run uni- formly. Many concerns strive to use ingredients of as even compo- sition as possible, as, for example, some attempt to buy only 41 per cent cottonseed meal. There are some concerns that do not vary their formulas at all for long periods; in a few instances the feeds have been the same since their inception. Such feeds, as a rule, are composed of comparatively few ingredients. The majority of mixed- feed manufacturers find it necessary, or expedient, frequently to change their formulas. These changes are at times very marked. For example, in 1919 one mixed-feed manufacturer made at least 14 changes of importance in one of his formulas. Even in prewar years THE LOW-GRADE FEEDS. 95 changes were frequent, this same manufacturer making at least 10 changes in 1913. The changes in the formula of a well-known dairy ration over a period of years were submitted to the Commission. The following table presents three typical changes in five of the years. Some of the ingredients are omitted in order to avoid making public the formula. Table 17.- -Typical changes in the formula oj a iieen trained both as a chemist and a plant histologist or niicroscopist, the chemi.«t and microscopist must work together for efficient feed analysis, for the one can not do the work of the other. With regard to the work for the ensuing year it seems advisable that, in view of the suggestions made by collaborators, the work on hull determination in cottonseed meal be continued. A few years ago work was begun on methods of sampling scratch feed containing grit or shell. The results so far obtained show that the methods of mixing commonly used do not insure a homogeneous sample. A method which will do this is most necessary, and it is suggested that work along this line be continued. Several years ago it was recommended that a key or outline for the qualitative detec- tion of various products used in feeds be presented. Such an outline has been made by the referee for the information sheets of the Bureau of Chemistry, United States Department of Agriculture, on the microscopic examination of feeds and feeding- stuffs and may be had on application to the referee. Table I. Analyst. Proportion of hulls reported, showing number of determi- nations made by each analyst. Average. A Per cent. 22.0 24.4 16.2 24.6 1S.3 20.4 19.3 20.7 16.1 19.2 21.7 23.2 2ao 23.3 20.2 25. S Per cent. 21.8 24.8 15.9 24.0 18.2 21.3 19.2 19.4 17.8 1&6 23.5 20.8 Per cent. Percent. Per cent. Percent. B 21.0 16.4 22.4 15.5 C D 24 3 E 18.3 F 20.85 G H 20.5 16.3 19.3 23.9 I K 18.9 19.4 I. 28.0 M 22.0 N 2ao 23.3 P 20.2 Q 24.8 25.3 Table II. Per- cent- 1 ages present Percentages reported by analysts — Corn Oats Barley AUalfa Cottonseed meal Cottonseed hulls Peanut shells. .. 21.5 18.9 { ^l ) ^-0 21.3 15.9 24.9 35.9 ' Trace; contamination of oats. THE LOW-GKADE I'EEDS. 99 The State of Texas has a clause in its feed law requiring, under certain circumstances, the statement of the percentages of low-grade ingredients in a mixed feed. F. D. Fuller, chief of the division of feed control service of Texas, at a hearing in Washington before representatives of the Department of Agriculture, on February 12, 1919, made the following statement: I think it is a debatable question as to whether the percentage of composition of the feed can be actually determined. On some mixtures I think it is feasible — mixtures containing two or possibly three ingredients — but I have yet to be shown that in case of a mixture containing a largo number of ingredients, or po.ssibly three or four ingre- dients derived from corn, for instance, like hominy feed, yellow hominy feed [it is possible),^' to do it. Personally, as a chemist, it would bo impossible for me to make that separation with any degree of accuracy. In the enforcement of our Texas feed laws I must rely ab.solutely on the evidence presented to me by the chemist, and I have not yet felt that I was justified in instituting cases in courts which were based entirely on such evidence. Dr. Alsberg. You have been able to do it where there were only two or three ingredients? Mr. Fuller. Yes, sir. It can be done with a fair degree of accuracy. We have brought cases where the manufacturer had guaranteed 2 per cent of grit, and we have found an excess of grit, in some instances, of 18 per cent. That was a very simple matter, but it may be that the State of Texas is very fortunate in having a chemist who is able to give us the information desired which mil enable us to secure convic- tion in the local coirrts. As evidence of the fact that the manufacturers are complying with that provision of the act, I would like to submit for your information these tags, which are official tags. They have been used in Texas with the sale of feeds. Mr. Haywood. That is. Mr. Fuller, you would say they are putting on the percent- age of each ingredient and the protein, fat, and fiber, but in a good many cases you don't know whether they are true or not. Mr. Fuller. I haven't received that information from the chemist. I might say, furthermore, oiu' chemist assures me that it can be done vnth a sufficient degree of accuracy to enable the enforcement of the act. It may be noted in connection with Mr. Fuller's statements that the mere fact that manufacturers give percentages of ingredients on the tags is not proof that the manufacturers use the precentages given in compounding their mixtures, as Dr. Haywood, of the De- partment of Agriculture, says. The Texas chemist may feel certain that the percentages may be determined sufficiently close for en- forcement purposes, but the tests made by the Department of Agri- culture would indicate that such assurance is not well founded. The case previously alluded to of a manufacturer using twice as much oat hulls as was declared may serve as a further illustration. The objection to the statement of the percentages of each ingre- dient in a mixture on the grounds that it would be placing a penalty on the honest manufacturer is closely allied to the other objections. If it is not possible to determine the percentages after the mixture is made, then an honest manufacturer who states the true percentages of the ingredients in his mixture would be forced to compete with the dishonest manufacturer who would, for example, give a statement of percentages and then exceed the amount he specified for the low-grade commodity in his feed. However, honest manufacturers are now forced to withstand com- petition of a somewhat similar nature, for it is possible, without stating them as ingredients, to add a small percentage of oat hulls or oat feed, for example, to a mixture containing crushed oats, or to add a small cjuantity of elevator dust to a mixture without fear of detection. 29 Inserted by Commission. 100 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. The fact that the statement of the percentages of the ingredients would be to make public the formulas which are regarded by some as a business secret is advanced as an objection to such legislation. This, however, is not always sincerely advocated, for it is admitted by several manufacturers that they do not believe that their feeds could be duplicated from the formula printed on the tag. This is because of the variations in the chemical composition of the different ingi'edients. Merely to know that a feed contained, say, 20 per cent of cottonseed meal would not be sufficient, since cottonseed meal varies materially in its chemical composition. This variation is found in practically every commodity, as has been previously stated. Probably one of the reasons why manufacturers who use low-grade f)roducts take the position that if open formulas are required the aw should apply to all feeds is to be found in the fact that if all mixed-feed manufacturers are required to state the percentage of each ingredient in their feeds the opposition to such proposals would be increased and strengthened, and thus the main issue, namely, the fight against low-grade feeds, becomes of secondary importance. By requiring mixed-feed manufacturers to state the percentages of all ingredients the users of the low-grade ingredients are not compelled to stand alone. By including all mixed-feed manufacturers the issue becomes widespread, and stating the percentages of the low-grade ingredients is no longer the debated pomt, since manufacturers in f;eneral quickly combine to fight such proposals. Comparatively ew manufactui'ers are willing to state the percentages of ingredients in their feeds. These manufacturers do not as a rule make mixtures containing many ingredients. It is also true that they do not use the low-grade products to a great extent. It has been suggested that tags attached to mixed feeds containing low-grade materials be of a distinctive color, as yellow or red. The idea is that such tags would serve as a warning of the presence of low-grade materials m the mixtui-e. Minnesota requires such mix- tures to carry a yellow tag with red printing. Feed manufacturers opposing such requirements assert that a mixture may contain low-grade materials and yet be a highly useful feed and that the farmer is not interested in the composition of the feed but in the re- sults which he obtains from its use. The statement of the ingredients in a mixed feed in the order of their preponderance has been suggested as a possible solution of the low-grade feed problem. However, such a plan is subject to a large extent to the same objections as those given against stating the percentages of all ingredients in mLxed feeds. Section 13. Conclusions. The study of the low-grade feed problem has led the Commission to the following conclusions: 1. That the argument for and against low-grade feeds has been based to a great extent upon hearsay and personal opinion, and that sufficient data of a scientific nature upon which to base conclu- sions as to the value of the low-grade feeds do not exist. The above conclusion is supported by statements of feed manufac- turers and scientific men interested in the industry. Practically all parties interviewed agi'eed that there are few data concerning the feed value of many of the low-grade products. The very smaJQ THE LOW-GRADE FEEDS. 101 quantity of such material offered by the opponents and proponents of the h)w-grade feeds indicates that such data do not exist. 2. That the controversy has been clouded and confused by state- ments and allegations of mixed-feed manufacturers on both sides of the question, wdio argue from selfish motives, and by farmers, feed- ers, and many of their supporters, who make charges and assertions not supported by proof. 3. That the objections to these feeds are largely due to the prices at which they sell. The prices of low-grade feeds have advanced very materially in recent years, like most other commodities, but no evidence has been found of any manipulation or combination responsible for such increases. The prices of the high-grade feedingstufl's have also in- creased greatly in recent years. It does not appear, furthermore, that farmers and feeders have been forced to purchase the low-grade feeds or the mixed feeds containing them, since there are tlie high- grade feeds, both mixed and straight, which can be purchased. 4. That it does not appear feasible, at least at the present time, to pass a law prohibiting (or restricting) the use of these feeds. Even if such a law were constitutional, to pass it now with the limited data available regarding the feed value of these products would be unwise. 5. That while it is desirable to give the consumer as much infor- mation as is possible regarding these feeds, a law requiring the statement of any or all percentages of ingredients, or the listing of ingredients in a mixed feed in order of their preponderance, would be difHcult to enfoi-ce. Before the controvers};' over the low-grade feeds can be settled and a satisfactory conclusion arrived at the Commission believes that a series of feeding tests of the most exliaustive nature should be made with each of the low-grade feeds, and probably combinations of the low-grade feeds with certain high-grade feeds. Such tests should be made by a disinterested body, preferably the United States Department of Agriculture, assisted by the various State agricultural college and feed-control officials. The work of educating and encouraging farmers in the proper feeding of their stock also should be continued. It should also be definitely determined by cooperative experiments between the Bureau of Chemistry, United States Department of Agriculture, and the various State feed-control officials whether known ingredients in mixed feeds, similar to those sold in the United States, can or can not be quantitatively determined. Chapter V. WHOLESALE PRICES Section 1. Introductory. The Commission endeavored to secure representative price records of most of the principal by-product straight feeds and ako of typical ready-mixed feeds in each of the main subgroups named in Cliapter III, section 9, viz, dairy feeds, stock feeds, horse and mule feeds, hog feeds, calf meals, and poultry feeds. The number of brands of ready-mixed feeds is enormous. Some are sold only locally, but even those which are generally advertised and widely distributed are so numerous that it was out of the question to secure prices for any considerable part of them. However, it is believed tliat price records were obtained for a sufficient number of widely distributed feeds in each group of the ready-mixed feeds to be representative of that group, and that consequently a fair picture of the price move- ment of the entire class of mixed feeds is presented. Character of statistics and method of treatment. — The statistics of prices were collected partly by the Commission's agents from the records of manufacturers and jobbers, and partly through correspondence with manufacturers, who compiled the statistics and furnished them directly to the Commission. Statistics were also secured from published sources, chiefly trade papers, and aver- ages were computed from them. This material was used to check the figures from other sources, and in a few cases averages derived from the published figures have been used to supplement the latter. However, it has been considered desirable to use in this chapter, as far as practicable, the figures obtained from manufacturers and job- bers as probably more nearly representing the actual price situation than the published figures, whicli in some cases may not represent actual transactions. In any study of price statistics it is desirable to have true averages computed by dividing the total proceeds from sales of the given commodity during a certain period (e. g., a month) by the total quantity sold durmg the period. It was found that feed manufac- turers rarely have statistics of this character compil(>d for their own use, and the Commission could not undertake the great amount of work which would have been involved in tabulating such statistics for a large number of feeds. It was necessary, therefore, to confine the compilation of price statistics to certain days in each month, in order to bring the clerical work within a reasonable compass. Ac- cordingly it was decided to secure the statistics of prices for the 1st, 10th, and 20th of each month. The prices for these three dates were averaged and the resulting figures are presented in the tables in this chapter and in the appendix tables in the form of monthly average prices. 102 WHOLESALE PRICES. 103 In some instances it was found practicable to take off the prices for all transactions on the selected days, together with the corre- sponding tonnages. In such cases weighted averages were computed, but for the most part the tables present simple averages of the prices on the selected dates. When published sources were used, the price for a certain day of each week was generally taken and averages of these weekly figures were used. In times of very rapidly fluctuating prices it is possible that the average of three quotations a month may not give as accurate a measure of the price situation in that month as would be desirable, but it was necessary to reduce the number of prices to a workable basis, and the dates selected seemed, on the whole, sufficient. The price records of some manufacturers had either not been pre- served for any considerable period or were not kept in such condition that statistics could be readily compiled from them. In some cases of this sort c[uotations were furnished instead of actual prices, but these were used only when the Commission was assured that these quotations represented substantially the prices on actual sales. Most manufacturers of mixed feeds asseft that all of their sales of a given brand on a given day are made substantially at the same price, and in general the statistics furnished by the mixed-feed manufac- turers give one price only as representative for each selected date (1st, 10th, and 20th). In presenting prices of the straight feeds, figures are given for a leading market or for two or three markets which were deemed to be typical. It is undoubtedly true that unusual conditions in particular localities will cause the price of a given feed to run out of line with prices of the same feed in other markets. Such conditions, how- ever, are generally of relatively short duration, and it is the purpose of this report to show only the broad general movement of prices of the straiglit feeds and of typical mixed feeds. Period covered by the statistics. — The Commission sought, so far as was practicable, to secure price records both for straight feeds and ready-mixed feeds beginning with January, 1913. The object in going back as far as the year 1913 was to extend the price study back to a period before the outbreak of the war in Europe, when f)resimiably general conditions in the feed industry, as in most other ines of business, were fairly normal. The figures for the year 1913, which was free from the disturbing conditions accompanying the war, may be taken as a basis from which the price movement may be traced through the war period and the period of even higher prices which followed the armistice. While it was attempted to secure price records both for straight and ready-mixed feeds §oing back as far as the beginning of 1913, it was by no means possible to do this in every case, particularly as regards the mixed feeds, chiefly because many manufacturers do not preserve the records showing their prices for so long a period, while the manufacture and sale of some of the leading mixed feeds for which prices were obtained, did not begin until later than 1913. However, for practically all the most important straight feeds and for one or more mixed feeds in all of the groups except hog feeds 104 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. and calf meals price statistics were secured beginning with January, 1913. The work of gathering price statistics was substantially finished during the summer of 1920. For this reason the price records secured, with few exceptions, did not extend beyond the end of June, 1920, and the price tables in this report, except the one men- tioned in the next paragraph, do not extend beyond June, 1920.' The last six months of 1920, and particularly the last four months, were noteworthy as a period of rapidly declining prices, and a study of price movements which ends with the middle of the year is obviously incomplete. It was not feasible to extend the field work of the investigation so as to secure complete price statistics for the last half of 1920. But to avoid leaving this very remarkable and interesting period without comment, a section at the close of this chapter (sec. 2.3) gives a brief survey of the course of prices of a few of the most important straight feeds from July to December, 1920, as shown in quotations from published sources. Prices of the ready-mixed feeds were not available from these sources. Accord- ingly prices for the end of December, 1920, were secured through correspondence from most of the manufacturers who had previously furnished price records. This makes possible a comparison of the prices of December with those of June, 1920, for a number of typical mixed feeds. This comparison is also given in section 23, and while it does not show the successive steps in the decline of prices of mixed feeds, it gives the total decline during the six-montlis' period and furnishes the basis for comparing the relative decline in prices of ready-mixed feeds with the tall in prices of straight feeds. Straight feeds. — In sections 4 to 15 of this chapter will be found a discussion of the prices of a large number of straight feeds, for most of which tables of monthly average prices are given either in this chapter or in the appendix. The list of straight feeds for which prices are given is as follows: Corn, oats, wheat bran, standard middlings, wheat-mixed feed, flour middlings, red dog, rye middlings, hominy feed, reground oat hulls, rice bran, rice polish, corn-gluten feed, corn-oil meal, cottonseed meal, cottonseed hulls, linseed meal, dried-beet pulp, cane blackstrap molasses, digester tankage, and alfalfa meal. The comparison of prices of different straight feeds or groups of straight feeds with one another will be found in section 2 oi this chapter. Mixed feeds. — Sections 16 to 22 are devoted to the discussion of prices of ready-mixed feeds, based on tables of monthly average pric(>s of leading brands in each of the subgroups already mentioned, viz., dairy feeds, stock feeds, horse and mule feeds, hog feeds, calf meal, and poultry feeds. The comparison of prices of commercial mixed feeds with the straight feeds is made in section 3 of this chapter. Food Administration Regulations. — Various regulations of the Food Administration applied to manufacturers, importers, and dis- tributors of feeds. These lines of business were brought under the licensing system by presidential proclamations, as follows: August 14, 1917. — Wheat and rye elevators and millers. * In some cases the statistics are not brought down as far as June, 1920, WHOLESALE PRICES. 105 September 7, 1917. — Manufacturers of sugar, sugar sirups, and molasses. October 8, 1917.-.— Persons, firms, corporations, and associations engaged in the business of operating elevators, warehouses, or other places for the storage of corn, oats, barley, beans, rice, cotton seed, cottonseed cake and meal, or peanut meal. Persons, firms, etc., engaged in importing, manufacturing (including milling), or distributing oarley, oats, corn, rice, cotton seed, cotton- seed cake and meal, peanut meal, or soya-bean meal. January 10, 1918. — All persons, firms, corporations, and associa- tions engaged in any of the following lines of business : 1. Importing, manufacturing, stormg, or distributing any commer- cial mixed feeds. 2. Manufacturing feeds from or importing, storing, or distributing any of a long list of feeds or feed ingredients. 3. Importing, manufacturing, storing, or distributing as feed any products or by-products of various grains and other commodities, except products or by-products whose importation, manufacture, storage, or distribution had already been covered by a license held by any such person, firm, corporation, or association.^ The Food Administration by special regulation (issued Jan. 28, 1918, amended Oct. 1, 1918, and repealed Jan. 10, 1919) provided that licensees under the proclamation of January 10, 1918, should take no more than a reasonable profit on the sale of any feeding stuff over the average cost of the licensee's stock of any commodity on hand or under control not at that time contracted to be sold.^ By this ruling and by other similar regulations the general principle that no "more than a reasonable profit should be realized on sales of feeds was applied by the Food Administration to all feeds. Other more specific regulations dealing with the prices of certain feeds were issued. The more important of these special regulations are mentioned in connection with the discussion of the prices of the particular feeds. Section 2. Comparison of prices of straight feeds with one another and with farm products and all commodities. In this section the prices of different straight feeds are compared with one another, and since it would be confusing to extend the com- I)arison to include all the feeds for which price tables are given, a se- ection has been made of 10 important feeds. The tables of monthly average prices of these feeds will be found in the later sections of this chapter or in the appendix. The yearly averages for the years 1913 to 1919, inclusive, and the averages for the first six months of 1920 are summarized for convenience in Table 18. Besides the comparison of the prices of the selected feeds with one another, they are also compared with the prices of "farm products" and "all commodities," as published by the Bureau of Labor Statis- tics of the United States Department of Labor. This bureau com- piles statistics of wholesale prices of 327 commodities, "covering a wide range of raw and manufactured products," and publishes index 3 United States Food Administration Special License Repilations I-B-1 and XXV-A-1; also Rulers and Regulations governing the importation, manufacture, storage, and distribution of food commodities for domestic trade by persons subject to license, pp. 4-6, and Amendments and additions to same, pp. 25-27. s United States Food Administration Special License Regulations XXV-C, 5, 6, 7 (Rule 7). 106 COMMERCIAL, FEEDS. numbers of prices for all commodities combined and also for nine subgroups, one of which is the ''farm products" group.'" In order to make the comparison of the prices of the selected feeds with the prices of farm products and all commodities as showm in the index nmubcrs of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the monthly average prices of each feed have been reduced to relatives, using the same base as the Bureau of Labor Statistics, viz, the average price for the year 1913. In other words, the average price for each selected feed for the year 1913 was taken as equal to 100 and the prices relative to this base were computed from the monthly and yearly average figures. The relatives as derived from the yearly averages are given in Table 18 following. Simple averages of the relative prices of the 10 feeds were computed, since tnere is no satisfactory basis for weighting the prices of the differ- ent feeds in accordance with their relative importance. These figures will be found in Appendix Table 1,^'' and the movement of relative prices as represented by these averages is shown graphically in the diaCTam opposite puge 110, which also shows the curves for prices of " all commodities,' the "farm products " group, and the average of 12 typical mixed feeds. Table 18. — Average prices of 10 selected straight feeds in tons and relative prices, together with relative prices oj all commodities and farm products, by years, 191S-1919, and Jor the first hat J of 1920. 1913.. 1914. , 1915. , 1916. 1917.. 1918.. 1919. 1920 > com- modi- ties. Farm l)rod- ucts. 122.31 24.% 26.23 29.58 59.01 57.37 57.08 $23.48 26.21 30.68 2S.85 39.97 48. 38 44.69 62.69 20.36 20.98 32.94 30.37 39. .50 47.67 121.66 24.90 26.05 27.53 49.84 55.17 60.69 64.58 120.96 23.38 22. 08 23.51 38.06 45.44 55. 21 '64.91 Rice poU.sh, $21. 77 24.16 24.44 26.27 140.25 156.41 59. ,50 < 57.96 $16.30 $25.63 16. 19 20. 11 19.79 27.49 24.98 2.5. 40 30.73 40.41 50,71 61.32 67.30 Lin- soed meal. $25. 87 28. 73 33. 11 34.22 48. 02 54.73 67.22 72.70 13. 92 17. 19 27.96 31.37 34.96 35.33 RELATIVE PRICES. 1913.... 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1914.... 100 103 112 112 115 115 112 111 99 97 111 96 108 1915 101 105 118 131 109 120 105 112 123 99 128 89 113 1916.... 124 122 133 123 113 127 112 121 121 120 132 97 120 1917 176 189 265 170 177 230 182 ' 1S5 169 158 186 157 188 1918.... 196 220 257 206 163 255 217 1 2,59 159 198 212 176 210 1919.... 212 234 259 190 212 280 263 273 190 239 260 197 236 1920"... 259 243 273 267 236 298 •310 <266 263 263 281 199 268 I Average for 11 months only. ' Average January-June. 3 Not including June. * January to April only. 1 wit h feeds are the " farm product.^ ' ' group, ! up of 91 commodities. The inde.x »<• The two subgroups which seem mo.stsui table torcompariso eaibracing 32 commodities, and the "food, etc., "group, which i numbers of the food group, however, in the main follow rather closely theinde.x numbers for all commodi- ties. Hence the comparison with tliis group has been omitted, and inde.x numbers are given only for "all commodities " and " farm products. " The method by which the inde.x numbers of the Bureau of Labor Statistics are computed is described as follows: "In computing the index numbers the average monthly or yearly price of each article is multiplied by the estimated quantity of that article marketed in the census year of 1909. The different results are then a As pointed out below (p. 122), the prices of cottonseed meal for January, ' 913, to Jime, 1916, were for 41 per cent protein meal, and from July, 1916, to June, 1920, for 36 per cent protein meal. The increase in prices in the later years, therefore, is somewhat understated in the tables in this report. 108 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. Considerable difTerences appear in the movement of prices of dif- ferent feeds, but these niiojht naturally be expected, considering the diversity in the kinds of feeds represented in the table. It may be pointed out that in any year one or more feeds may be relatively abundant, while the supply of others is below normal. However, the increase in the price of a relatively scarce feed is likely to be materially checked on account of the facility with which one feed may be substituted for another within fairly wide limits. It may be said, in fact, that the price of any feed depends to an important degree upon the prices of other feeds which may be substituted for it. It is interesting to note in connection with the prices of by-product feeds that high prices in consequence of heavy demand do not neces- sarily stimulate production, smce normally the production of the by-products is dependent chiefly on the demand for the primary product or products. For example, the quantity of wheat feeds produced depends almost entirely upon the demand for flour. Con- sequently, it is quite possible to have a heavy demand for wheat feeds, accompanied by relatively high prices, without very much effect in encouraging an increased production of the feeds, if this strong demand for the by-products happens to coincide with a period of relatively slack demand for flour, the primary product of the mills. Section 3. Comparison of prices of commercial mixed feeds with prices of straight feeds, farm products, and all commodities. It would be practically out of the question to make a satisfactory comparison of the prices of any brand of mixed feed with the prices of the ingredients of which it is composed for any long period of time. Even if the ingredients were not numerous, changes in their prices are much too frequent, not to speak of the difficulty which would arise from frequent changes in formulas. (See sec. 16.) No such comparison has been attempted in this report. However, a comparison satis- factory for broad, general purposes may be made by bringing together the relative prices of a representative number of commercial mixed feeds and the relative prices of the selected straight feeds. A further comparison with the mdex numbers of prices of farm products and all commodities will be useful. In order to make this comparison the I'clative prices of 12 leading and well-advertised brands of commercial mixed feeds were com- puted from the monthly average prices on the same basis as the rela- tive prices of the 10 straight feeds considered in the preceding section, i. e., by using the average price of the year 1913 as a base or equal to 100."" The relative prices of the 12 brands were also averaged by months. In the absence of any satisfactory method of weighting, simple averages were computed, as in the case of the 10 selcctcu straight feeds. These monthly averages will be found in Appendix Table 1, while the yearly averages of the relative prices of the 12 mixed feeds are given in Table 19 which follows, in connection with the relative prices of each brand.' Table 19 also shows the averages of the relative prices of the 10 selected straight feeds by years and the » In selecting these brands it was of course necessary to take only those for wliieh llio price records were complete back to the beginning of the year 1913. The selection was therefore rather restricted because several manufacturers were unable to fiirnish records of prices bcRinniug as early as January, 1913. For this reason also hoe feeds and calf meals are not represented in the relaliye j rices. ' The monthly rdatlve prices for the several brands have been omitted. WHOLESALE PRICES. 109 corresponding index numbers for the farm products group and all coniniodities. It is possible to follow the averages of the relative prices of the 12 mixed feeds in detail by months in the diagram facing page 1 10, which likewise shows the curves for the group of 10 straight feeds and for the farm products group and all commodities. Table 19. — Average prices of 12 brands oj commercial mixed feeds in tons and relative prices, together with relative prices of 10 straight feeds, all commodities and farm pro- duets, by years, 1913-1919, and for the first half of 19^0. Year. Dairy feeds.' Stock feeds .2 Horse feeds.' No. 1. No. 2. No. 3. No. 4. No. 5. No. 6. No. 7. 1913 . $30.43 32.67 33.03 34.69 52.06 &4.26 72.85 79.42 $30.87 32.40 32.24 34.52 51.94 62.40 69.92 75.66 $25.58 26.27 26.20 28.17 40.92 53.90 50. 48 57.44 $26.54 29.25 30.57 32.19 53.06 57.75 60.32 67. T5 $24.35 26.03 26.90 29.88 50.00 55. 18 55.21 61.81 $26.22 28.09 27.57 30.16 43.39 58.62 52.,S5 64.65 $25.54 27.67 1915. 28.29 1916 31.81 51.69 57.43 55.47 1920 ' . . . 60.86 RELATIVE PRICES. 100 107 109 114 171 211 239 261 100 105 104 112 168 202 226 245 100 103 102 110 160 211 197 225 100 110 115 121 200 218 227 255 100 107 110 123 205 227 227 254 100 107 105 115 165 224 202 247 100 1914 108 1916 125 1917 202 225 1919. 217 1920' 238 Year Scratch feeds.< Mash feeds.' Average, 12 mixed feeds.' Average, 10 straight feeds .<> Farm prod- ucts.' AU No. 8. No. 9. No. 10. No. 11. No. 12. modi ties." 1913 $34.52 37.44 39.87 42.25 71.86 78.22 74.14 81.14 $31.48 33.88 35.40 38.17 66.23 73.60 74.32 78.27 $28.98 31.64 33.57 35.99 64.49 70.79 69.71 77.75 $37.14 38.61 39.17 40.21 58.83 72.13 73.26 81.67 $34.48 36.88 37.55 39.85 59.32 68.28 74.88 80.90 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920' ■ RELATIVE PRICES. 1913 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1914 108 108 109 104 107 107 108 103 100 1915 115 112 116 105 109 109 113 105 101 1916 122 121 124 108 116 118 120 122 124 1917 208 210 223 158 172 187 188 189 176 1918 227 234 244 194 198 218 210 220 196 1919 215 236 241 197 217 220 236 234 212 1920' 235 249 268 220 235 244 288 243 259 1 Appendix Table 7, brands Nos. 1 and 2. • Appendix Table 9, brands Nos. 5 and 6. > Appendix Table 10, brands Nos. 1, 3, and 4. * Appendix Table 13, brands Nos. 1 , 3, and 4. ^ Appendix Table 15, brands Nos. 1 and 2. 6 Appendix Table 1. ' Average January- June. No great importance is to be attached to the comparison of the absolute prices of different brands of mixed feeds with one another on account of the great differences in their composition. A serious 110 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. obstacle to the comparison even of the relative prices of these feeds is found in the fact that most manufacturers frequently change the formulas of their feeds, so that a feed with a given brand name is not necessarily the same at one time as at another, and in fact may be much different at difi'erent times, although the same giiaranteed chemical analysis may be maintained for a long period. The significance of differences in the prices of various feeds can be under- stood only when the exact composition of each is known. Keeping these limitations in mind, the following points, brought out by an inspection of Table 19, may he noted: Average prices in 1913 for the brands shown in the table ranged from about $25 to $35, with one brand as high as $37. No radical changes occurred in the next three years, though there was some advance in the price of all brands. As in the case of straight feeds, the year 1917 marked the first great advance in the price of mixed feeds. Average prices in that year ranged from about $41 to $72. By 1919 the price of nearly every brand was at least double that of the 1913 average, while most bi'ands showed even greater increases. All brands made substantial advances in the first half of 1920 over the average price for the year 1919. Feeds which sold for about $25 per ton in 1913 brought, on the average, around $60 to $65 in the first half of 1920. The highest priced feeds shown in the table advanced from about $35 in 1913 to over $80 in 1920. These advances are recorded in the index numbers, which ranged for the year 1919 from 197 to 241, and for the first half of 1920 from 220 to 268. The corresponding index numbers for the 12 brands combined were 220 and 244, respectively. In 1919 just half the brands had index numbers higher than the average, and for the first half of 1920 there were seven above the average. The table shows a striking correspondence between the movement of relative prices of the group of 12 mixed feeds and the farm products group, the only difi'ercnce worth noting being in 1919, when the index number for the farm products group was 14 points higher than that of the mixed-feed group. The relative prices of the mixed-feed group also show close corre- spondence with those of the group of 10 straight feeds from 1914 to 1918, inclusive, though straight feeds were somewhat lower rela- tively in 1918. In 1919 the advance in the relative price of the mixed-feed group was considerably less and in the first naJf of 1920 much less than in the straight-feeds group. Prices of mixed feeds showed advances relatively greater in 1917 and 1918 than those of all commodities, but in the first half of 1920 the advance in the relative price of all commodities was much greater than in the mixed-feed group. The movement of the relative prices of these different groups is shown graphically and in detail by months in the diagram opposite. Section 4. Prices of corn and oats. Corn and oats are of great importance in the feed business. The prices of corn are of particular importance, since the extent to which other feeds are used is largely dependent upon them. Therefore corn prices are fiequently referred to as a barometer of prices of other leeds. Oats are not only widely used as a straight feed, but furnish by-products which ai-e used in large quantities in mixed feeds. "2 ^T c J 2 C c V fc ir L "1 ^ ts N- "^ tn ";> 1 m '' 2 t ; t i^^ ■? ■ 2 ~ ij_ U _ -> ^ '^1 □ c ^ ^ c c , \i ^ ll LT L in "i^ -in = -^ • 5 s ■' m m "> , "' T >3: <: : ^ 5 _ L.- b _ ^ C C _ 7 1 z. - c -. ^1 ir 1 ■ 10 a: ^12 w _^ 1 m ~ ^01 Ul ^ 1 ei;; <: : If ^ L |j_ L l- -1 It 1^ - r 7 ^ z - 3 It 1 1 ^1 tt ^ ^^ ^m Ul ^ t E ? S R i_ ^ T ^ r ID 7 a n D ir 1 n ^ m "^ J-(*) 1 ^ m ~ 3 ^m s Ul , ^m c ft; a ^ ^ 5 n t^ " 1 If 05 c 5 f ^ £ 5, ^ ^ ^ ^ "5 t1 "il t:^ ^ "5 ^1 '\] ^NJ \i 0, "5i E5 .ta fcl S ^ tl ^ «d \ ' Department of Agriculture Yearbook, liU9, p. 513. 1" War Industries Board, Price UiUletm No. 11, pp. 6 and 7. ■' Department of Agriculture Yearbook, 1919, p. 535. n TIieIollo\ving statement was made in the Department of Agriculture's Market Reporter, June 19, 1920 (p. 394): "The trade generallv believes tliat but for the car shortage the advance in the oats market would have been impossible. Certainly the prices paid for cash oats would not have been paid but for the light receipts." WHOLESALE PRICES. 113 has already been noted. (Chap. Ill, sec. 2.) Among these by- products wheat bran and standard middlings are particularly impor- tant on account of the large production. The Commission secured price statistics of mill feeds from one of the leading Minneapolis millers for the period January, 1914, to June, 1920, inclusive. This record covers five wheat-flour by- products and rye middlings, and is made up of prices on the 1st, lOth, and 20th of each month. These are base prices or so-called "limits." The meaning of this term will be made clear by the following descrip- tion of the method followed by the company, and presumably by the other large millers of Minneapolis, in selling mill by-products: The miller who receives a large order for flour knows that when this is manufactured he will have a large quantity of ofi'al which he must market almost immediately, since storage facilities are limited. This offal will amount approximately to 30 per cent of the weight of the wheat used in making the flour. (See Chap. Ill, sec. 2.) The price of the flour will be made taking into consideration the current prices of mill feeds. Taking these prices as a basis for quotations, the miller gets into touch with prospective buyers, and feeling out the market, sells at the best price he can get the cjuantities of the different feeds he expects to turn out in filhng the order for the flour. If the market is in his favor, the price made may be sliojhtly higher than his base price, while if the demand is relatively slack, he may be forced to take a price slightly lower than this base price. ^^ While these "limits" are not necessarily the actual selling prices, it is understood that the actual prices do not differ from them on the average more than 50 cents a ton. The figures furnished by this company were converted into monthly averages and supplemented for the year 1913 by average prices computed from low and high qiiotations for Wednesday of each week, published by the Minneapmis Daily Market Record.'* These monthly averages are shown in Appendix Table 2. The yearly averages for each year, 1913-1919, inclusive, and the averages for the first half of 1920, are summarized in the following table: Table 21. -Average prices per ton of mill feeds, sacked, /. o. b. Minneapolis, by years, 1913-1919 inclusive, and for the first halj oj 19S0. Year. Wheat, bran. Standard middlings. Wheat mixed feed. Flour middlings. Red dog. Rye middlings. 1913 $18. (i3 21.34 20.36 20.98 32.94 30.37 39.50 47.67 W9.68 21.89 21.89 22.71 36.44 32.44 45.11 51.78 $22.57 25.61 26.48 27.25 45.39 34.85 51.89 57.89 $2J.55 27.51 29.28 30.19 51.53 37.34 58.56 63.67 1914 »23.76 23.86 24.17 38.97 33.05 49.22 63.42 1915 1916 1917. 1918 1919. 19201 <■ Average January-June. » It is not to be xmderstood that the entire output of the large mills is sold in this way. They dispose of pan of their output on long-time contracts calling for future deliveries. '^ A comparison of average prices from the two sources for the years 1914 and 1915 shows in the main a close correspondence for these years, and indicates that the Record prices are satisfactory for a*ie in supple- menting the figures furnished by the milling company. Figures for wheat mixed feed and rye middlings are not given in the table for the year 1913, smce quotations on these feeds are not published by the Minne- apolis Daily Market Record. 114 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. Prices op wheat bran and standard RrroDUNGs, Mtnneapoiis MARKET. — Period ririor to Government control. — The prices of wheat bran and standarfl middlings fluctuated within rather narrow limits from the beginning of 1913 until near the close of 1916. About the middle of 1916 a rapid increase in the prices of these feeds began which culminated in April, 1917, in prices about double those of the preceding July. There was a reaction in prices, greater in bran than m standard middlings, following the entrance of the United States into the war. This was followed by a recovery in July and August, and in the latter month the price of standard middlings went to a very high point (average $45.33), but this increase was of short duration. Period of Government control. — On August 14, 1917, wheat and rye elevators and millers were recjuired to be licensed.'* Under rules and regulations promulgated August 24, 1917, governing the conduct of flour millers operating imder agreement with the United States Food Administrator, it was provided that no miller should thereafter take any profit on feed in excess of 50 cents per ton.'" By regulation of the Food Administration, effective December 25, 1917, it was provided that no licensed flour miller should sell wheat mill feeds at prices in excess of figures to be determined as follows: The bulk prices of bran per ton of 2,000 pounds at the mill, in car- loads, in no case should exceed 38 per cent of the average cost to such mill of one ton of wheat at the mill, which cost of wheat should be the average cost as shown by the previous month's record of that mill. Differentials above the price of bran were provided as follows: Shorts or standard middlings, $2; mixed feeds, $4; flour middlings, $9; red dog, $15 per ton." It was further provided by regulation also effective December 25, 1917, that no licensed flour miller should use more than 264 pounds of 58 povmds to a bushel or heavier clean wheat in making a barrel (196 pounds) of flour.'* A schedule was published further fixing the maximum amount of wheat of other test weights to be used in making 196 pounds of flour." This increase in the percentage of extraction of flour from wheat- materially reduced the ciuantity of middlings and red dog produced, and in May, 1918, the differentials on flour middlings and red dog were reduced to $2 per ton and the differential on mixed feed to $1.25 per ton.-" The price of bran was still to be determined as pro- vided under rule 19, wliicli became effective December 25, 1917, but a flat differential of $2 was to be added to this price for standard middlings, flour middlings, and red dog.^' " U.S.r.A. Special License Regulations No. II, preface-l. '• U.S.F.,\. Milling Division Circular No. 1 M; also " Rules and regulations govemiug the importation, manubcture, storage, and distrilmtion of food commodities tor domestic trade by persoas subject to license"— Rule 13 relating to grain elevators, grain dealers, and grain millers (Series B, eticctivo Nov. 1, 1917). 1" Amendments and additions to rules and regulations governing the importation, manufacture, storage, and distribution of food couiuiodities and feeds for domestic trade by persons subject to license. Series B, supplement, rule 19, p. 9. Tno reason for establishing this rule was given as follows: "This rule aims to establish a relation between the price of mill feeds and the price of wheat. It is made necessary by the uinisually high price of coarse grains, which has caused luiprecedented demand for mill feeds." (FecdingstuJTs, January, 191S, p. 42.) •8 Amendments and additions to ndes and regulations governing the importation, manufactiu^e, storage, and disi ribul ion of food commodities and feeds for domestic trade by persons subject to license. Series B, supplement, rnle 17, p. 9. » I). S. F. A. Special License Regulations No. II-A, rule M. S. 4. *> U. S. Food Administration press release No. 9.'»4, May 20, 1918. " Food Administration press release No. 954, May 20, 191s; Price Current Grain Reporter, May 29, 1918, p. 43; Feedingstufis, May, 191S, p. 33. WHOLESALE PRICES. 115 By regulation effective July 22, 1918, the Food Administration adopted the plan of issuing to flour millers maximum fair-price sched- ules for flour and feed "established with relation to the guaranteed firice basis for wheat." Any sales of flour or feed in excess of these air prices were regarded as a violation of the rule against sales of flour or feed at more than a reasonable advance over the average purchase price of the wheat." Under this plan Minneapolis prices August 1, 1918, on carload lots, bulk, at mill, were as follows: Bran, $23.36; mixed feed, $24.61; middhngs, shorts, and red dog, $25.36.^^ The effect of the limitations of the margins of profit on wheat feeds in August, 1917, is seen in the prices of these feeds from September to November as compared with August, but the price of bran ad- vanced sharply in December, that of standard middlings and wheat mixed feed much less, while there was a slight increase in the prices of flour middlings and red dog.-* This advance in prices was checked by the Food Administraticm's ruling (effective Dec. 25, 1917) relating to prices of flour and mill feeds, to which reference has already been made. The effect is seen in the average prices for January, 1918, as compared with those for December, 1917. Bran declined from an average price of $40 to $32.43, and standard middlings from $40.67 to $34.43. The other mill feeds showed marked reductions, the most decided decrease being in the average prices of red dog, from $58 to $46.77. (Appendix Table 2.) The full effect of the action of the Food Administration was not felt, however, until about May, 1918. A combination of circum- stances was responsible for this condition. The flour millers were allowed to fill outstanding contracts at the higher prices stipulated in the contracts. Under normal conditions the bulk of the feeds delivered under these contracts would have been out of the way within 60 days and much of it within 30 days. However, the ex- tremely bad transportation situation in the early months of 1918 resulted in a short supply of wheat at the mills and consequently in freatly reduced production of flour and feeds, and there was much elay in deliveries on these contracts. As a result high-priced wheat feeds were still on the market through February, March, and April, and in many sections into May. G. A. Chapman, head of the Food Administration's feed division, referring to this situation, said: Between the oversales on the part of the mills and the delay in the railroads in delivering to dealers it seemed as though there would be no end to these high-priced wheat feeds." The general effect of the Food Administration's regulations in 1918 may be gathered from a comparison of the average prices for that year with the averages of the years 1917 and 1919. (Table 21.) The average prices of these feeds in 1918 were kept below those of 1917 in the face of a very heavy demand. 32 U. S. F. A. Special License Regulations, No. Il-A, rule M. S. 11 and note on " Fair price schedules." M FeedingstulTs, August,19is,p.29. It should be noted that these are prices for feeds in bulk, while the pricesin Table 21 and Appendix Table 2 are for saclced feeds. At this time tho cost ofsaclis would account for a difference of about Stiper ton between the two prices. (See FeedingstulTs, July, 1918, p. 26.) 2* The Northwestern Miller, commenting on the situation in the Minneapolis market, m its issue of December 5, 1917, p. 734, said: ' ' Mill feed is exceedingly strong and active. At a time when price reductions are usually seen, the market has strengthened and each succeeding day witnesses further advances. Mill quotations, however, are no criterion as to current values. Few have anything to ofTer, and asking prices show a wide range. Some ofthelargermilUngcompanieshavenot apoundoffeed tooffer. Heretofore they have been seihng a little in mixed cars with flour, but within tho last week they have notified their salesmen not to accept any more orders." ^ Feedingstuffs, .luly, 1918, p. 25. Presumably the.se high prices on delayed shipments on contractsare not reflected in the figures in .\ppendix Table 2, since these are understood to bo base pnces for new business. 116 COMMERCIAL I'EKDS. Period followiiuj withdraiml of Government control. — The Food Administration announced December 19, 1918, that all flour-milling regulations, including fair price schedules, were canceled.-" This announcement had an immediate effect on the prices of mill feeds. The prices of bran at once advanced $10 to $15 a ton and some grades of middlings as much as $25 a ton. These advances were referred to in the trade press as the sharpest on record in mill feeds." The prices went still higher before the end of the month, and on January 2, 1919, both bran and middlings were selling at $50.^* It should be pointed out in this connection that the price of bran under the Food Administration reo;ulations was generally conceded to have been very low as compared with other feeds. Mr. Chapman made the statement that wheat feeds were really "a gold dollar for 70 cents," if feed values were taken into consideration.-" The extremely high prices of January, 1919, stimulated the use of substitutes, particularly corn and oats, which declined in price at this time. Unusually mild weather, which permitted the grazing of cattle in some sections, also contributed to the falling off of the demand for wheat feeds.'"' The price of bran and standard middlings declined from $50 per ton on January 20 to $42, February 1, and $37, February 20. Standard middlings reached an even higher level in August and September, 1919, tJian in January, the average price for August being $53. On the other hand, bran did not agam advance during that year beyond a monthly average of $41.33. (Appendix Table 2.) Taking the year as a wnole bran prices were about $9 higher in 1919 than in 1918 and standard middlings more than $12 higher. The first half of 1920 was marked by still higher prices for bran and middlings, the averages for this period being, respectively, $47.67 and $51.78. The highest prices for the whole perioa of seven and a half years were reached in May, when the averages were $52.67 for bran and $57.33 for standard middlings. These figures may be contrasted with the minimum monthly averages of the year 1913, viz, $16.35 for bran and $16.70 for standard middlings. It will be noted that the maximum prices of 1920 were more than three times as high for liran and nearly three and a half times as hi^i for standard middlings as the minimum prices of 1913. Prices of wheat mixed feeds, flour middlings, and red dog, Minneapolis. — Wheat mixed feeds, Hour middlings, and red dog are all higher-priced jjroducts than bran and standard middlings, but quantitatively they are of much less importance.-" It is there- 2« U. S. F. A. Special License Regulations 1 1, tiUe 1 (a). " Modern Miller, Dec. 21, I'JIS, p. 3G: Weekly Nortliwestem Miller, Dec. 2.i, 1918, pp. HIT, Ills. »8 The Minneapolis correspondent of the Modern Miller, commenting on tliis advance in prices, said; " Never before in the history of the Minneapolis flour trade has bran reached present prices, and alUiough the trade is complaining of tno advance, the mills arc unable to take care of the rctniirements of the present." (Modern MiUer, Jan. 11, 1919, pp. .37, .38.) 29 Fecdingstuffs, July, 1918, p. 10. .V Hour uiilkT coiiuneuling on llic niill-fccd situation during the period of Ciovornmcnt control mudi' I lie f^iUimini; sLili'mcnt, whuli is iilso iiitcrcslinj; in Ihis connection: "During the period of Governmciil emit ml, wlun ilic iiriiisuf wlicai feeds wire lixed ;il n liasisso mndi materially lower than coarse grain feed, Imyers were in the market ^ery exleiisixciy who ncN'er had pre- viously handled mill feeds and prolial)ly never will handle them again. Tiiis is now a tiling of the past, however." (Modern Miller, Jan. 11, 1919, p. 37.) so Modern MiUcr, Jan. M, 1919. p. 38, and Feb. 1, 1919, p. 43. " The figures of production of the several wheat (lour by-products are not available for the Minneapolis market as a whole, but the iiiillin)/ ei.mpany which furnished the prices which are averaged in appendix Table 2 also gave its nroiliiri 11 111 [;iii ins for the several mill feeds for a period of years. The figures show tnat of i le iirLin iie production of wheat feeds by this company the total output of mixed feed, flour middlinj;;. ainl leil iln^; combined was as foUows; 19ii, 14.7 per cent; 191.'i, 12.1 per cent; 1916, 11.8 per cent; 1917, 9.S per cent; 1918, 8.9 per cent; 1919, 13.6 per cent; and 1920 (first 5 months) 12.5 per cent. WHOLESALE PRICES. 117 fore not necessary to discuss the price movements of these feeds at length. However, a general compai'ison of their prices with those of the last-named feeds may be of interest. The following table shows the relation between the prices of the several wheat-flour by-products as shown in yearly averages. The yearly average prices of wheat bran are given, and the amount and per cent by which the average price of each of the other feeds ex- ceeded the price of bran. This table shows that when the prices of these feeds reached the high levels (1917 and 1919), the spread between the prices of the other wheat feeds and bran not only in- creased in absolute amount, but also that the per cent of the spread to the base price of bran was higher in those years than in the earlier years, when conditions were more nearly normal. This indicates a relatively high demand or short supply (or both) of the other wheat feeds as compared with bran in the years of high prices — 1917 and 1919. The increase in the percentages for red dog in these years was particularly marked. It is further noteworthy that for the first six months of 1920, while the high prices still continued, the per- centage of spread between the other feeds and bran were more nearly like those of the earlier years. Table 22. — Comparison of the prices per ton of wheat bran with the prices of other wheat Jeeds, by years, 191S-1919, inclusive, and for the first half of 1920} Average price wheat bran. Excess of price over price of wheat bran. Year. Standard middlings. Mixed feed. Flour middlings. Red dog. Amount. Percent. Amount. Per cent. Amount. Per cent. Amount. Percent. 1913 $18. 63 21.34 20.36 20.98 32.94 30.37 39.50 47.67 $1.05 .55 1.53 1.73 3.50 2.07 5.61 4.11 5.6 2.6 7.5 8.2 10.6 6.8 14.2 8.6 $3.94 4.27 6.12 6.27 12. 45 4.48 12.39 10.22 21.1 20.0 30.1 29.9 37.8 14.8 31.4 21.4 85.92 6.17 8.92 9.21 18.59 6.97 19.06 16.00 31.8 1915 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920> $2.42 3.50 3.19 6.03 2.68 9.72 5.75 11.3 17.2 15.2 18.3 8.8 24.6 12.1 28.9 43.8 43.9 56.4 23.0 4S.3 33.6 ' Based on figures in Appendix Table 2. i Average January-June. Section 6. Prices of hominy feed. .Statistics of prices of white hominy feed in bulk were secured from two of the leading manufacturers. The statistics furnished by both these companies are in the form of monthly averages, and are stated to be true averages computed by dividing the total proceeds from the month's sales by the tonnage sold. These two companies operate plants at middle-western points. One furnished statistics of prices I. o. b. mill at Indianapolis; the other gave prices on the New York City freight rate basis. The statistics furnished by these two manu- facturers are given in Appendix Table 3. This table also gives a record of prices on the Boston freight rate basis, the figures being simple averages of quotations (1913 and 1914) and of actual sales prices (1915-1920) on the 1st, 10th, and 20th of each month, fur- nished by a leading jobber. 118 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. The following is a summary of the yearly averages of prices f . o. b. Indianapolis: 1913, $21.66; 1914, $24.90; 1915, $26.05; 1916, $27.53; 1917, $49.84; 1918, $55.17; 1919, $60.69; 1920 (January-June), $64.58. It will be noted that there was a gradual advance in prices of hominy feed from 1913 to 1916, inclusive, the increase in the yearly averages being nearly $6, or more than 25 per cent. From the begin- ning of 1913 to the middle of 1916 the range in average monthly prices f. o. b. Indianapolis was from $18 to $28.35. (Appendix Table 3.) About the middle of 1916 a rapid increase in prices began, which lasted with few interruptions until March, 1918. In June, 1916, the average price f. o. b. Indianapolis was .$24.25. This had doubled by April, 1917, and by March, 1918, it had advanced 160 per cent, reachmg $63.55. There was a sharp break in prices in April, and the May average was $16 per ton under the high March average. Prices fluctuated considerably in the later months of 1918, and the average for the year was over $5 a ton above the average for 1917.^'* The year 1919 was marked by wide fluctuations in the prices of hominy feed. The average price of $75.15 reached in August of that year was the highest of the entire period of seven and a half years covered by the table. In the next two months there was a decline of $25.65 per ton, or more than 34 per cent. The price advanced again at the close of 1919 and in the early months of 1920, reaching an average of $70 in May, 1920. While the prices in the first half of 1920 did not reach the high fioint of August, 1919, the level for this period was even higher than or the year 1919 as a whole. Section 7. Prices of reground oat hulls. The following table gives simple monthly average prices of reground oat hulls for the period January, 1913, to June, 1920, inclusive, as computed from weekly quotations (mean of low and high) published in the Boston Chamber of Commerce Weekly Market Report: Table 23. — Average prices per ton oj reground oat hulh,^ Boston market, by months, January, 191J, lo June, 1920, inclusive. I9i:i 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 S14.80 15.25 15.38 16.00 16.13 16.75 15.30 17.00 18.00 16.65 16.69 17.60 $17.69 16.13 16.63 16.40 16.00 16.00 15.80 15.88 16.50 16.60 15.13 15.65 J17. 75 20.00 19.00 IS. 13 20.75 21.40 22. S8 21.50 19.00 IS. 3S 19.13 20.45 $20.00 20.13 20.00 20.00 19.60 18.25 17. 63 17.80 18.50 20.25 21.80 2.3.50 $23.90 25.75 29.00 32.75 34.20 28.63 2.'). no 27.70 23. 75 26.20 24.63 2S. 38 $30.60 28.00 33.33 31.50 23.80 19.88 21.80 21.75 22. 75 20.00 25.63 25.75 $27.30 28.19 28.75 32.20 37.63 35.38 29.60 33.25 31.75 29.20 2.8. .W 30.70 $34.25 36.25 37.80 42.00 Miy 52.13 54.80 Year 16.30 16.19 20.11 19.79 27.49 25.90 31.04 "42.87 1 Probably oat feed. ' Average January-June. "» A special rpgiilation of the Food Administration (issned July 50, 1918, amended Nov. 1, 1918, and repealed Dec. 17, 191s) provided that licensed corn millers should not sell hominy feed produced as a by-product of the manufacture of edible corn at a price per pound in excess of the purchase price per pound of the grain from which it was manufactured. (U. S. F. A. Special License Regulations III-B 5, 6, and 5, 6 b.) WHOLESALE PRICES. 119 The table shows few marked fluctuations in prices from 1913 to 1916, inclusive, but rapid changes and wide ranges in the averages from 1917 to 1919. The yearly averages during the fu-st four years ranged from $16.30 to $20.11 per ton. There were times in the period from the beginning of 1913 to the middle of 1916 when the price was almost stationary for several months together. A steady advance began in July, 1916, and culminated in May, 1917, the price almost doubling in these few months. A pronounced break followed in June and July. Prices were high m the first four months of 191S, generally above $30, but in June the average had fallen below $20.^"' There was another period of continuous advance from November, 1918, to May, 1919, inclusive, the increase being $12, or nearly 50 per cent. Perhaps the most striking feature of the table is the very rapid and continuous advance from November, 1919, to June, 1920, the price increasing in this period by $26.30, or 92 per cent. The average of $54.80 for June, 1920, was the maximum for the entire period of seven and a half years, and 270 per cent above the minimum of $14.80 for January, 1913. Section 8. Prices of rice bran and rice polish. Monthly average prices of rice bran and rice polish for the period January, 1913, to April, 1920, are given in Appendix Table 4. The figures in this table are weighted averages of all wholesale spot and Erompt transactions, f. o. b. mills, computed from records furnished y five concerns, three at Houston, Tex., and two at New Orleans, one of the latter being the largest rice-milling concern in the United States. Sales of the rice by-products are ordinarily very light in May, June, and July, and for the earlier years some prices on con- tract sales were used in connection with spot and prompt prices in order to make the table complete for these periods of infrequent sales. The following statement, summarized from Appendix Table 4, gives the average yearly prices of rice bran and rice polish with the margins between them: 1913 19U 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 J21. 77 16.21 »24.16 15. 30 »24.44 14.80 $26.27 17.17 {40.25 31.67 $56.41 36.30 5.56 8.86 9.64 9.10 8.58 20.05 There were marked difi'erences in the relation between the prices of these two feeds in difl'erent years. In 1913 the average price of rice polish was only about $5.50 above that of rice bran, while in 1918 and 1919 the difference was more than $20. It will be noted that there was a continuous advance in the yearly average price of rice polish from 1913 to 1919, but that rice bran declined in price in 1914 and 1915. The advance of $37.73 in the price of rice polish between 1913 and 1919 amounted to 173 per cent, while rice bran increased from 1915 to 1919 by $24.01 or 162 per cent. sib A special regulation of the Food Adinini.stration (issued July 20, 191s, and repealed Dec. 17, 1918) provided that hcenseees should not sell oat feed produced as a by-product of the manufacture of oat products at a price per pound in excess of the purchase price per pound of the grain from which it was manufac- tured. (U. S. F. A. Special License Regulations IU-B-5, (Rule 5). 120 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. There was a marked increase in prices both of rice bran and rice polish in the latter part of 1916 and tiio early months of 1917. (Ap- f)endix Table 4.) The price of rice bran increased continuously rom July, 1916, to April, 1917, and after a decline in May, went still higher in June, tne increase from July, 1916, to June, 1917, being 180 per cent. From August, 1916, to June, 1917, the price of rice polish advanced 119 per cent, though the increase was not unbroken. Prices of both feeds remained nearly stationary during the fall of 1917, but advanced considerably in December and stood at a high level during the first half of 1918. • Under a uniform agreement with the United States Food Adminis- tration, all rice millers agreed to sell rice polish at not to exceed $50 per ton, and rice bran at not to exceed $36 per ton, packed in custo- mary manner, car lots, f. o. b. mills. ^^ In the summer and early fall of 1919 prices were very high for both rice bran and polish, the maximum prices for the entire period covered by the tables being reached in August, 1919, with an average price of $43.97 for rice bran and $68.59 for rice polish. These prices showed an advance over the lowest prices of the series of 230 per cent for rice bran and 280 per cent for rice polish.''^ Section 9. Prices of starch and glucose by-products. It has been pointed out above (Chap. Ill, sec. 3) that in the manu- facture of commercial starch and glucose, important by-products are produced which are valuable protein feeds. Corn gluten feed is the most important of these by-products by reason of the quantity Eroduced, though it is considerably lower in protein content and rings a lower price than corn gluten meal. Corn oil meal or corn f;erm meal, while lower in protein than corn gluten feed, is high in at content. It is a valuable feed but in quantity produced is relatively unimportant as compared with corn gluten feed. Prices of corn gluten feed. — The following table gives the monthly average prices of corn gluten feed and corn oil meal in bulk, f. o. b. Chicago, as furnished by an important producer. The figirres are true averages derived by dividing the total proceeds from the sales of the given feed in each month by the tonnage sold, and presumably represent the actual market 'more closely than simple averages of prices for selected dates. '^ " U. S. F. A. Special Regulations XXV-C, 1, 2, 3, (o), note. (Sept. 26, 1918.) M Minimum prices, rice bran S13.33 (November, 1915); rice polish, $18 (July, 1913). ** The Commission secured statistics of prices of corn gluten feed from foiu" of the leading producers, including the Corn Products Refining Co. In the statement which follows these companies are designated, respectively, by the letters A, B, C,and D. The prices in all cases are on bulk shipments f. o. b. Chicago, it being the custom of the trade to make Chicago the basing poiut in all price quotations on com gluten feed. Asstated in a later chapter (Chap. VII, sec. 7) it is commonly admitted in the trade that other manufac- turers of corn gluten feed generally follow the prices of the leatling producer. The fact that the list prices of the four companies from which price statistics were secured haveditfered veryiittleovera long period of years is brought out bv the following comparisons. Company A not onlv furnished a record of its true average prices, but also gave its price list showing quoted prices from January IS, 1913, to June 22. 1920, inclusixe. Company B furnished a table of monthly average prices wliich it describes as "average prices without reference to the amountsold. averaged on the number of different prices made during the month." The company asserts that its sales are fairly uniform and that the averages furnished would differ little fi-om true averages. Companies C and D furnished records ottheir prices on the 1st. luth, and 20th oJeach month, the record for company C i)eginning with January, 1913, and that for company D with January, 1916. From the price list furnished by company A average prices were computed on 1 "he same basis as com- pany B's averages,!. e.,a simple average "of the several prices in force each month. A comparison of these monthly averages for the two companies shows very close correspondence, the figures being exactly the same for 43 of the 90 months covered. The ma-ximum diHerence for any month was $2, and only '6 WHOLESALE PRICES. 121 Table 24. — Average prices per ton oj earn gluten feed and com oil meal, in bulk, Chicago basis, by months,' January, 1913, to May, 1920, inclusive.' CORN GLUTEN FEED. Month. 1913 1914 1915 1910 1917 1918 1919 1920 S20.8S 21.53 19.63 18.40 18.42 19.07 19.49 20. M 22.95 23.30 23.51 22.95 $23.50 24.82 24.66 23.20 22.48 22.64 22.69 23.51 23.16 22.48 23.66 23.33 $24.16 24.96 22.52 21.10 21.56 21.65 22.31 21.89 22.42 20.98 21.15 21.16 $22.24 23.72 23. .54 22.99 19.72 20.73 21.19 21.75 23.12 24.97 27.55 31.81 $.32.73 33.10 32.55 35.20 37.97 37.17 37.67 37.86 43.87 43.74 45. .32 45.08 $48.25 49.13 49.97 48.08 46.84 35. 16 40.13 42.22 45. 79 46.90 46.59 47.43 ■$48.15 49.47 47.11 48.66 51.79 .53. 27 55.66 01.15 63. 48 58.75 60.33 59.28 $63.76 64.82 65. 57 May 66.75 Julv Year 20.96 23.38 22.08 23.51 38.06 45.44 55.21 CORN OIL MEAL. Month. 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 124.55 24.63 23.16 19.38 20.18 19.96 19.48 21. .=^3 23.18 23.85 23.10 23.26 $22.79 22.19 22.22 21.72 21.93 22.02 23.61 23.44 22.60 22.57 21.97 21.65 $23.15 23.97 22.59 21.70 22.13 23.47 22.33 23.26 23. .52 22.39 21.73 23.76 $23.36 24.06 22.85 20.85 20.64 20.67 21.22 22.27 25. 82 27.03 26.30 27.03 $33.58 33.68 34.30 36.64 36.17 43.69 42.55 49.24 50.37 60.12 48.00 49.69 .$52.90 53.57 55.42 58.20 57.38 41.08 44.f.5 44.82 48.87 52.75 .50. 22 47.42 $51.64 49.93 39.37 48.96 53.47 56.26 59.37 67.48 70.28 55.17 .59. 90 03.75 S66.40 61.07 April 64.06 May 68.99 July 22.16 22.38 22.8.5 23.50 41. 70 50.66 56.93 ' True averages. See p. 120. ' Average January-May. There were no great fluctuations in prices of corn gluten feed dur- ing the first thi-ee and a half years covered by the table. The price level was somewhat higher in 1914 than in 1913 or 1915. Prices advanced very greatly from May, 1916, to March, 1918, from an av- erage of $19.72 in the earlier month to $49.97 in the later, an increase of more than 150 per cent. From this high point the price dropped to an average of $35.16 in June, 1918, a decline of nearly 30 per cent. Another period of advancing prices ensued, and continued with little interruption until an average price of $63.48 was reached in Sep- tember, 1919. After a slight decline in the last quarter of that year, a period of very high prices followed in the early part of 1920. The average price of $60.75 for May, 1920, was the maximum for the months showed differences of $1 or more. The maximum diflerence in year averages was 22 cents. This comparison indicates that companies A and B have substantially the same quoted prices. The list prices of company A may be compared with the prices "furnished by company C for the 1st, 10th, and 20th of each montli for the period January 20, 1913, to June 20, 1920. The figures for these two com- panies mav also be compared with the prices of company D for the 1st, 10th, and 20th of each month, for the period January 10, 1916, to May 20, 1920, inclusive. The total number of days {1st, 10th, and 20th of the month) for which the prices of companies A and C may be compared is 268. 'The prices of the two companies agree exactly for 240 of these days, or in practi- cally 90 per cent of the cases. In 7 of the 28 cases in which the prices of the two companies differed, the difference was only 25 cents per ton, and in only 9 cases was there a difference of $2 or more per ton. The figtires for company D may be compared with those of companies A and C for a total of 158 days. On all but 13 ofthese days the figures for company D agree with those otoneorboth of the other two "companies. In 131 cases, or more than 80 percent of the total of 1,58, the prices of the three companies were identical. This comparison indicates substantial agreement in the prices of companies A, C, and D, and a similar agreement between the figures of companies A and B has already been shown. 122 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. entire table, marking an increase of more than 260 per cent over the minimum price of $18.40 for April, 1913. The very high prices in the first half of 1920 were due to a marked scarcity of corn gluten feed accompanied by a brisk demand. This scarcity was attrmuted by the market press chiefly to car shortage, which made it difficult for manufacturers to secure a sufficient supply of corn. According to press reports the principal producer of this feed was forced to sus- pend grinding at some of its plants and to curtail production at others on account of the shortage of cars and corn.'^ The heavy demand for corn gluten feed at that time was attributed in part to purchases by those who had formerly used distillery and brewery grains.'" Prices of corn oil meal. — The general level of prices of corn oil meal, as shown in year averages, did not vary greatly from that of corn gluten feed for the earlier years covered in Table 24, though there were considerable differences in the prices of the two feeds m particular months. It will be noted also that the price of corn oil meal was sometimes higher and at other times lower than that of corn gluten feed. In 1917 and 1918 the price of corn oil meal was almost continuously considerably higher than that of com gluten feed. The differences ran as high as $10 or more in three months and the differences in the year averages were $.3.64 for 1917 and $5.22 for 1918. The average difference for the year 1919 was much smaller, but there were some wide variations between the averages for some months, the price of corn gluten feed being occasionally higher than that of oil meal. The average price of the two feeds was practically the same for the first five months of 1920 as a whole. The price of corn oil meal, like that of corn gluten feed, was fairly constant up to the middle of 1916; then an advance began, which continued with slight interruptions mitil a maximum price of $58.20 was reached in April, 1918. This was an increase of more than 180 per cent over the price of May, 1916. Prices fluctuated considerably during the remainer of 1918 and in 1919. The highest price of the entire period of seven and a half years was reached in September, 1919, wnen the average was $70.28. The prices of the first five months of 1920 were also very high. Section 10. Prices of cottonseed by-products. Prices of cottonseed meal. — The bulk of the cottonseed meal used for feeding purposes is sold under brand names with the mini- mum protein content guaranteed. The prices of cottonseed cake and meal prior to 1917 were dom- inated by the export market, but since that year have been controlled almost entirely by domestic conditions. Prices of cottonseed meal were obtained from two of the largest jobbers, covering the period January, 1913, to March, 1920, inclu- sive. Prior to July, 1916, the standard brands contained a minimum of 41 per cent protein. About that time meal containing a minimum of 36 per cent protein became the standard." The figures secured for January, 1913, to June, 1916, inclusive, therefore, were for brands >!■ Feedingstiifls, JIarch, 1920, p. 49. « Western lirain Journal, Feb. 26, 1920, p. 47. " See Chap. Ill, sec. 5, for e.\plaDation of cause of this reduction in guaranteed protein content. WHOLESALE PRICES. 123 with a guaranteed minimum protein content of 41 per cent, and those for July, 1916, to March, 1920, inclusive, for brands carrying a guaranty of 36 per cent protein.^' Prices shown in the following taole are averages of jobbers' selling prices for car-lot transactions for the 1st, 10th, and 20th, of each month, and are mostly for prompt sales f. o. b. the oil mills. In some months prices on a few contract sales for shipment within 60 or 90 days were used in computing the averages. The averages are weighted by tonnage sold on the days for which prices were secured. Table 25. — Jobbers' average selling prices per ton of cottonseed meal, /. o. b. mills, by months, January, 1913, to June, 1920, inclusive. [41 per cent protein January, 1913, to June, 1916, inclusive; 36 per cent protein July, 1916, to June, 1920.1 Month. 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 191S 1919 1920 $25.77 24.67 23.95 24.29 25.86 26.14 25.19 25.49 27.46 26.55 24.86 26.36 J26.81 26.65 25.98 26.75 27.75 27.41 26.36 25.63 24.17 24.11 23.47 23.68 $23.97 24.52 25.29 28.02 25.21 24.33 24.92 25.59 26.63 25.89 27.75 27.57 $28.49 .30. 12 29.58 2.S. 41 29.24 1 28. 95 25.94 26.70 27.88 32.34 33.04 33.27 $35.20 34.62 34.10 36.02 37.39 37.77 42.57 4.3.57 42.95 44.21 45. 78 46.00 $46.44 46.55 45.95 46.92 47.12 48.09 49.23 48.90 53.00 53. 74 54.51 55.90 $56.17 56.08 56.44 57.04 57.24 56.79 61.49 65.96 64.76 66.36 66.86 66.15 $09. 14 71.71 March 09.37 April ... "64.81 Mav " 65. 13 • 63. 63 July Year' 25.63 24.98 25.40 30.73 40.41 50.71 61.32 * 67. 30 > Sales of 41'per cent protein meal continued for several months — average prices July to December. 1916, were as follows: July, $2S. 61; August, $30.38; September, $29.34; October, $32.78; November, $37.02, December, $iS.69. * Simple averages of weekly prices of 36 per cent protein meal on the Memphis market, as published In the Weekly Market Reporter of the Department of Agriculture. ' Weighted averages, 1913-1919. Simple average for first half of 1920. * Average January-June. Prices of cottonseed meal did not fluctuate very widely from Jan- uary, 1913, to the middle of 1916, the extreme range in monthly average prices of 41 per cent protein meal during this period being from ,i;23.47 to $30.12. The price of 36 per cent protein meal ad- vanced rapidly, with occasional slight declines, from July, 1916, to September, 1918. The increase in this period was more than 100 fter cent, or from about $26 to $54 per ton. In a single year, rom August, 191G, to July, 1917, the increase was nearly 60 per cent. A presidential proclamation of October 8, 1917, required that cottonseed crushers and importers and distributors of cottonseed products should be licensed.^'*'' By special regulation issued November 1, 1917, the Food Administration provided that crushers should not sell the products of cotton seed at more than a reasonable advance over the average cost of the seed from which the products were man- ufactured.^*" A special rej'ulation issued August 1, 1918, provided that licensed dealers should not sell cottonseed cake and meal or cottonseed hulls at more than a reasonable advance over actual cost of the particular commodity sold, without regard to the market or ■8 The figures from the sources mentioned were supplemented in Table 25 for the months of April, May, and June, 1920, by averages of weekly quotations on 36 per cent protein meal on the Memphis market, as pubhshed in the Weekly Market Reporter of the Department of Agriculture. bSa*' Rules and regulations governing the importation, manufacture, storage, and distribution of food commodities for domestic trade by persons subject to license," pp. 4-0. 3ei> U. S. F. A. Special Regulations IX-B-8, 9 (Rule 8). 124 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. replacement value at the time of sale. This regulation also specified the maximum jobbers' and wholesalers' margins on resales of these commodities which would be considered reasonable.'" On September 26, 1918, the Food Administration arranged for a price of $53 per ton for 36 per cent protein cottonseed meal and screened cracked cake, in any quantity, in sacks, f. o. b. point of manufacture (except for Oklahoma, Texas, and California). This arrangement was carried out under the stabilization program of the Food Administration, based on the price of cotton seed at the average agreed upon by the producers and the Food Administration.'"" Tliis regulation remained in effect until May 31, 1919. The average prices shown in Table 2.5 for this period range from $53.74 for October, 1918, to $57.24 for May, 1919. Prices in the latter half of 1919 were higher than in the first half, though they were nearly stationary during the last three months — between $66 and $67. The ma.ximum monthly average shown in the table, viz, $71.71 for February, 1920, was three times the mini- mum price of $23.47 for November, 1914. Prices op cottonseed hulls. — Appendix Table 5 gives monthly average prices of merchantable cottonseed hulls from February, 1913, to April, 1920, inclusive. These averages were computed from low and high quotations on the 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th, 20th, and 25th of each month, as shown by the records of the Memphis Merchants' Exchange. The table shows wide fluctuations in prices in some of the years — e. g., the range of monthly averages for the year 1915 was from ,'54.25 to $11.92, the minimum being in September and the maximum in December; in 1919 the range was from $5.96 (July) to $11.50 (January). The yearly averages increased from $6.70 per ton in 1914 to $20.29 in 1918, but the average for 1919 was only $8.01, or less than the average for the year 1913. One of the most striking features of the table IS the very low level of pi-ices from March to December, 1919, inclusive. This is in marked contrast with the figures in the other price tables. The Food Administration (Sept. 26, 1918) arranged for a price of $20 per ton for cottonseed hulls, bulk or loose, f. o. b. cars at point of manufacture. This arrangement was made under the stabilization program above mentioned. Although this arrangement was in effect until May 31, 1919, the figures in the table show that during most of the period the prices were very much below tlie permitted maximum. Section 11. Prices of linseed meal. Wholesale prices of linseed meal containing a minimum guaranty of 32 to 34 per cent protein and 5 to 6 per cent fat f. o. b. oil mills Minneapolis, Minn., were secured for the period January, 1913, to June, 1920, inclusive. Prices shown in the table below are weighted averages of all sales on the 1st, 10th, and 20th of each month for one concern for the years 1913 to 1917, and for four concerns from 1918 to June, 1920. » U. S. F. A. Special Regulations X.XV-D-1, 2, 3 (Rule 1 and note). "•• U.S.F.A. Special Regulations XXV-D-1, 2, 3, note. WHOLESALE PRICES. 125 Table 26. -Average prices per ton oj linseed-oil meal, /. o. b. Minneapolis, by months, January, 1913, to Ju7te, 1920, inclusive. Month. 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 January February March April May June July $27.30 26.72 24.92 23.8.S 23.22 23.50 24.82 27.72 31.03 28.22 27.10 27.27 $28.00 28.42 27.08 27.32 26.83 29.46 29.17 29.38 29.00 26.75 29.83 31.65 $35.09 36.25 32.65 30.75 29.00 29.82 32.36 34.29 35.17 35.17 34.55 34.40 $35.00 34.80 30.91 28.29 26.91 27.61 31.45 33.67 35.27 36.71 42.42 43. S3 $43.39 42.67 42.25 42.45 45.29 43.90 46.50 53.48 51.00 54.50 53.15 56.93 .$55.85 55.52 56.01 56.03 65.46 53.32 53.23 55.85 56.00 55.34 53.96 54.44 $59.72 59.27 61.28 62.53 63.61 64.97 73.56 86.61 79.95 68. 62 72.49 75.50 $79. 41 78.98 75.21 68.08 64.35 63.12 Year 25.87 28.73 33.11 34.22 48.02 54.73 67.22 172.70 ' Average January-June. The table shows only a slight range in the monthly averages in 1914 ($4.90) and 1918 (only $2.80), and a moderate range (between $7 and $8) in 1913 and 1915. On the other hand, the range was wide in 1916, 1917, 1919, and the first half of 1920, particularly in 1919, when the difference between the lowest and highest monthly averages was $27.34. The movement of prices as shown in the yearly averages was steadily upward during the entire period covered by the table. The absolute increases were greatest from 1916 to 1917 and from 1918 to 1919, amounting to $13.80 and $12.49, respectively. Much the greatest relative increase in any year was from 1916 to 1917, viz, nearly 40 per cent. The yearly average for 1919 was $67.22 per ton as com- pared Tvath $25.87 for 1913, an increase of almost 160 per cent. Prices more than doubled in the period from May, 1916, to April, 1918, advancing from about $27 per ton to about $56. There was an almost uninterrupted increase in prices from November, 1918, to August, 1919, from an average of $53.96 to $86.61, or 60 per cent. This was followed by a sharp decline to $68.62 in October, 1919. Another advance brought the average price to $79.41 in January, 1920, from which point it fell steadily to $63.12 in June, 1920. The estimated yearly production of linseed cake and meal in the years 1913-14 to 1916-17, inclusive, as shown in Table 10, p. 54, was from 405,000 tons to 484,000 tons. In 1917-18 and 1918-19 the production declined to a yearly average of about 365,000 tons, while in the year 1919-20 the output increased to 525,000 tons. Dm-ing the four years ending with 1916-17 from 60 to more than 75 per cent of the total production was exported each year, but in the three succeeding years exports ranged from only 21 per cent to 32 per cent. The slight range in prices in 1918 was doubtless due in large measure to the regulations of the Food Administration." The removal of these regulations in January, 1919, at a time when there was a shortage in the production of linseed cake and meal, was fol- <" .\ Presidential proclamation of *in. Ill, 1918, required persons importinK, manufacturing, storiiic, or distributing various feeds, including linseed oil caljo and meal, to be licensed, and the Food Adnuiiis- tration, by regulations of Jan. 28, 1918, repealed Jan. 10, 1919, provided that such licensees should not takemore than a rea.sonable profit over average cost on the sale of such feeds. (V. S. F. A. Special Regulations XXV-A-I and B, 5, 6, 7, Rule 7.) 126 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. lowed by high prices in the year 1919. E.xports were light at this time, but domestic demand was heavy. The use of linseed meal by feeders in this country had been developed by the relative scarcity of feeds during the war period. The decline in prices from January to June, 1920, maybe accounted for in part by tne greatly increased production. It will be noted that this marked decline in prices from January to June, 1920, shows a much different movement than ap- pears in the price statistics of most of the other feeds. Section 12. Prices of dried-beet pulp. Average prices of dried-beet pulp on the Syracuse freight-rate basis are shown in the following table for the years 1913 to 1919. These average prices were furnished by the Larrowe Milling Co., of Detroit, which handles the greater part of this product. (Chap. VII, sec. 7.) The bulk of the product is handled under contract and the price remains at the same figure for several months at a time, gener- ally for the crop year. Table 27. — Average prices oj dried-beet pulp per ton, Syracuse Jreight-rate basis, by months, 1913-1919, inclusive. January... February. . March April May June July August September October. .. November. December. $23.60 23.80 23.90 23.90 23.90 23.90 (') (■) (') 25.40 25.40 25.40 $25.40 25.40 25.40 25.40 25.40 25.40 25.40 25.40 23.90 23.90 23.90 24.40 $24.40 24.40 24.40 24.40 24.40 24.40 24.40 24.40 24.40 24.40 24.40 24.40 $24.40 24.40 24.40 24.40 24.40 24.40 24.40 24.90 24.90 24.90 $24.90 24.90 24.90 24.90 24.90 $40.00 40.00 49.00 49.00 45.53 45.53 45.53 $45.53 45.53 45.53 45.53 45.53 54.60 54.60 54.60 ^ Supply exhausted. The price during the first six months of 1913 was slightly under $24 per ton. For the crop year 1913-14 it was advanced to $25.40. During September, October, and November, 1914, the price was reduced to $23.90, while from December of that year to July, 1916, it was uniformly $24.40. An advance of 50 cents per ton in October, 1916, held until May of the following year. The supply was exhau.sted from June to September, inclusive, 1917, consequently no prices are available. In October the price advanced to $39, in December to $40 and in March, 1918 to $49. The supply was again exhausted from May to September, 1918, inclusive. The Food Administration by regulation issued June 15, 1918, and repealed January 26, 1919, provided tiiat manufacturers should not sell dried-beet pulp at more than a fair and reasonable advance over cost, and on September 27, 1918, declared that sales at a price above $40 per ton, sacked, f. o. b. factory, would be regarded as a violation of this regulation.*' Under this regulation the price of $45.53, Syracuse freight-rate basis, was in effect from October, 1918, to May, 1919, inclusive. " U. S. F. A. Special Regulations VI-C-1, 2(a) rule 2, note. WHOLESALE PRICES. 127 when the supply was again exhausted. During the last three months of 1919 the price was $54.60. This price marked an advance over the low price of January, 1913, amounting to $31, or 130 per cent. Section 13. Prices of cane blackstrap molasses. The average contract prices, per gallon, of cane blackstrap molasses, f. o. b. storage plants at New York City, by months, January, 1914, to Jime, 1920, inclusive, are shown in the following table. The E rices are the monthly average net receipts in cents per gallon for lackstrap in bulk, and were furnished by an important company handling this product. It is understood that feed manufacturers generally secure the bulk of their cane blackstrap molasses under contracts covering their requirements for several months, or even for a year, in advance. It should be pointed out that these figures are the contract prices of one concern only, and that contract prices for other companies would presumably show some differences. It should also be noted that prices of "free" molasses (i. e., molasses not sold under contract) at times greatly exceeded those of contract molasses, e. g., in the early months of 1920, when there was an acute shortage of this product. (See Chap. VII, sec. 7.) Table 28. — Average net prices per gallon Jot contract cane blackstrap molasses, in bulk, f. o. b. storage plants. New York, by months, January, 1914, to June, 1920, inclusive. [Cents per gallon.] 1914 1915 1916 1917 191S 1919 1920 8.04 8.03 7.85 7.37 7. SO 7.69 7.82 7.80 7.40 7.62 7.54 7.48 7.13 7.18 7.10 6.80 7.28 6.75 6.93 7.13 6.64 7.74 7.00 7.89 10.91 9.82 13.34 13.48 11.09 13.02 12.30 14.34 13.08 12.20 16.10 16.74 16.80 16.95 16.88 18.27 17.31 17.71 17.57 17.94 19.64 18.21 18.54 16.37 23.75 25.29 22.13 20.56 20.47 20.55 19.97 19.53 18.11 18.02 18.09 16.87 15.37 17.72 17.32 16.43 7.47 7.29 7.78 7.84 7.82 8.25 9.00 8.78 AprU.. .. ^^av July Year' 7.70 7.13 13.03 17.68 20.28 10.92 1 .simple averages of monthly averages. 2 Average, .lannarj'-June. During 1914 and 1915 the contract prices of blackstrap molasses ranged from G.64 cents per gallon to 8.04 cents. The prices in 1916 were much higher in every month, with an average for the year of more than 13 cents per gallon. Still further advances brought the year average to 17.68 cents in 1917 and to 20.28 cents in 1918. The United States Food Administration (Mar. 16, 1918) after an investigation of the cost of manufacturing blackstrap molasses, determined that any sale of imported blackstrap molasses or black- strap molasses manufactured in the United States from imported cane sugar at a price of more than 18 cents per gallon, in tank cars, f. o. b. seaboard points, would return the owner an unjust and un- reasonable profit.*^ By regulation (issued June 15, 1918, and repealed Jan. 26, 1919) it was provided that a licensee should not sell olack- strap molasses when manufactured from imported raw cane sugar « U. S. F. A. Press Release No. 763. Mar. 16, 1918. 128 COMMERCIiU. FEEDS. for more than 18 cents per gallon in bulk and 23 cents per gallon in barrels, f. o. b. cars, at primary markets or port of entry, or point of production if carrying the same freight rate as from primary markets.'" The maximum monthly average for the whole period covered by the table was 25.29 cents for February, 1918, from which point the price declined to 1.5.37 cents in January, 1919. The most striking feature of the table is the break in prices from an a\ferage of 16.43 cents to 7.47 cents per gallon from April to May, 1919. A break of 6 cents per gallon in the spot price of bulk black- strap occurred about March 1, 1919, and was attributed to accumu- lation of heavy stocks. ^^ This break is not reflected in the contract prices shown in Table 28 until May. Relatively low prices continued through the remainder of the year, and the average for the year (10.92 cents per gallon) was only slightly above half the average price for 1918. During the greater part of the fu-st half of 1920 prices were considerably higher than at the end of 1919, and prices of free molasses were in many cases much higher than those shown in the table. Section 14. Prices of digester tankage. Prices for digester tankage were obtained from one of the large Tenderers in Chicago for the period January, 1917, to May, 1920, and also from a large packer in Indianapolis for the period June, 1917, to June, 1920. There was a similar movement in the prices of the two concerns. The simple average price, f. o. b. Chicago, for January, 1917, was $55.67 per ton, from which figure it rose steadily to $100 per ton in October, November, and December, 1918. During the year 1919 the price fluctuated around $100 per ton, the lowest price being $96.21 in June and the highest $102.50 in September. The price in January, 1920, was $101 .25, February $106.25, and March, April, and May $110 per ton. Section 15. Prices of alfalfa meal. Alfalfa meal is graded under the rules of the American Feed Manufacturers' Association as Choice, No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3. The greater part of the output is of the No. 1 grade." Colorado is the leading State in the production of alfalfa meal, but there are mills in some of the other States of the West and South- west. The principal markets in which mills make oflferings are Kansas City, St. Louis, and Chicago. Appendix Table 6 gives monthly average prices of No. 1 alfalfa meal in carload lots, f. o. b. Colorado and Kansas mills, and the average of quoted prices for Kansas City rate points, for the period January, 1913, to June, 1920, inclusive." The Colorado prices are weighted averages of several transactions per month furnished by one of the largest millers in the country. " U. S. F. A. Special Regulation VI, B, rule 3. " Journal of Commprce, Feb. 28, 1019, p. H. *■' The No. 1 grade is describe*! as follows in the olTicial definitions of the Americim Feed Manufacturers' Association: •No, I alfalfa meal shall lie milled from whole alfalfa hay of fair green color, .sound and sweet, with pro- nounced alfalfa fragrance and be free from foreign grasses, and shall contain not less than 12 per cent protein and 1 per cent of fat, and shall not contain to exceed U per cent of moisttire; and be packed in 100-pound, net weight sacks." *" The Colorado mill figures do not cover the first si.x months of 1913, WHOLESALE PRICES. 129 For a few of the months in which prices were missing figures were supplied from the records of other millers. In thi'ee instances prices were interpolated. The Kansas mill prices are simple averages of the weekly prices as furnished by one of the largest millers in that State. The prices for Kansas City rate points are averages of the low and high cjuotations on or about the 1st, 10th, and 20th of each month as recorded in the Kansas City Daily Drovers Telegram. The Colorado mill prices during the period of three and a half years from July, 1913, to December, 1916, ranged from a low of $12.90 (February, 1915) to a high of .$20.58 (December, 1916). The price level was higher in the last half of 1913 than from 1914 to 1916, inclusive, the averages for these periods being, respectively, $16.05, $14..34, .114.18, and $15.04. The average price for 1917 was $25.87, or $10 higher than the average for 1916. There was a wide fluctuation in prices in 1917, the range being nearly $15 from the low price of $20 to the high price of $34.72. The"l918 average was about $4.50 above that of 1917 and the average price for the year 1919 was nearly identical with that of the preceding year. In the first half of 1920 there was an increase of about $4 in the price level over the 1919 average. The maximum price for the Colorado mills for the entire period of seven years was $37.40 for May, 1920, or nearly three times as high as the minimum price ($12.90) for Feb- ruary, 1915. The prices for the Kansas mill were higher than the Colorado mill prices in all but a very few months. The differences in the yearly averages between the Colorado and Kansas prices ranged from about $1 to $2.75, except in 1919, when the difference was over .$4, and in the first half of 1920, when it was less than $1. The range in the monthly averages for the Kansas mill during the years 1913 to 1916 was $9.25, or from $14.25 to $23.50, both the low and high prices occurring in the year 1916. The general level of prices as shown in the yearly averages did not change greatly during this period, though the average was somewhat lower in 1915 than in the other years. The ma.ximum monthly average for the Kansas mill was reached in April, 1919, instead of May, 1920, as was the case with the Colorado prices. The highest monthly average for the Kansas mill was $40, which was about two and tlxree-quarters times the minimum ($14.25) of July, 1916. The published cjuotations for Kansas City rate points differ con- siderably in some months from the Kansas mill figures, the former generally being higher. The difference in yearly averages for the two price records, however, is not marked except for the year 1918, namely, $3.64. Section 16. Prices of ready-mixed feeds. The study of the prices of ready-mixed or proprietary feeds is restricted within rather narrow limits. In the fii'st place no two manufacturers produce ready-mixed feeds which are exactly alike, even when both are catering to the same body of consumers and both are makino; feeds to fill the same requirements. The only ready- mixed feeds which can possibly be exceptions are the verj^ simple mixtures which contain as few as two or three ingredients. Even 42976°— 21 9 180 ('OMMEI!CIAL I'lCEDS. those arc likely to bo mixed in different proportions and the ingi'odients themselves are likely to be of different qualities and eosts. When the more complex mixtures are considered, a very great diversity is found in the number and proportion of inj^-edicnts. Most manufacturers consider the formulas of their feeds as trade secrets, and in consequence they endeavor to guard them from detection and duplication by other manufacturers. Moreover, since many manufacturers frequently change the pro- portions of ingi-edients in their feeds, a given brand name docs not necessarily represent a mixture of exactly the same composition over a long period. (See Chap. IV, sec. 12.) Naturally, also, the quality of different supplies of the same ingredient may differ from time to time. These facts must be borne in mind in comparing the prices of different brands of ready-mixed feeds, and it must be realized that even in the same group of feeds the prices of two brands can not be compared as though they represented exactly the same commodity. Even more serious is the limitation arising from the fact that the same brand may represent a different commodity at different times, though it may be assumed that most manufacturers try to preserve a given standard of rjuality in their feeds. They must also have in mind constantly the requirements of their guaranty of the chemical analysis of their feeds. With these limitations in mind a study may be made of the prices of some of the leading brands of ready-mixed feeds, but naturally the results can not be as satisfactory as when the prioes of commodi- ties answering a more definite description or conforming to more exact specifications are the subject of study. In the following sections the prices of a number of brands of ready- mixed feeds are discussed by groups, as follows: Dairy feeds, stock feeds, horse and mule feeds, hog feeds, calf meals, and poultry feeds. Tables of monthly average prices of a number of brands in each group will be found in the appendix. The various brands for which price statistics are given are not identified by brand name or name of manufacturer. Wliile a number of manufacturers were perfectly willing that such identification should be made, a considerable number objected to this identification, hold- ing that since the composition of difl'erent mixed feeds differs greatly and since many manufacturers make frequent changes in their formu- las, incorrect deductions would probably be made from price tables which revealed the identity of the brands. It was therefore decided not to identify any of the brands. In the tables of prices of mixed feeds the different brands are designated by numbers and the table headings of all the tables but the first " show the state or city in which the particular brand is manufactured. A Presidential proclamation, dated January 10, 1918, required manufacturers of commercial mixed feeds to be licensed.*'" The Food Administration, by regulation issued January 28, 1918, apply- ing to manufacturers of mixed feeds and others licensed under this " The first table (Appendix Table 7) Rivea only prices on tlie Boston freiglit rate basis, and the place of manufacture is not indicated. In a few of the other tables also the word " lloston"at the top of the col- umn of prices indicates not the place of inanufacturp.tiut that the prices are nn the Boston freight rate basis. *'* " Amendments and additions to rules and regulations governing the importation, manufacture, storage and distribution of food commodities and feeds for domestic trade by persons subject to license," pp. 25-27. WHOLESALE PRICES. 131 proclamation, provided that no more than a reasonable profit should be taken in the sale of any f eedingstuffs.^'* The Food Administration, by another regulation issued September 26, 1918, and repealed January 10, 1919, limited the margins of profit of manufacturers of mixed feeds, both on individual sales and on gross sales.''** This doubtless had the effect of limiting prices of mixed feeds during the period the regulation was in force.*" Section 17. Prices of dairy feeds. There are many widely ailvcrtised dairy feeds on the market. The Commission secured price statistics for several of these, including both the dry feeds, so called, and the sweet or molasses feeds. The feeds for which these prices were obtained cover a wide range in cmality as measured by protein content, varying all the way from the high-protein mixtures, selling under guaranties ranging from 24 to 26 per cent protein, down to those for which the guaranteed protein content runs as low as 14 to 15 per cent. The dry feeds for which prices were secui'ed belong mostly in the group which have a guaranteed protein content of 20 per cent or more. The molasses feeds for which prices are given vary in pro- tein content from 14 per cent to 24 per cent. The dry feeds are generally rather similar in the list of ingredients used. This, of course, is not equivalent to saying that they are similar in composition, for the same ingredients may be used in very different proportions in different feeds. The most common ingredients in the dry dairy feeds are cottonseed meal, linseed meal, corn gluten feed, wheat bran, and brewers' or distillers' dried grains. Numerous other ingredients are used, but they are not characteristic of the group as a whole. The sweet feeds represented in the price tables contain a smaller or larger number of the ingredients named above, with the addition of molasses or molasses and alfaKa. Some of these feeds also contain one or more of the so-called low-grade ingredients, such as clipped oat by-product, oat feed, and screenings. Many dairy feeds also contain a small quantity of salt, generally one- haff of 1 per cent. Two tables of monthly average prices of dairy feeds are given in the appendix. Appendix Table 7 gives the prices of tliree brands on the Boston freight rate basis for the years 1913 to 1919, with figures for two brands for the first six months of 1920. All three of <» U. S. F. A. Special License Regulations XXV— B— 5, 6, 7. (Rule 7.) «« Margins and profits for mired feed manufacturers.— The United States Food Administration considers that in the manufactiu-e and sale of ground or crushed grains or ground hay, and of all commercial mixed feeds, the advance on any indiridual sale shotUd not exceed the cost of materials, manufacturing, and overhead, plus 12J per cent. The Food Administration will therefore consider unreasonable and as a violation of the foregoing rule any sale of such feeds In excess of this advance. Furthermore, the Food Administration will consider an annual net earning of more than 6 per cent upon the total gross sales of any such feedingstuffs if the dealer's gross sales amount to $100,000 or more per annum, to be prima facie evidence of a violation of the rule which prohibits the taking of imreasonable profits. The maximum margin on uidividual sales is purposely made wide because of the speculative character of the products which enter into such manufacture and the rapidly fluctuating prices which may prevail. As pointed out, the general average on all sales must not exceed per cent advance over tiie cost of materials, manufactiu'c, and overhead, nor does this 6 per cent limitation modify or abrogate the general principle contained in the Food Administration regulations that a licensee shall not earn more than a reasonaole net profit on his capital invested. The manufactiu'e of mixed feeds is a business which varies in many respects according to the type of feed, the expense of manufacture, and the rapidity of tiunover. There are therefore some manufacturers to whom a 6 per cent annual net profit may give ah unreasonable return on their investment. In such case they are obUged tosellat a lower average "return. (Special Ilegulations Applving to Manufacturers of Commercial Mixed Feeds, XXV-0-1, under rule B 7; if. S. Food Admin- istration Press Release No. 1373, Jan. 12, 1919.) " See also Chap. VI, sec. 3. 132 CO M M lORC ' I .\I. I'EKDS. the brands are dry feeds. Brands one and two have a very high protein content, the jfiiaranty for both feeds beini^; in excess of 24 per cent. The third brand has a guaranteed minimum protein content of 20 per cent. The general movement of prices per ton of these three brands may be seen in the year averages, which are shown in the following statement: Brand. 1913 1914 191S 1916 1917 1918 1919 19201 No.l J30.43 30.87 2 29.36 J32.67 32.40 30.99 S33.03 32.24 31.30 S34.69 34.52 33.20 t.52.06 51.94 '49.74 $64.26 62.40 '59.40 $72.85 69.92 68.98 $79.42 No.2 75.66 No.3 1 Average, January-June. ' Average, March-December. ' Average, 11 months. These figures show that there was not much change in prices of these three brands from 1913 to 1916, inclusive, though there was a slight upward trend. Marked increases were made in the prices of all three of the brands in the years 1917, 191S, and 1919. The increases in yearly averages from 1913 to 1919 were approximately as follows: Brand No. 1, 139 per cent: brand No. 2. 126 ppr cent; brand No. 3, 135 per cent. There was a still further advance in the prices of brands Nos. 1 and 2 in the first half of 1920. Figures for brand No. 3 are lacking for this period. The increase in the average for the first half of 1920 over the average for the year 1913 was 161 per cent for brand No. 1 and 14.5 per cent for branfl No. 2. It will be noted that the prices of the 20 per cent protein brand ran only slightly lower than the prices of the two brands which carry over 21 per cent protein. Appendix Table 8 gives the prices of eight brands of dairy feeds on tne f. o. b. factory basis for the years 1915 to 1919, inclusive, with prices for all but two of the brands for the first half of 1920. Figures for three of the brands are lacking for 1915. All these brands except No. 2 are molasses feeds. The following statement of yearly averages taken from Appendix Table S is given to show the general trend of prices per ton for these eight brands of dairy feed: Brand. 1915 1916 1917 19130.42 34.45 29.28 2 27.42 25.24 30.36 26.03 $46.79 41.14 51.85 44.85 $58.67 55.85 2 63.24 5.5.88 55.13 44.69 64.19 43.13 $68.35 62.06 68.61 2 60.88 59.46 40.76 .M.50 48. 73 $73.31 No.2 70.04 No.3 76.41 25.25 27.10 23.15 No .'i 66. SI No. 6 . . .. 39.10 43.91 = 37. 69 .56. 14 No.7 No. 8 »23. 10 59. K5 See Api)cndix Tables. Marked increases in prices are shown in the years 1917 and 1918 and for some of the brands in 1919. There were also additional advances during the first half of 1920 for the six brands for which figures are given. WHOLESALE PRICES. 133 The following statement shows the amount and per cent of advance in prices per ton of the several brands as shown in yearly averages between 1915 and 1919 and between the yearly average for 1915 and the average for the first half of 1920.^° Average price. Increase. Brand. 1915 1919 First half 1920. 1919 ov er 1915. First half 1920 over 1915. Amount. Per cent. Amount. Percent. No. 1 $27. 48 1 34. 45 25.25 27.10 23.15 130.36 120.03 168.35 68. 51 60.88 59.46 48.76 54.50 48.73 $73.31 76.41 $40.87 2 34.06 35.63 32.36 25.61 '24. 14 222.70 148.7 2 98.9 141.1 119.4 110.6 279.0 287.2 $45.83 2 41.% 166.8 No.3. 2 121.8 No.4 No. 5 68. si 56.14 59.85' 39. 7i 32.99 146.5 No. 6 No. 7 No.8 233.82 2 129.9 1 Average, year 1916. 2 Increase over 1916. It will be noted that the prices on four brands for the year 1919 were approximately from 110 per cent to 150 per cent above the averages for the year 1915, while for three other brands the 1919 figures were about 80 per cent to 100 per cent above the 1916 aver- ages. The averages on five brands for the first half of 1920 ranged from 120 per cent to more than 165 per cent above the 1915 or 1916 averages. Section 18. Prices of stock feeds. Appendix Table 9 gives monthly average prices of ready-mixed stock feeds for six brands f. o. b. factory at various points. The figures cover the period January, 1913, to June, 1920, except those for brands No. 1 and No. 2, for which the figures begin with July, 1914, and January, 1915, respectively. Brands No. 4 and No. 6 are dry feeds; the others all contain molasses, and brands Nos. 2, .3, and 5 also contain alfalfa meal. Two of the brands contain oat feed. The number of ingredients in these feeds differs widely from a simple mixture of alfalfa meal and molasses to a feed containing 10 or more ingredients. The following statement of yearly averages shows the general trend of prices per ton of these six stock feeds: Brand. 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 19201 No. 1 $27.83 25.25 18.92 25.89 26.20 30.57 $31.00 29.65 22.89 26.95 28.17 32.19 $46.83 43.89 32.82 46.23 40.92 53.06 $52.00 51.25 38.57 48.31 53.90 "57.75 $48.17 51.54 37.00 52.16 50.48 60.32 No. 2 No.3 No.4 $19. 67 23.22 25.58 26.54 $19. 26 25.31 26.27 29.25 2 42.43 No. 5 No. ' Average, January-June. 2 Price for February missing. ^0 In making comparisons of the figures for earlier years with those for the first 6 months of 1920, the fact must be kept in mind that prices of all feeds declined greatly in tho last six months of 1920, and that aver- ages for the year 1920 would be much lower than averages for the first half of the year. 134 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. As in the case of dairy feeds there were only moderate increases in prices from 1913 to 1916, but marked advances in 1917 and 1918. However, three of the six brands show a lower level of prices for 1919 than for 1918 and another a stationaiy price. All the brands show an advance in the price for the first half of 1920 over the average for the year 1919, but the increases were not uniform. The following statement shows the range between the minimum and maximum yearly averages, and the per cent of increase of the maximum over the minimum for each brand; also the amount and per cent of increase of the average for the first half of 1920 over the minimum yearly average. Brand. Minimum yearly average. Maximum yearly average. Increase. Average price first half 1920. Tncrea.'feovermini- mumyearlyaverage. Year. -\verage price. Year. Average price. Amount. Per cent. Amount. Percent. No. 1 1915 1915 1915 1913 1913 1913 $27. 83 25.25 18.92 23.22 25.58 26.54 1918 1919 1918 1919 1918 1919 $52.00 51.54 38.57 52.16 53.90 60.32 $24.17 26.29 19.65 28.94 28.32 33.78 86.8 104.1 103.9 124.6 110.7 127.3 $52.22 57.92 42.43 60.29 57.44 07.75 $24.39 32. 67 23.51 37.07 31.86 41.21 87.6 No.2 129.4 No. 3 124.3 No. 4 159.6 No.5 124.8 155.3 The maximum yearly averages of 1918 or 1919 for brands Nos. 2 to 6, inclusive, ranged from 104 to 127 per cent above the minimum year averages of 191.3 or 1915, and the averages for the first half of 1920 for these brands ranged from 124 per cent to 160 per cent above the minimum yearly averages. The relative advance in price of brand No. 1, as measured by the difference between the minimum and maximum yearly averages, was much less than for the other brands (only 87 per cent) . Section 19. Prices of horse and mule feeds. Appendix Table 10 gives monthly average prices of six horse and mule feeds, f. o. b. factory at various points, for the period January, 1913, to June, 1920, inclusive, except for branils Nos. 5 and 6, which begin with January, 1914. All these brands are sweet feeds e.xcept No. 5. The fii'st four brands are comparatively simple mi.xtures, the chief ingredients being corn, oats, alfalfa, and molasses. Brands No. 5 and No. 6 contain oat feed. The yearly averages as shown in tliis table are summarized for con- venience in the foUowing statement. This shows a slight advance in prices from 1913 or 1914 to 1916, and very marked incrca.ses in 1917 and 1918. Only two of the brands show a higher price level in 1919 than in 1918. The five brands for which prices are given for the first half of 1920 show substantial ailvani'es over the 1919 price level: Brand. 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920" No.l $24.35 26. S6 28.22 25. ,i4 $26.03 27.59 28.09 27.67 28.29 23.96 $26.90 27.77 27.57 28.29 28.37 26.45 $29.88 31.80 30.16 31. S! 29.10 32.12 $.50.00 41.33 43.39 51.69 $55.18 54.74 58.62 57.43 47.05 52.78 $55.21 52. .58 52. S5 .55. 47 55. 48 50.22 $61.81 No.2 No. 3... 64.65 No. 4 60.86 No. 6 63.25 No. 6 44.07 59. C4 ' Average, January-June. WHOLESALE PRICES. 135 The following statement shows the range between the minimum yearlv average (1913 or 1914) and the maximum yearly average (1918 or 1919) for each brand and the per cent by which the maximum average exceeded tlie minimum; also the amount and per cent of increase of the average for the first half of 1920 over the minimum yearly average. Brand. Minimum yearly average. Maximum yearly average. Increase. Average Increase over mini- mum yearly average. Year. Average price. Year. Average price. Amount. Per cent. halt 1920. Amount. Per cent. No. 1 1913 1913 1913 1913 1914 1914 S24.35 26.86 26.22 25.54 2S.29 23.96 1919 1918 1918 1918 1919 1918 $55.21 54.74 58.62 57.43 55.48 52.78 S30.86 27.88 32.40 31.89 27.19 28.82 126.7 103.8 123.6 124.9 96.1 120.3 S61.81 $37.46 153.8 No 2 No.3 64.65 60.86 63.25 59.94 38.43 35.32 34.96 35.98 146.6 No. 4 138.3 No.5 123.6 No. 6 150.2 The increase in prices as registered in the difference between minimum and maximum yearly averages, ranged from 96 per cent to nearly 127 per cent, and averages for the first half of 1920 were from about 124 per cent to 154 per cent above the minimum yearly averages. Section 20. Prices of hog feeds. Appendix Table 1 1 gives monthly average prices of four brands of hog feeds for the years 1917 to 1919, inclusive, and for the first half of 1920. Prices for brands 1 and 2 were also given for the year 1916. The number of ingredients in the different brands varies from 6 to 11. Brands 1 and 2 contain both molasses and alfalfa meal, while .3 and 4 are dry feeds, but No. 4 contains alfalfa meal. All contain digester tankage, meat meal, or blood meal. Corn feed meal is also an ingredient common to the four brands. The guaranteed protein content of the four brands ranges from 12 per cent to 18 per cent. The following statement gives a summary of the yearly averages for the four brands: Brand. 1916 1917 191S 1919 19201 No. 1 $31.33 30.69 $50.06 47.29 53.22 2 5.5. 02 $60.74 58.65 62.12 3 55. 27 $68.15 65.43 67.79 64.89 $73.53 No.2. . . . 73.64 No.3 72.35 No. 4 72.78 1 Average, January-.lune. • 2 Average, February-November. 8 Average, January-October. Brands No. 1 and No. 2 increased rapidlv in price in each of the years 1917, 191S, and 1919, and in the first half of 1920. The greatest absolute increase in both brands was in 1917. The total increase in yearly averages from 1916 to 1919 for brand No. 1 was from $31.33 to $68.15, or 117 percent. The difference between the yearly average for 1916 and the average for the first half of 1920 was $42.20, an in- crease of 135 per cent. Brand No. 2 shows an increase in yearly averages from 1916 to 1919 from $30.69 to $65.43, or 113 per cent, while the difference between 136 OOMMERriAL FEEDS. the average for the year 191(1 and the first half of 1920 was $42.95, or 140 per cent. Simihir comparisons can not be made for brands Nos. 3 and 4, but these two brands advanced from an average price of about $55 for 1917 to between $72 and $73 for the first half of 1920. Section 21. Prices of calf meal. Calf meal is produced by a comparatively small number of manu- facturers. The Commission secured price statistics for three brands, which are given in Appendix Table 12. The figures for two brands begin with January,. 1916, while those for the third could be furnished only as far back as March, 1917. The prices for all three brands are brought down to June, 1920. These brands of calf meal differ in number of ingredients from half a dozen to 15 or more, and the guaranteed protein content varies from 20 per cent to 27 per cent. Calf meal is very high in price as compared with feed mixtures for other animals, as will be seen by a comparison of the figures in Ap- pendix Table 12 with those of other mixed feeds already given. While there were considerable differences in the movement of prices of the different brands, as shown in the monthly averages, the general trend was similar. Brand No. 3 was nearly uniformly somewhat lower in price than the other two brands. Brand No. 2 was slightly higher in price than brand No. 1 in 1916 and 1917, while the reverse was true tor the later years. The yearly averages for each of the three brands are given in the following statement: Brand. 1916 1917 1918 1919 19201 No. 1 $50. 97 $71.47 72. 49 2-0.53 $88. 47 85.24 !M.94 $94.03 93.73 88. SO $105. 65 No.2 No.3 52. 50 102.36 99.39 1 1 Average, January-.! iine. ' Average, March-December. Brands Nos. 1 and 2 .show rapid increases in each of the years 1917, 1918, and 1919, with a further marked increase in the first six months of 1920. Brand No. 3 shows a marked increase in 1918 over 1917, only a slight advance in 1919, and another marked increase in the fu-st half of 1920. The 1919 yearly average for brand No. 1 was 84 per cent above the average for 1916, and the corresponding increase for brand No. 2 was 79 per cent. The increase in the average for the first half of 1920 over the 1916 average was 107 per cent for brand No. 1 and 95 per cent for brand No. 2. Section 22. Prices of poultry feeds. Appendix Tables 13 to 16 give prices of leading brands of poultry scratch feeds and poultry mash feeds. The scratch feeds are mix- tures of cracked corn and various whole grains, and ordinarily also contain a small percentage of sunflower seeds. There is generally not much difference in the kind of ingredients used by different manufac- turers, though there may be considerable difl'erences in the proportions WHOLESALE PEICES. 137 of the various ingredients used in different brands. The following list of ingredients may be considered fairly typical of this class of feeds: Cracked corn and whole grains of wheat, barley, oats, Kafir corn or milo maize, buckwheat, and sunflower seeds. Some of these ingredients may be omitted and others occasionally added. The so-called mashes are mixtures of various ground feeds and are used chiefly for egg production and developing and fattening young fowl. The mash feeds for which prices are given in Appendix Tables 15 and 16 differ in number of ingredients from 8 to more than 20. Appendix Table 13 gives the average montlily prices of four scratch feeds for the years 1913 to 1919, with figures for the first half of 1920. Brand No. 1 is on the Boston freight rate basis and the other brands f. o. b. factory at Memphis, St. Louis, and Chicago, respectivelJ^ The following statement shows the yearh^ averages for these four brands of scratch feed: Brand. 19i:! 1914 19ir, 1916 1917 1918 1919 19201 No. 1 $34.52 = 31.30 31.48 2.'!. 98 $.37.44 31.94 33.88 31. (;4 439.87 30.31 35.40 33.57 »t2.25 33.09 38.17 35.99 $71.80 62.78 66.23 64.49 $78. 22 69. 82 73. no 70.79 $74. 14 3 66.72 74.32 69.71 No. 2 No. 3 71.76 No. 4 77.75 I .\verage. January-Jime. ~ Average, .\uguyt-Deeeiiiber. 3 Average, January-November. This statement shows that the trend of prices was upward but the increase was comparatively slight from 1913 to 1916. The striking feature of the statistics is the very great increase in prices in 1917 over 1916. The yearly averages for 1917 range from 70 per cent to nearly 90 per cent above the averages for the preceding year. The trend was still upward in 191S, but the advances in that year were slight as compared with those of 1917. Three of the four brands showed a lower average price in 1919 than in 191S, and the increase in the average price of the other brand was slight. There were sub- stantial increases in the prices of all the brands in the fu'st half of 1920 over the average for the year 1919. The following statement shows the advance in prices, as measui'ed by yearly averages, from 1913 to 1918: r.ran.i. .\.vera,ee price for Increase. 1913 1918 Amount. Per cent. ;.u. 1 No. 2 No.3 $.14.52 1 30. 31 31.48 28.98 $78.22 69.82 !74.32 70.79 $43.70 39.51 42.84 41.81 120.6 l.iO.4 No. 4 These figures show increases in the maximum yearly average over the minimum yearly average ranging from 127 per cent to 144 per cent. The per cent of increase of the average for the fii'st half of 1920 138 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. over the minimum yearly average for each brand was a.s follows: No. 1, 135 per cent; No. "2, 137 per cent; No. 3, 149 per cent; No. 4, 168 per cent. Appendix Table 14 gives monthly average prices for 5 other scratch feeds, but covers only the years 1915 to 1919, with figm^es for the first half of 1920 for all but one brand. The following statement shows the yearly averages for the several- brands : Brand. 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920.1 No. 1 . »S35.86 31.56 33. RO 35.28 31.63 $38.23 35.79 36. « 36.79 32.92 $6.5.80 63.67 • 61.32 64.18 56.83 $72.44 '68.53 72.27 70.84 67.14 $72.74 68.39 72.67 70.46 66.16 $77. 34 No.2 78.48 No. 3 73.12 No. 4 No. 5 70.31 1 Average, January-June. * Average, June-December. > Average eleven months (April missing). * Average seven monOis (.\pril-Angust missing). The prices of all these brands of scratch feeds also show a verj^ great increase in 1917 over 1916. The per cent of increase, as showTi in the yearly averages, was nearly the same for the several brands, ranging only from 72 per cent to 78 per cent. There was also a considerable advance in 1918 over 1917 for all brands, but this advance did not continue in 1919. The following statement shows the minimum and maximum yearly averages for the several brands with the amount and per cent of in- crease for each; also the difi'erence between the yearly average for 1915 and the average for the first half of 1920 for four of the five brands: Brand. Vearly average. Increase. Average first half 1920. Increa.se over 1915. 1915. 1918. Amount. Percent. Amount. Percent. No. 1 1 i$35.86 «»72.74 68.53 >72.67 70.84 67.14 $36.88 30.97 39.07 35.56 35.51 102.8 117.1 116.3 100.8 112.3 S77.34 78.48 76.12 76.31 $41.48 46.92 «2.52 41.03 115.7 No.2 No. 3 No.4 No.5 31.66 ' 33.60 3.5.28 1 31.63 148.7 126..') 116.3 1 Average, June-Pecember. ' Average for 1919, maximum yearly average. These figures show increases varying from 101 per cent to 117 per cent between the yearly average for 1915 (minimum) and the average for 1919 or 19 IS (maximum yearly average). The mcreases in the averages for the first six months of 1920 over the average for the year 1915 range from 116 per cent to 149 per cent. Appendix Table 15 gives monthly average prices of two brands of poultry mash for the period January. 1913, to June, 1920, inclusive. There was a sli<;ht upward movement of the price level fi'om 1913 to 1916 for these brands, as for most other brands of mixed feeds the E rices of which have been under discussion. The prices of these rands did not advance as greatly in 1917 as did the prices of scratch feeds for which figures have already been given. Brand No. 1 shows an increase in the yearly average from 1 9 Hi to 1 9 1 7 of only 46 per cent WHOLESALE PRICES. 139 and brand No. 2, 49 per cent. Substantial increases in the prices of both brands were made in 1918, and a slight increase in 1919 for brand No. 1 and a considerable increase for brand No. 2. The yearly av^erage price of brand No. 1 increased from .137.14 in 1913 to $73.26 in 1919, or 97 per cent, and the increase for the first half of 1920 over the 1913 average was about 120 per cent. Brand No. 2 advanced from $34.48 in 1913 to $74.88 in 1919, or 117 per cent, while the increase in the average for the first half of 1920 over the average for 1913 was 135 per cent. Appendix Table 16 gives the prices of three brands of poultry mash, but covers only the years 1917 to 1919 and the first half of 1920. There were some fluctuations in prices, but all brands advanced greatly in price, reaching a high level at the end of the summer of 1919, recedmg some in the later months of that year, and then advanc- ing to maximum prices in May and June, 1920. Brand No. 1 in- creased in price from $43.67 in January, 1917, to $89.75 in June, 1920. Brand No. 2 advanced from $43.17 m January, 1917, to $84.67 in May, 1920. The following increases are shown between the yearly averages for 1917 and the six-months' average for 1920: Brand. Average, 1917. Average, January- June, 1920. Increase. Amount. Percent. No. 1 $55.82 58.10 61.70 S82.86 79.36 85.28 S27.04 21.26 23.58 48.4 No.2.... 36.6 No.3 38.2 Section 23. Price decline last six months of 1920. The main body of information collected during the investigation covered the period prior to July 1, 1920. In the consideration of prices of feedingstuns, however, the treatment would be far from complete if allusion were not made to the marked decline in prices of all feeds which occurred during the last six months of 1920. Prices of some feeds, both straight and ready-mixed, on December 31 were less than one-half of what they were at the end of June. This decline went on almost uninterruptedly from July to December, from week to week, with only now and then a slight rally. Decline in prices of straight feeds. — Figures have been gathered showing the weekly prices of some of the principal feeds. The straight feeds selected are bran, middlings, cottonseed meal, linseed meal, corn gluten feed, alfalfa meal, and hominy feed. The decline in the prices of these feeds between June 26, 1920, and Decem- ber 31, 1920, was as follows: S pring wheat bran, Minneapolis Spring wheat mldalings, Minneapolis Linseed meal. Minneapolis Cottonseed meal, Memphis Corn glmen feed, Chicago Alfalfa meal. Chicago Hominy feed, Chicago Price, per ton, June 26. $50.50 55.50 62.50 62.50 Price, per ton Dec. 31. t26.50 24.00 38.50 27.00 48.00 28.00 .32. 50 Decline per ton. S24.00 31.50 •«.00 35.50 20.75 18.00 37.50 47.5 56.8 38.4 56.8 30.2 39.1 63.6 140 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. The table following shows the weekly prices of these feeds during the last six months of 1920, taken from the Market Reporter, Depart- ment of Agriculture : Table 29. — Prices oj seven imporlant straight feeds per ton in carload lots, by ueeks, June s?6' to Dec. SI, ISM, inclusive.^ June 26. Julys.. July 10. July 17. July 24. July 31 . Aug. 7.. Aug. 14. Aug. 21. Aug. 28. Sept. 4.. Sept. 11. Sept. 18. Sept. 2.5. Oct. 2.. Oct. 9.. Oct. 16. Oct. 23. Oct. 30. Nov. 6.. Nov. 13. Nov. 20. Nov. 27. Dec. 4.. Dec. 11. Dec. 18. Dec. 25. Dec. 31. Spring wheat bran Minneap- olis. S50.50 50.00 49.50 48.50 45.00 43.00 39.50 40.50 43.00 42.50 39.00 38.50 38.00 37.00 34.00 28.50 29.50 31.00 30.00 32.00 31.00 31.50 30.00 28.50 28.00 25.00 2.5.50 26.50 Spring I Cottonseed wheat mid- meal (30 Ungs, Min- percent), neapoUs. ftlemphis. $65.50 55.00 54.50 54.00 52.00 52.00 50.00 51.00 53.00 53.00 48.00 48. .50 48.00 44.00 38.00 29.00 29.00 30.50 28.50 30.00 29.00 29.00 26.50 23.50 23.50 23.00 23.50 24.00 S62.50 61.50 60 00 60.00 59.00 56.00 56.00 56.00 55.00 63.00 52.50 62.00 51.00 49.50 45.00 42.00 37.50 36.00 37. 00 38.00 35.50 32.00 31.00 29.00 29.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 Linseed meal, .Miiineap- oUs. Corn gluten Alfalfa feed, Chicago. Chicago. $62.50 $68.75 2$46.00 63.50 68.75 245.50 63.50 63.75 245.25 63.50 64.25 '40.00 63.00 64.25 41.00 62.00 64.25 37.50 62.00 64.25 38.50 60.50 62.00 64.2.5 64.25 39.00 40.00 62.00 63.75 41.00 63.00 63.75 39.60 6:i.00 58.75 38.00 63.00 58.75 37.00 63.00 53.75 36.50 62.80 53.76 35.00 61.00 48.76 32.00 43. 75 43.75 32.50 32.00 59.00 54.00 43.75 30.00 .52.00 43.75 32.00 50.00 43.75 31.00 49.00 4K0O 31.00 48.00 48.00 31.00 40.50 48.00 30.00 41.00 48.00 29.50 40.00 48.00 28.60 40.00 48.00 28.00 38.50 48.00 28.00 Hominy feed, Chicago. "$70.00 '70.00 >70.00 '63.00 63.00 62.50 62.00 ' '62.00 62.00 5.'!.50 60.00 55. OO 45.00 40.00 40.00 37.00 34.50 34.00 36.00 37.00 34.00 33.00 37.00 35.60 35.00 33.50 32.50 1 From the Weekly Market Reporter, of the Department of Agriculture. ' Figures furnished by the Department of Agricultnre. Decline in prices of ready-mlxep feeds. — The several classes of ready-mi.xed feeds also fell off in price diirin See Chap. IV. 160 C;OMMKK('IAL I'EKDS. porcontages of all or a part of the ingredionta to bo statcid. 'I'he committee likewiae was in doubt as to whether or not such a law would be f'onstitutional. * * * The committee were opposed to such a law, but if we had to have it, because Congress thought so — if we had to state the percentage of any ingredient, then it was fair to all manufacturers, and of more practical value to the feeder, that all materials should be stated and that all manufacturers should be treated alike. This resolution was not adopted with the idea, nor was it intended to conv< v the idea, that we were fa\'oral)le to stating the percentages of all ingredients. We were not; and the association has always stood opposed to stating the percentages of all ingredients, or the percentage of any ingredient. Rut it was clear in our minds that there was a movement on which, in the final show-down, might result in a law being recommended by the committees in charge at Washington requiring the percentage of some of the ingredients; and the resolution was intended to forciljly put on record the thought that if we had to have a percentage or percentages of anything, then the percentages of all was tJie right thing to do. Apparently, then, the resolution was not passed in the belief that such a law would result, or that it could be made effective, nor was there even a general desire to have such a law. Yet the association made capital of it by giving the passage of the resolution much pub- licitJ^ Section 5. Other feed manufacturers' associations. Sweet Feed Manufacturers' Association. — The controversy over low-grade feeds, discussed in Chapter IV, has restdted in the organization of certain independent associations by members of the American Feed Manufacturers' Association who felt tliat the public interest as well as their own interests woidd be served by discouraging the use of oat feed and other low-grade by-products. The first of these associations was the Sweet Feed Manufacturers' Association, organized on May 9, 1917. Its activities were limited mainly to an advertising campaign intended to establish the "pilot wheel" as an emblem of mixed feeds of the best quality. The Pilot Wheel Manufacturers' Association. — In August, 1918, the name of the Sweet Feed Manufacturers' Association was changed to the Pilot Wheel Manufacturers' Association. Stress was laid upon standardizing sweet feeds on a high level and upon the elimi- nation of low-grade by-product feeds. The feeds manufactured by members had to be passed by the association before the feed could bear the pilot wheel emblem. Apparently the standards were too severe, as out of 38 members only 15 secured the right to use the emblem on their horse and mule feeds. Fourteen members resigned and even- tually, in the early part of 1919, the association ceased to fimction. United Feed Manuf.vcturers of the United States. — Soon after the passing of the Pilot Wheel Manufacturers' Association, a new organization was effected under the title of the United Feed Manufacturers of the United States, this body holding, like its prede- cessors, that the American Feed Manufacturers' Association leaned too much to tlie interest of the by-product manufacturers. They maintained that they were competitively at a disadvantage under this domination. The raemliership inciutied only nine manufac- turers, most if not all of whom were also members of the American Feed Manufacturers' Association. Inasmuch as practically all of them have continued as members of the older organization, appar- ently they have decided tliat tliey can better accomplish their pur- poses by remaining in tlic older tissociation than on the outside. The United Feed Manufacturers' Association is, therefore, practically inactive. COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS. 161 Section 6. Eastern Federation of Feed Merchants. This organization followed the New York State Retail Feed Dealers' Association, which on February 8, 1917, was dissolved as the result of an investigation hy the New York State Legislature, known as the Wicks investigation, in which it was disclosed that the New York State Retail Feed Dealers' Association, in opposing direct sales by feed manufacturers, had resorted to unfair trade practices, especially boycotting. The Eastern Federation of Feed Merchants was organized June 22-23, 1917, at Binghamton, N. Y. Its purposes as stated by Sec- tion II of the constitution are: * * * A closer acquaintance and a free interchange of thought; the discussions of various questions of interest in the manufacture and distribution of feeding stuffs, flour and grain in all its various phases; to remedy such misunderstandings among members as may be injurious to their business; to foster and promote greater efficiency and economy among members; to cppose in every legal manner unjust governmental interference with legitimate business; to proAdde a convenient means whereby mem- bers may present their aims and desires and to cooperate with other similar organiza- tions which may be striving to accomplish similar purposes. The membership of the Eastern Federation of Feed Merchants is largely composed of retailers, wholesalers, traveling men or salesmen connected with such concerns, and of local or county associations of feed merchants. The present organization began with about 75 members, largely recruited from the membership of the old New York State association, but the number of memoers has increased until it was about 800 in 1920. Besides retail and wholesale com- panies and their representatives its membership includes the Sussex and Orange Counties (N. J.) Retail Feed Dealers' Association, with a membership of 50 ; the South Jersey Retail Feed Dealers' Association, with 15 members; and the Mutual Millers and Retail Feed Dealers Association (Pennsylvania) , with about 90 members. The Eastern Federation of Feed Merchants is an associate member of the Ameri- can Feed Manufacturers' Association. The association is quite active in its opposition to legislation which it believes to be detrimental to the interests of its members, but it seems to confine itseK to legitimate methods of opposition. Like other associations of retailers, the Eastern Federation of Feed Merchants is strongly opposed to direct selling to consumers by manufacturers and wholesalers, and it takes pains to prevent such a practice when it comes within its observation. Its officials maintain, and the results of this investigation seem to bear them out, that they do not in any way interfere with or make threats against offenders. They do present to the manufacturer the "educational argument" that it is not to the best interests of the individual town, the consumer, or the manufacturing concern itself to eliminate the retailer hj selling direct to the consumer. In addition to the Eastern Federation of Feed Merchants there are numerous other smaller associations of retail feed dealers the activi- ties of which, however, are mainly local. Section 7. Quasi control of by-products. As already noted, some by-products used in mixed feeds are in large part produced or purchased by a few concerns. A quasi 42976°— 21 11 162 COMMERCIAI. FEEDS. control is thus exercised over corn gluten feed, a by-product of the manufacture of cornstarch and glucose, by the comparatively few concerns which produce it; over dried beet pulp, by one concern which has contracts for purchasing a large part of the pulp: and over cane blackstrap molasses, produced by practically all cane sugar mills but imported from Cuoa and Porto Rico by a few com- panies. In no case, apparently, is the control of a nature to exclude competitors from the field if they feel that circumstances would justify their making an energetic effort to compete. Corn gluten feed. — The production of corn gluten feed in the United States is practically confined to 10 companies. The per- centages of total output produced by each of these companies are shown in the following table. The companies are not identified, except No. 10, which is the Corn Products Refining Co. Table 33.- -Percentage production of com gluten feed by the 10 principal -producing companies, 191S-1919, inclusive. Company. Percent of total. 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1910 1 2 1 1 2 5 4 3 6 9 2 I 2 2 8 4 3 7 10 2 1 2 2 9 4 «7 10 2 1 1 2 10 5 6 7 10 1 1 1 2 9 4 8 8 10 1 1 1 2 9 4 7 7 8 1 2.. 3 1 4 2 5 8 7 8 9 9.. -- in Total. 34 66 39 61 37 63 44 56 44 56 40 60 37 W G) 100 100 100 100 100 100 im 1 Lessthanone-half of I percent. The table shows the dominant position of the Corn Products Refining Co., its production considerably exceeding the total for the other nine companies in every year. Only two otlier concerns have produced as much as 10 per cent in any year. On the otlier hand, the percentage of the Corn Products Refining Co. during the period under consideration did not fall below 56 per cent and in 1919 was 63 per cent. The tonnage of this company increased from 183,000 tons in 1914 to 297,000 tons in 1918 and 280,000 tons in 1919.= Uniformity of prices. — Practically all of the concerns included in Table 33 are members of the American Manufacturers' Association of Products from Corn. There seems to be no connection, however, between this fact and the uniformity of the price of corn gluten feed. An examination of the files of the association and studies of the situation made in the offices of individual manufacturers by repre- 2 In 1913 a proceeding under the antitrust acts was instituted bv the Government against the Corn Prod- ucts Refining Co., and a decision was rendered in favor of the Government by the District Court of the United States, Southern District of New York. The decree entered on Nov. 13, 1916, provided for a disso- lution of the combination. The Corn Products Refining Co. appealed to the United States Supreme Court, but before the matter was reached for argument the appellants abandoned their appeal. Both parties agreed to an amended final decree incorporating some of the provisions of the original one, which wasentered on Mar. 31, 1919. The dnal plan provided for the disposal by Jan. 1. 1921 , by the Com Products Refining Co. of certain of its plants, some of which manufacture corn gluten feed. COMPETITIVE COXDITIONS. 163 sentatives of the Commission revealed nothing indicative of price fixing and otlicr objectionable activities on the part of the association or smaller groups of manufacturers. The various manufacturers of corn gluten feed franldy explain the situation as being the result of the dominant position which the Corn Products Refining Co. occupies in the industry, saying that they find it necessary to keep their prices in line with those of this leading concern, so much so that immediately upon receiving news of a change in the prices of the Corn Products Refining Co., each of the smaller concerns institutes a similar change in its prices. No evi- dence was found indicating that this company communicates its price changes to other manuf actm'ers ; on the contrary, the smaller concerns say that they receive intelligence of the changes only thi'ough brokers and jobbers to whom, of course, the Corn Products Refining Co. communicates the changes instituted. Speaking of the situation, E. W. Meyers, manager of the feed and oil department of the Clinton Corn Syrup Refining Co., Clinton, Iowa, said to a representative of the Commission that the price made by the Corn Products Refining Co. determined the prices charged by his own concern, and that "the Corn Products Co. nolds the umbrella." So closely does the Piel Bros. Starch Co., Indianapolis, Ind., follow the prices of the Corn Products Refining Co. that when it was requested to furnish prices of corn gluten feed for a period of years it pointed out that if the Commission had secured such data from the Corn Products Refining Co. the compilations would answer for the Piel Bros. Starch Co. The prices of the two concerns were practically the same. The Piel company does not make its price on corn gluten feed as a result of cost studies, but simply follows the prices of the Corn Products Refining Co. Apparently the substantially identical prices of different manu- facturers of corn gluten feed are due not to any well-defined under- standing among the producers, but are the result of the dominating position which the Corn Products Refuiing Co. occupies in the industry. The manufacturers feel that then" safest plan is to follow the lead of the dominating concern. The prices of corn gluten feed tlii'oughout the country, regardless of the location of the manufacturer, are based on the Chicago price — that is, the price paid by a purchaser in Milwaukee, for example, for corn gluten feed purchased from the Clinton Corn Syrup Refin- ing Co. is not a given price plus the freight from Clinton, Iowa, to Milwaukee, but the price the Clinton Corn Syrup Refining Go. or the Corn Products Refining Co. charges a Chicago purchaser plus the freight from Chicago to Milwaukee. A. H. Kersting, vice president and general manager of the Clinton Corn Syi'up Refining Co., explained the situation by saying that this price policy is of long standing and is followed in order to protect the buyer; that — To a\oid discrimination between buyers or users of our products, it is absolutely essential that we ha\-e a common basing point. In other words, a price f . o. b. Chicago, upon which the deli\ ered price to any point in the country is based. In other words, our price at Montgomery, Ala., or any point you might state — New York City, San Francisco — is based upon the Chicago price, plus the freight and such other chaiges as are assessed to all buyers alike. * * * Now, were we to follow a different plan. 164 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. what would be the result? It would simply mean that a user of our products in a city like Clinton, where a plant happens t« be established, would be gettinf; its poods from us cheaper than a man in the same line would have to pay at I)ubu(|ue, Iowa, or San Francisco, or New York. * * * We have always felt that it was abscilutely essential for us to protect all buyers in all parts of the country, accurding to their geo- gi'aphical location. In other words, that they would not be called upon, by virtue of a disadvantageous location, to pay a higher price for their goods than people who might be more advantageously located. * * * We are obliged to do busi- ness in every part of the country in order to dispose of our product. Did wedo any- thing else, we might place ourselves in a position where a competitor would enter at times territory which might he called a natural territory — tributarv- to Clinton, reducing prices to a point where we could not live — and we would have no means of retaliating. In order best to con.serve the consumer, the industry has to hold itself in a position to serve all buyers in every part of the country, differing only in differ- ences of price by differentials in freight rates. Pid we do anything else, you can plainly see that we would be discriminating against certain classes of buyers. As a matter of fact, we would be cutting other manufacturers' jirices, and the amounts involved would be so infinitesimal that it would not cut any ice — it is so ridiculously small. If, by virtue of our location, we are able to get into certain points at a lower rate of freight and at a lower cost than our competitors, why should we relinquish that The use of the Chicago price of the Corn Products Refining Co. as a base price by other concerns is ilhistrated in the case of the Cham- pion Milling & Grain Co., Lyons, Iowa, a few miles from Clinton, Iowa, where the Clinton Corn Syrup Refining Co., a producer of corn gluten feed, is located. The Champion Milling & Grain Co. reports that whenever it buys from the Clinton concern, despite its prox- imity to Clinton, Iowa, it has to buy on an f. o. b. Chicago basis — - that is, it has to pay the Chicago price plus the freight from Chicago to Clinton. Another example is that of the Chas. A. Krause Milling Co., Milwau- kee, Wis., which says that it pays $1.03 a ton more than Chicago concerns for its corn gluten feed, regardless of the source from which it is purchased. C. G. Rooks, vice president of this company, reports as follows on the situation: We can understand this when purchasing from the Com Products Refining Co., who ha\e to ship from Argo [near Chicago] and therefore have to pay a freight of $1 .03. But we don't understand why we should have to pay more than Chicago when pur- chasing corn gluten feed from Clinton or Cedar Rapids, inasmuch as the freight rate from either place to Milwaukee is the same a? the rate from either place to Chicago. Dried beet pulp. — In 1902 the Larrowe Milling Co., Detroit, Mich., contracted for the output of dried beet pulp from two com-, panies which were operating crude drying machines and began to develop a market for the dried pulp. Later it secured the patent rights to. a German steam drier and oegan the manufacture and sale of the machines in America. ^ Since that time the use of dried beet pulp as an animal feed has greatly increased, and at present there are' 30 beet-sugar companies in the United States and 1 in Canada operating a total of 50 factories that have driers. The Larrowe Alilling Co. has contracts with 24 of these factories for their output of dried pulp. Some of these contracts expire in the campaign^ of 1920-21, others in the period 1922-1924. » There areatloast 10 other concerns in the tlnited States manufacturing beet pulp dliers. * The beet-sugar manufacturing season. COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS. 165 The quantity of dried beet pulp sold and used by the Larrowe Milling Co. by campaign years from 1913-14 through December 31, 1919, IS given in the table below: Table 34. — Quantity of dried-beet pulp handled by the Larrowe Milling Co., by seasons, ldlS-14 to 1918-19, inclusive, and for part of the season 1919-W. Campaign year. Sold direct. Used. Total. Campaign year. Sold direct. Used. Total. Tons. 78,480 63,27ii 94,272 87,827 Tons. 8,207 16,. 529 21,609 17,869 Tons. 86, 687 79, 802 1 1,1, 881 105.696 1917-18 Tons. 43, 158 82,338 28,318 Tom. 17,844 30,52,5 6,813 Tons. 1914-15. 1918-19 . 112,863 1916-17. Figures for the total output of dried beet pulp in the United States and Canada are not available, but undoubtedly the tonnages handled l)y the Larrowe Milling Co. constitute a very large per cent of the total. The only other concerns contracting with factories for any ap- preciable quantities of dried beet pulp are Max Hottlet, broker, of Milwaukee, Wis., and the Ubiko Milling Co., of Cincinnati, Ohio. The former has contracts with the Green Bay Sugar Co., Green Bay, Mich.; Chipoewa Sugar Co., Chippewa Falls, Wis.; United States Sugar Co., Madison, Wis.; and the Wisconsin Sugar Co., Menominee Falls, Wis., and the latter with two concerns — Mount Clemens Sugar Co., Mount Clemens, Mich., and the Rock County Sugar Co., Janesville, Wis. The extent to which the Larrowe Milling Co. controls the dried beet pulp output is illustrated by a statement made by a mixed-feed manufacturer to a representative of the Commission, as follows: A\'e have tried to buy it [dried lieet pulp] at times but always found it a close pro]ioai- tion. One or two interests seem to have a monopoly on the dried beet pulp in this country — Larrowe Milling t'o. and Max Hottlet, broker, in Milwaukee. * * * During the last two years we have sent letters to e\'ery producer of sugar beet pulp in (be country, asking if they could furnish dried beet pulp. Some replied saying to go to Larrowe; others said they were sold out; others that they would give us an oppor- tunity when the time was ripe. The reason why the Larrowe Milling Co. has been able to secure the hold upon the dried beet pulp production that it has is due to the active part it took in making this product commercially valual)le. Some companies were not willing to risk builcHng (h-iers, and in such cases the Larrowe Company contracted to buihl Ihem with its own ca])ital, taking its pay therefor in dried beet jiulp. Because of its pioneer work in reclaiming a waste product the Larrowe Millmg Co. was favored by the sugar companies, and the dominant position now enjoyed by it has resulted. Although the Larrowe Milling Co. does occupy a dominant position in respect to domestic dried beet pulp, nevertheless it is not without some competition, as is shown by the fact that in 1919 the Larrowe Milling Co. lost contracts for the dried pulp of two sugar companies on account of higher competitive bids. Imports of dried beet pulp from Em'ope have steadily increased since 1917 and this source may be used by competitors of the Larrowe Milling Co. (See Ch. Ill, sec. 6.) 166 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. The fact that the Larrowc MiUing Co. does have considerable con- trol of the dried beet pulp supply has not provoked much complaint. The policy of tlie company seems to be to sell to regular dealers first, only one jobber being among its regular customeis. The company says that it checlcs up the disposition of the dried pulp made by the retailers to whom it sells, and if it finds that they are selling to jobbers, brokers, or mixed-feed manufacturers, the company warns them that they must discontinue such sales or no pulp will be sold to them. Here and there, while the field work on this investigation was going on, some complained that the price of dried beet pulp has been too high, due to a monopoly of the product. Others believed that it was merely a situation where a product had naturally fallen into the hands of people who were specialists and did not believe that the Larrowe concern had in any way misused its advantage. The LaiTowe Milling Co. maintains that it endeavois to be fair both to the sugar companies and to the consumer and holds that its price is lower than that of jobbers who sell dried beet pulp. In the cases examined this statement was borne out bj^ figures sunmitted. A letter under date of le because it is unfair competition — it involves rel^ates and the controlling of markets. It controls markets through one agency of distrilnition. For example, suppose I had a customer in a town to whom I gave rebates, price reductions, until his competitors coiild not sell at a prolit on their prod- ucts — he would control that market. We guarantee our prices against decline in the market Ijecause our competitors do. The practice is prevalent with the big factors, the big operators, all of the big ones. It is done in the hope to gain the customer's order and good will. The manvifacturer is the loser by it. He can not recoup such losses. Recouping can't be done Ijy raising the general level of prices. H. G. Atwood, president of the American Milling Co., Peoria, 111., spoke unfavorably of the practice: I am absolutely opposed to guaranteeing against decline, because in selling a large tonnage guaranteed against decline, in order that the manufacturer may protect himself he will necessarily ha\e to buy his raw materials to cover his sales. There is no way of having his purchases of raw materials guaranteed; while in selling a large tonnage of manufactured feed, if prices should advance, he is required to fill all his sales; if prices are reduced to a consideraljle extent, his orders will either be canceled or it will be necessary to reprice them to the liasis of the market. For instance, if a manu- facturer guarantees against his own decline and the market goes down, the dealer will Iniy other brands of feed and refuse to take his original contracts. This will mean a hea\y loss to the manufacturer, and if he is at all unscrupulous, he will natur- ally reduce the quality of the feed, J. A. O'Halloran, general manager of the Champion Milling & Grain Co., Lyons, Iowa, opposed the guaranty against decline: I do not think guaranty against decline a good practice, because when you make a price, you undertake to co\er. Prices ought to be based as nearly as possil)le on raw materials. The market may dec^line so far that all profit is eaten up. Besides, you would be selling the .MtulT at a loss, hei'ause in the event that you cover at high prices for raw materials, that naturally would be the result. When you guarantee against decline, you are not uuikiuLC a ddinitc jirice. You are taking all the risk and the buyer is taking none. John B. Edgar, president and general manager of Edgar-Morgan Co., Memphis, Tenn., expressed the hope that the custom of guaran- COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS. 171 teeing against decline would be abolished, also speaking of the custom as' follows: Guaranteeing prices means that you must give yourself a larger margin of profit in order to insure your own profits; you must cliarge more on all prices to insure the risk you take in guaranteeing, wliich means that the consumer has to pay more for goods. On an advancing market manufacturers will deliver a cheaper grade of goods because the buyer won't kick, knowing that he can sell, because the goods are in demand. To guarantee prices exaggerates, intensifies this evil. W. F. Lippert, vice president in charge of sales of the Chas. A. Kjause Milling Co., does not guarantee against decline and is opposed to the practice for the following reasons : We do not guarantee against decline. Perhaps we lose a lot of business by it, but we are willing to lose it. Guaranteeing against decUne works only one way and this is a liad rule. It works always in favor of the buyer, because if we Imy the raw mater- ials at the time of sale and the market goes down, we don't get any beneht in the decline of the raw material and we lose. If we defer buying the raw material at the time of sale and the price of the raw materials goes up, we don't get any benefit of an advanced price in our finished product and therefore we again lose. The only way a manufacturer can possibly come out e\en when guaranteeing against decline is not to reduce his own price regardless of changes in the market; or else ))e a very fortunate gambler; or work on an extraordinary margin in order to cover the increased risk. We do not regard guaranteeing against decline as fair competition. On the other hand, R. W. Chapin, of Chapm & Co., Chicago, 111., defends the practice: WTien I guarantee against decline, that is my best answer to price cutters. It is my only weapon against price cutting. Another thing, the only way to get people to buy in the summer time is to give them some assurance; otherwise we would have to shut down our plant and e\eryone would want feed in September and October and we should be al)le to run only a few months a year. Before we started to guarantee our prices, we had to get them so low in the spring that we lost large sums of money and some one had to pay for these losses later. Any device that will keep our plants going, even if we only break even, is useful to the community. I can give my employees employment and stabilize prices. The contract guaranteeing against decline and made on a long- time basis is also offered with the understanding that the purchaser may at any time cancel any portion of the purchase which he deems advisable, an inducement which obviously has an important bearing upon competition and attracts trade to the concern that can make the offer. Having thus the privilege of canceling as much of the contract or order as he wishes, the purchaser is quite likely to over- state his requirements and cancel the overplus before the expiration of the contract. The seller, knowing this, permits him to contract for any quantity he likes, in order to secure the business. On the whole, apparently the practice of guaranteeing against de- cline is one which the majority of manufacturers would be glad to abolish, but the competition of certain concerns, which are conven- iently situated, results in others also resorting to it. Overages. — A number of feed manufacturers engage in the prac- tice of charging "overages." A feed dealer who has the exclusive sale of a manufacturer's feeds in a given territory may agree that other dealers in his territory be allowed to handle the same feeds provided he receives a fee or commission on each ton sold to such dealers. In such cases the manufacturer bills the feed to the new dealers at an advance over the price charged the reojular dealer and remits to the latter the amount of this overage. This e.xtra charge, or overage, is frequently as high as $1 per ton and at times as much as $2 per ton. 172 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. The purpose of the practice, it is alleged, is to protect the regiilar dealer, who is presumed to have built up a demand for the feed. It also serves to secure another outlet for the manufacturer's product. The new dealers rarely are aware of the fact that they pay this overage, which is remitted to their competitors. Manufacturers fol- lowing the practice take care to see that dealers who are charged overages do not receive the regular price lists, but receive instead quotations which include the overage. The question may be raised as to whether or not this is a price discrimination. The Commission has taken steps to determine whether it is in violation of section 2 of the Clayton Act or section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Premiums given with mixed feeds. — At least one mixed-feed manufacturer puts a coupon in each bag of his feeds. These coupons are exchanged by this company for various articles, such as milk testers, scales, chinaware, cooking utensils, etc. Section 9. Other practices. Misbranding, giving short weight, refilling branded ba^s with inferior feeds, and adulteration occasionally occur here and there, but not to such an extent that the cases which do arise can be said to pervade the industry or to be the result of combined efforts on the part of manufacturers, jobbers, or dealers. More or less resort is also had to the use of "alternate brands." That is, a manufacturer may put feeds made from the same formula upon the market under two or three different brand names, the pur- Eose being to win trade by appearing to give exclusive sales of a rand to a certain dealer. In cases where the identity of these brands is kept secret the practice may be undesirable if not pei-nicious, as a consumer finding that a given brand is not suitable for feeding to his stock may purchase exactly the same feed under a different name from the same or a different dealer and believe that 'he is getting a different feed. If the facts are cleai'ly known to both dealer and consumer the practice is not serious, as the dealer knows that he is selling the same feed under a different name from that under which a competitor is selling it; and the consumer is not misled into buying it in the belief that lie is purchasing a different feed. Unfortunately, the facts are not always made clear and the practice then becomes reprehensible. Section 10. Summary. As previousl}' pointed out, there is competition between the readj'- mixed and home-mixed feeds. If prices of the ready-mixed feeds become too hi^h as compared with the prices of straight feeds, farmers will tend to do tlieir own mixing to a greater extent than usual. This potential competition serves to keep the prices of reatiy-mixed and straight feeds in line with each other on the basis of their feed utility. The possibility of home mixing and the wide variety of commodities which may be substituted for any particular feed or ingredient thereof operate in no smdl degree to prevent unreasonable prices, and probably also prevent attempts on the part of producers of feedingstuffs to organize and combine to obtain price control. Because of tlie great variety of the products which are thus used both for home mixing and in ready-mixed feeds artificial control of the feedingstuffs market is probably much more difficult to accomplish than in the case of some commodities. While there are fairly good COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS. 173 substitutes for many commodities, there is perhaps no branch of commerce in which the substitution of various commodities, either in whole or in part, for others, can aflord equally satisfactory results. In the case of feedingstuffs it may often be true that the substitute proves equal or superior to a commodity ordinarily employed. Monopolistic control of the feedstuffs market from the standpoint of prices therefore would recfuire a hu^e organization with wide ramifications, because not alone one feeastufi' or class of feedstuffs must be controlled but also a great many others which might be substituted therefor. Any such organization would clearly be most difficult and probably impossible to effectuate. It also follows, in the absence of such complete control, that combinations of manu- facturers in particular lines are perhaps less harmful than in other industries because the possibility of the substitution of other in- gredients ^nd feeds for those controlled by the association or com- bination sets a practical limit to the extent to which prices can be raised by a combination of any single group of feed manufacturers. Three important by-products of other industries — corn gluten feed, dried beet pulp, and blackstrap molasses — which are of high value to the animal feed industry, are controlled by a few concerns. In the case of corn gluten feed, while the prices are practically the same or on the same basis for all manufacturers, the situation appar- ently is not one of prearrangement between the producers, but the result of one concern, the Corn Products Refining Co., dominating the market through producing more than 50 per cent of the output. Dried beet pulp is largely in the hands of one concern, the Larrowe Milling Co., but it does not produce the commodity, and while it has contracts for the great bulk of the output of the beet sugar factories other concerns are in the market and secure contracts in competition with the dominant company. In the case of blackstrap molasses, a few large companies import the bulk of the quantity that comes into the United States, but among these concerns there seems to be active competition. Chapter VIII. THE REGULATION OF THE FEED INDUSTRY. ■ Section 1. State and Federal laws. The first law regulating the sale of feedingstuffs was enacted by Connecticut in 1895. Shortly thereafter other States began enacting such laws until it now appears that all except New Mexico hnvv passed statutes which regulate to a greater or less extent the niainuT m which feedingstuffs shall be sold or offered for sale within their respective States. In some of the States feed laws have only recently been enacted. Forty-one States have laws pertaining specifically to animal feeds. The other six, namely, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Montana, and Nevada, while not having such specific statutes, may regulate the sale of feedingstuffs under provision of their pure- food laws, which laws are patterned after the Federal Food and Drugs Act of 1906. Only a relatively small quantity of commercial feeds are distributed in these latter States. It can be said, therefore, that in the States where commercial feedingstuffs are used to any great extent specific statutes to regulate their sale have been enacted. Purpose of feed l.\ws. — While in most of the 41 States the feedingstuff laws vary in many of their provisions, the purposes for which such laws were adopted are generally the same. These .pur- poses are: (1) To protect the purchaser against adulterated and inferior feedingstuffs. (2) To give him information with respect to the composition of such feedingstuffs as are offered for sale. (3) To protect the honest manufacturer and distributor of meri- torious feeds against dishonest competition. Feed laws generally uniform in essential provisions. — The important provisions which are found in mt)st of the State feed laws by which it is sought to secure such protection are those rcMiuiring: (1) That every feedingstuff offered or exposed for sale witliin the State, except certain exempted commodities, such as the whole grains and hays, shall have first been registered by name, brand, or trade-mark. (2) That such registration shall show the guaranteed chemical composition of the commodity in percentages of protein, fat, and fiber, and the common names of the ingredients.' (3) That the container of, or the tag accompanying each feed, with certain exceptions, shall show plainly the net weight, name, brand, or trade-mark of the commodity, and also the name and address of the manufacturer or person responsible for placing it on the market. . (4) That such container or tag shall also show the minimum per cent of crude protein, the minimum per cent of crude fat, and the maximum per cent of crude fiber, and in some cases the minimum per cent of carbohydrates or nitrogen-free extract of each feeding- 1 Some Stateis also require the guaranteed chemical analysis to include the total carbohydrates or the nitrogen-free extract. 174 REGULATION OF THE FEED INDUSTRY. 175 stuflF, and also the specific name of each ingredient used in its manu- facture. (5) Not only must the purchaser be furnished with the above information, but such feed laws, furthermore, prescribe a system for inspecting, sampling, and analyzing feeds sold or offered for sale, by which it may be determined whether or not such feeds conform to their guaranteed composition. (6) It is also provided in most of these States that the results of such inspections and analyses shall from time to time be made public. This latter provision is obviously an important one, inasmuch as the names of the brands or commodities and the manufacturers of the same are given in connection with the published results of each analysis, thereby enabling purchasers better to distinguish between superior and inferior feedingstuffs and between reliable and unre- liable manufacturers. Such information in itself should react to the advantage of the honest manufacturer and to the disadvantage of those less reliable or honest. (7) Penalty provisions in most of the State feed laws have been provided for the prosecution of those found guilty of any violation of these statutes. Prohibition of cektjVIN ingredients. — While it may be assumed that the enforcement of the above provisions (requiring that the con- tainer or label of a certain feed shall show its percentage content of firotein, fat, and fiber, and in some cases carbohydrates or nitrogen- ree extract, and also the names of the different ingredients), should afford the purchasers considerable protection against adulterated or injurious feedingstuffs, the statutes of a number of the States provide additional protection in this respect by making it specifically a vio- lation of the law to offer for sale feedingstuffs containmg materials considered of little or no feeding value, or materials injurious to the health of animals. In order to limit, and in some instances to prevent, the sale of certain materials several States have laws which prohibit the use in feeds of certain specified ingredients. Thus, several States proliibit the use of rice hulls in feeds. A number of other States prohibit the use of certain specified low-grade feeds unless the percentages of such low-grade ingredients in the feed are specified or the percentage of each ingredient in the feed is stated on tags or labels. Other varia- tions in such provisions might be cited as, for example, those which limit the percentage of fiber in a feed containing certain specified low-grade ingredients to 9 per cent with a narrow tolerance. The feedingstuffs laws in a majority of the States do not, however, specifically prohibit the use of any of these or other similar low-grade materials, it being contended that such materials have a place in the economy of feeding and that the purchaser is given sufficient pro- tection when the presence of these ingredients is stated on the con- tainer or label of a given feed with the guaranteed percentages of protein, fat, fiber, and sometimes carboliydrates or nitrogen-free extract. Variations of State feed laws. — In addition to the specific provisions of the law, the feed-control officials, or the agencies to which they are responsible, promulgate rules and regulations deemed necessary to carry into effect the full intent and pm-pose of feeding- stuffs laws. These rules and regulations, as well as some of the 17(5 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. definite provisions of the law, vary in many particulars in the different States. Such variations relate principally to the requirements for tagging, labeling, and registering brands, methods of furnishing inspection samples, and in other ways that prescribe the manner in which the law shall be administered. Manufacturers and others interested in feed distribution and regu- lation urge that more uniform provisions among the States would facilitate regulation and promote greater economy in the manufacture and sale of feedingstuffs. Manufacturers of feedingstuffs frequently ship their products into several States. In order to comply fully witn all the various registration, labeling, and other regulations governing the sale of such products in these States, they are fre- quently compelled to prepare and label their shipments in a different manner for different States. ' This obviously involves extra expense. Appucation of Federal Food and Drugs Act to feeds. — In addition to the feedingstuffs laws enacted in all of the principal com- mercial feed-consuming States, the Federal Food and Drugs Act applies to feeds for animals. With respect to animal feeds this act provides against misrepresentation of ingredients, of chemical con- stituents, of weight, and against the use of deleterious materials. Enforcement of the act is also provided for and is referred to below. Section 2. Administration of feed laws. The execution of feed laws is committed in the different States to various agencies previously created and administering other laws. In the majority of the States having feedingstuffs laws, their execution lies with the board or department of agriculture, or with some division of such board or department, such as the bureau of chemistry or the commissioner of dairies and foods. In many of the States these laws are administered by their agricultural experiment stations. While the feed laws are administered by various agencies in differ- ent States, and there are certain other variations in methods of exe- cution, it is noted that the States quite uniformly employ a staff of inspectors who in a manner prescribed by law or regulation collect samples of feeds sold or offered for sale. Such samples are forwarded to the State laboratories, where they are analyzed by chemists to determine their conformity to the guaranties under which they have been offered for sale. Federal inspection of feeds. — The Federal Food and Drugs Act is administered by the United States Bureau of Chemistry. The bureau, through its field inspectors, collects samples of feeds in various sections of the United States and sends them to its labora- tories, a number of which are located in the larger cities. These samples are then analyzed to determine whether or not they repre- sent feeds that have been misbranded or adulterated. If these inspections or analyses show that feeds are being sold in interstate commerce in violation of the food and drugs act, complaints are brought against the parties responsible and the accused parties are given a hearing under the criminal section of the act. The facts are passed on by the branch laboratory, the head of inspection district, the Bureau of Chemistry expert on feeds, and the chief or assistant chief of the Bureau of Chemistry or both. Many of the complaints result in prosecution. REGULATION OF THK FEEI^ INDUSTRY. 177 CooPERATiox OF State AND FEDERAL INSPECTORS. — An important feature of the enforcement of the Federal Food and Drugs Act is the extent to which the state feed-control officials cooperate with those of the Federal Government in the detection of violations of this Federal law. This cooperation is frequently recjuired by State law. In many instances inspections of certain feeds are simultaneously made by the two agencies and identical samples examined by the State and Federal chemists, and subsecjuent cases may be prosecuted under both the State and Federal laws. The value of this coopera- tion is illustrated in the following statement from a recent report made by the feed-control officials of Indiana on the enforcement of the feed laws of that State : Tlie cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture ■whereby all the inspectors become otficial inspectors of feeding stuffs in Indiana under the Federal Food and Drugs Act through the appointment of the State chemist as Federal Inspector and Collaborating Chemist, has proven very valuable in the enforcement of the State law since it enables this department to prosecute the original shippers of interstate shipments directly and removes the necessity for prosecuting local dealers in cases where their only fault is lack of information other than the interstate shippers' guarantee. The Assoclation of Feed Control Officials. — Cooperation between State and Federal feed-control officials in regulating intra- state and interstate commerce in feedingstuffs and in promoting more uniformity of administrative and regulatory methods is facili- tated through the Association of Feed Control Officials of the United .States. This organization, composed of both State and Federal feed-conti'ol authorities, meets each year and discusses the various problems confronting the industry and recommends the adoption and observance of such procedure as will tend to benefit the whole industry and make regulation more uniform and effective. In these respects the public interest has undoubtedly been served through the activities of this association. Section 3. Results of feed-law enforcement. Introductory. — It is the purpose of this section to discuss the general character of the feedingstuffs that have been marketed in the United States during the past few years, and to indicate so far as is possible from available data the extent to which such feeds have con- tained substances tending to reduce or injm-iously affect their feeding value, and to show the tendency to misbrand feeds or in other ways to violate feed laws. The apparent need for, and the efficiency of, the regulatory laws that have been enacted are also discussed. State feed laws, as explained above, usually require that the results of such analyses of feedingstuff samples as have oeen made, shall be published from time to time so as to show a comparison of the per- centages of protein, fat, fiber, and sometimes carbohydrates or nitro- gen free extract, determined by the analysis of each sample, with its guaranteed percentages, and to give also tne names of the ingredient or ingredients identified, together with those certffied as being present. Not all States - have published the results of their analyses of feeds, nor do all of the States issuing such information publish fully or in the same form the complete results of such analyses. 2 A notiible example is Illinois. 42970°— 21 12 178 COMMERCIAI. FEEDS. Most of the States, however, have issued in summary form the results of their analyses of feedingstufl's, sueh tests representing a wide range of inspections. Samples of practically all feeding- stuffs sold within these States have been examined and, in some cases, especially where deficiencies have been suspected, several samples have been analyzed. The scope of this service is indicated by tne fact that from 500 to 3,000 samples of feeds have been analj^zed annually in each of the most important feed-consuming States during the past few years, one State having examined from 5,000 to 8,000 each year. It is the results of these State analyses that furnish apparently the most comprehensive indication available of the general character and quality oi the commercial feeds that have been placed upon the markets of the several States, and which show the nature and indicate the extent of such violations of feedingstuff laws as have occurred. Results of regulation in certain States. — Before giv'mg a general review, however, of these past and present aspects of the commercial feed industry, a more detailed summary of the results of feed regulation is provided in the following statements from annual reports of some of the State feed-control officials, and which may be regarded as more or less typical of the general situation reported by most of the States. Pennsylvania. — The first is from a 1919 Pennsylvania State report: It may be stated that the character of the feedingstuffs sold in the State during the year, as represented by the samples examined, was good and showed an imiirove- ment over the condition prevailing last year, (specially vdih rcsjiect to the correct- ness of the gi^iarantecs for protein, fat, and fiber. There were a large proportion of "overages" and a less number of samples representing shipments guaranteed with both minimum and maximum guarantees, which in ]ire\'iou8 years upon analysis failed to meet the higher guarantees, thus being incorrectly labeled and misleading. Of the total number received 974 samples were foimd to be labeled with the guar- anteed analysis, and of this number 31 were found to be deficient in protein and 100 in fat. There is, however, considerable room for improvement in the case of the mixed feeds, which included 718 samples out of the total number analyzed. Of this number of mixed feeds there were 259, or 36 per cent, of the samples where variations from the compositions claimed were found upon microscopical examinations. These variations were not as a rule of a serious nature and consisted for the most part of the absence of one or more claimed ingredients, the presence of additional ingre- dients, the substitution of one by-product for another, the presence of small amounts of rice hulls in five samples and of peanut hulls in three other samples. In addition to these discrepancies in composition there were 139 samples which contained as ingredients either oat hulls, clipped oat by-i^roduct, oatmeal mill by-product, flax-plant refuse or cottonseed hulls, where the content of crude fiber was fotind upon analysis to materially exceed 10 per cent, the amount permitted in mixed feeds containing these ingredients. In a few cases excessive amounts of these low- grade feeding materials were used where the excess fiber was found to be from 5 to 12 per cent above the amount permitted. As a restilt of these variations from the certified analyses and compositions it became necessary during the year to order prosecutions in the case of bf, per cent of the samples received where serious viola- tions of the law were found. South Carolina. — The results of the enforcement of the feed law in South Carolina arc shoMTi in a 1915 official report of that State, from which the following is taken: The enforcement of the commercial feedstuffs law has at last become so effective that South Carolina, instead of being a notorious dumping ground for inferior mixed feeds and fake oats, as this territory was a few years at;0, is now regarded generally through the country as being one of the best protected States in the Union. At REGULATION OF THE FEED INDIISTRY. 179 firsi the department was confronted %vith the difficulty of shippers of sucli products resident in other States hiding under the cloak of interstate commerce. Now the commissioner, under the Federal law, is the collaborating State official, clothed with Federal authority, and this also is true of all inspectors and chemists employed under the State law. It is not very often necessary to institute proceedings under the United States law, but when it is necessary, in order to cure a situation and put a stop to abuses, it is done ■ndthout hesitancy, as some manufacturers and shippers have found to their regret. The character of feeds of all kinds now is much higher than ever before and honest competition has been fully established. This condition has been most cordially welcomed bv high-cla.ss manufacturers and merchants alike. * " '* * * * * » During the year inspectors have \'isited 1,839 towns, made inspections of 10,431 stores, drew 1,072 samples of concentrated commercial fi'edstuffs, 13 samples of corn, 27 samples of grits, 175 samples of corn meal, 23 samples of oats, and 76 samples of flour. Texas. — Some of the results of the Texas feed hiw were noted in a 1917 bulletin of that State, as follows: ( 1 ) It has jilaced the feedingstul'f trade on .such a basis that mixtures of corn chops, wheat bran, wheat shorts, cotton seed meal, and other products with corn liran, screening.*, sweepings, cottonseed hulls and such materials, are now sold tor what they really are and not as pure corn chops, wheat bran, cottonseed meal, etc. (2) It has equalized and promoted uniformity in the selling ])riee of feedingstuffs. (3) It has induced farmers and feeders to investigate the relative values of feeding- stuffs, and has thus increased the sale of feedingstuffs of known value. (4) It has prevented the sale of a number of worthle.ss feedingstuffs. (5) It has encouraged the manufacturers to maintain a high standard. (6) It has prevented the shipment into the State of inferior feedingstuffs l)arred from other States that have feedingstuffs laws. (7) It has prevented the sale of adulterated feeds as pure products. Mldiuiau. — A 1919 bulletin published by the Michigan Agricul- tural Experiment Station discusses the results of the analysis of feeds in that State as follows: In the following tables are given the results of analyses of 1,530 feeds, 22 of which are not sutiject to license. Of the 1,508 licensed feeds 97 (6.4 per cent) were below guaranty in jirotein, 72 (4.8 per cent) were deficient in crude fat, and 126 (8.4 per cent) contained an excess of crude filler. These figures show a very satisfactory reduction in the number of violations of the feedingstuffs law. There has lieen a steady decrease each year in the number of feeds that have failed to conform to guarajity as is shown by the following talile: Year ending July 1 — 1916 1917 WIS 1919 Per cent. 15 11.5 9.9 Per cent. 11 g 15.1 Per cent. 8.3 7.5 12.5 Per cent. In making these computations the following allowances tor variations from guaranty \yere made: Protein, 1 per cent; fat, 0.5 per cent; and fiber, 1 per cent. Indiana. — The following statement, taken from a 1919 report of the Indiana feed-control oflicials,^ will give some idea of the extent of the work done in enforcing the feed law of that State: Since July 1, 1907, inspectors have secured 31,647 official samples in the State, 29,687 of which have lieen analyzed chemically and microscopically, 1,731 micro- scopically only, and 229 were discarded. « Bulletin No. 22S, C. il FeedingstulTs, Purdue University, Indiana, p. 15 ISO COM MKIU I AIj feeds. Tho followino; table gives in brief form the results obtained for each year in tho same State: Table Sf). — Summary of results of the inspection of feedingstuffs fti/ llie hutinna Feed Control Officials, in specified yean, 1907-1918. Number of samples secured N umhor of samples anal.v zed Tor pent up to guaranty Ter cent below Ruaranly in fat only.. , I'er cent below guaranty in criide protein only Per cent below guaranty "in both crude fat and crude protein Per cell I misbranded as to pre-^enee of inferior ingredients "• 1907' 1911 1912 1913 1914 191.1 1916 1917 1918 2,303 2,035 W 3 It). 1 h.o 17.5 2,903 2,«96 79.7 3.10.'; 2, 913 S2.0 3,877 3, .535 7.5.7 3,0.58 2,S93 (iS.O 3,252 3,039 82.8 I July 1, 1907, to July 1, 1908. ^ Includes samples e.xamined microscopically General character ok feedingstcffs. — The results of the ad- ministration of tlie feedingstuff laws as reported by tlie tiifferent States indicate tliat the great bulk of the feeds that have been placed upon the marlvets of these States during the past few years have been found to bo substantially equivalent to the guaranty under which they have been sold. A detailed study of the summaries of feed analyses issued by the several States shows that while a considerable proi)ortion of the samples analyzed revealed some degree of deficiency, sucli deficiencies for the most part did not materially reduce the feeding value of the particular commodities involved. The great majority of the deliciencies involved samples found below the mini- mum guaranty in either ju'otein or fat, or both, or above the maxi- mum guaranty in fiber. On the other hand, it was also noted that a much larger proportion of feed samples analyzed averaged sul)stan- tially higlier than their guaranty in protein and fat, and likewise below in fiber. A more definite indication of the general extent to which feeding- stuff samples comply with their guaranties in this respect is the aver- age of all pi'otein deficiencies and overages computed for five States, namely, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania for the year 1918. In these States, of the 6,858 samples antilyzed including both straight and mixed feed, 1,179, or 17.2 per cent, showed an average protein deficiency of 1.4 per cent, while 6,679 of these samples, or 82.8 per cent, showed an average of 2.1 per cent above their minimum guaranty in protein. In tbese same States 11.6 per cent of tho samples were found to be deficient to tlie extent of 1 per cent or over in protein, and 88.4 per cent were found to bo 1 per cent or more above their minimum guaranty in protein. A similar study was made of tho extent to which the fiber content e.xcecdod tho guaranty in representative tests in four of these States, Indiana not having reported such results for the year under consid- eration. A review of the analyses of 1,825 feed samples showed that 063, or 36. o per cent of the total number tested, exceeded their maxi- mum fiber guaranty by an average of 1.9 per cent, and were thus deficient in this particular, and 1,162, or 63.7 per cent, showed an average of 2.5 per cent below their maximum guaranty in fiber. REGULATION OF THE FEED INDUSTRY. 181 Straight and mixed feeds compared. — A similar test of the pro- tein deficiencies and overages was separately made for straight feeds and for mixed feeds. Such calculations showed no consistent dif- ference in the average percentages of deficiencies and overages be- tween the two classes. There appears to be no great difference between the straight and mixed feeds in the matter of the extent to which they have been misbranded or in other ways have varied from the guai-anties under which they have been sold. A number of the States, however, re- ported finding excessive amounts of cottonseed hulls in the cotton- seed meal sold in those States, resulting in this commodity showing an unusually high percentage of samples which were deficient. It was noted also that of the total of 244 judgments obtained against feed manufacturers by the United States Bureau of Chemistry from June 1, 1914, to December 31, 1919, on account of adulteration and misbranding of feedingstuffs, 137 of such judgments involved adulteration or misbranding of cottonseed meal. Most of these cases were on account of this feedingstuff being misbranded, the actual percentage of protein being found below, or the fiber content above, the guaranty. ^'ariations as to guaranteed ingredients. — A further study of the published results of the various State analyses of feeds shows that there has been a persistent tendency among feed manufacturers to offer for sale compounds in which one or more ingredients, not designated on the label or tag, have been used in addition to, or as a substitute for, one or more of the ingredients certified as being present. Wliile these are technically cases of misbranding, it appears that in the majority of such instances the feeding value of the particular feed involved was not reduced thereby. The guaranteed percent- ages of protein, fat, and fiber were frecfuently maintained even though the analysis showed some variations in ingredients. The ingredient or ingredients not designated were freciuently equal in nutritive value to those for which they were substituted, as when hominy feed was substituted for corn feed meal. Effect of feed laws. — It appears from a study of the reports of the administration of the State feedingstuff laws, and from all other information found to be applicable, that when and wherever a feedingstuff law has been enactecl and enforced in a vState there has followed, presumably as a consequence, a substantial improvement in the quality of the feeds offered for sale in that State. Feed-control officials generally are in accord with this conclusion. Previously to or at the time of the enactment of a State law there was placed upon the markets of that State a much larger proportion of inferior, misbranded, or adulterated feedingstuffs than has since been de- tected. It may be said that in the States that are now enforcing such essential provisions of a feed law as were discussed above there are being found today comparatively few cases where feedingstuffs have been adulterated with substances considered deleterious or as having practically no nutritive value. In States where these laws are enforced such adulteration generally constitutes not over, and frequently less than, 1 per cent of all feed samples analyzed. 182 f'OMnKlU'lAI. FKKDS. Section 4. Legislative activities of the American Feed Manufacturers' Association. Introductory. — As stated elsewhere, the American Feed Manu- facturers' Association was organized primarily to foster State and Federal legislation believed to bo proper and to oppose laws thought to be inimical to the interests of its members. Representatives of this association are usually found at State capi- tals, and also at Washington, whenever legislation affecting the feed industry is being considered. If the proposed bill is not in accord with the manufacturers' wishes, strenuous efforts to defeat it are made and a substitute bill to which the manufacturers subscribe is frequently offered. Kind of legislation favored by the association. — A feed law, known as the Ihiiform Feed Law, is indorsed by the association. This law is similar to numerous laws already passed by a number of States. It includes provisions for registration of brands and requires the statement of the ingredients and a guaranteed chemical analysis. It is reasonable to expect the manufacturers to support this or a similar law. It contains the provisions they profess to believe neces- sary for the protection of both purchasers and the industry. Further- more, it is highly desirable from the manufacturers' standpoint that the laws of the States be as uniform as possible. At the present time manufacturers must sell in accordance with the many (lifferent pro- visions of State laws. It is claimed by them that this adds to the cost of feeds to the purchaser. Kind of legislation opposed by the association. — In general it may be stated that any law differing markedly from the Uniform Feed Law is usually opposed by the association. Proposals to require the statement of the percentage of ingredients, factory inspection, the tag of distinctive color for feeds containing certain ingredients, and the statement of ingredients in order of their preponderance are opposed by this association.' It is undoubtedly a fact that the activities of the American Feed Manufacturer.s' Association have resulted in considerable benefit in so far as laws regulating the feed industry are concerned. It is also true that some proposed laws which would be detrimental to public interest have been defeated by their efforts. The activities of the association and of influential individual mem- bers in opposing or influencing feed legislation have at times been of doubtful propriety, to say the least. Thus a feed manufacturer had representatives oi his concern see a certain State feed-control olficial and "play up to his vanity somewhat and show him a good deal of attention, with a view to securing his cooperation in having the legislature at its next session change the existing law." This course was believed to be effective, as this feed-control official some years earlier while connected with another State had, according to this same manufacturer, "helped gi-eatly in adjusting tiie difficulty in its legis- lature, and I believe it was purely on personal grounds." In another instance this same manufacturer, at the time hearings were being held on the so-called Gore amendment, instructed one of his assist- * Certain members of the association do not oppose laws of this sort. In fact, a few have advocated them. REGULATION OF THE FEED INDUSTRY. 183 ants to have the corrvpany's customers at certain towns wire the Member of Congress in whose district these towns were hicated pro- testing against the amendment. The manufacturer wrote that he had been advised that this Congressman "needs votes badly and pres- sure from these towns will be very influential with him just at this time. If you have anybody in any of these towns who can put it up strong you had better have them do it Perhaps you had better work the telephone." Somewhat similar activities have occurred in the various States, particularly in New York, where the association, as well as many mdividual manufactui'ers, have been particularly active on legislative matters. APPENDIXES. Appendix 1. EXPLANATION OF CHEMICAL TERMS. The following definitions and stiitements are extracted from Bul- letin 251 of the Texas Agricultural lilxperiment Station, published September, 1919. rrolein, being the constituent of food which forms flesh, muscle, hair, ligament, anil Qther portions of the animal body, is of great importance. It replaces the wear and tear of the animal tissue and furnishes material for additional flesh. Besides fur- nishing material for tissue, protein maybe burned in the body to produce heat or it may ser\e as a source of fat in ca.se of a deficiency in carbohydrates and fat accom- paiued by excess of protein. It is, ho%vever, a costly source of heat and fat. Viilur of prolnn. — Protein is the most e.xpensive portion of a feedingstuff, and feedingstuffs rich in protein usually sell for a higher price than feeding.Mtuffs low in protein. With a given feedingstuff, the more protein it contains the l)etter its finality, compared with other feedingstuffs of the same class. For example, cottoi;- seed meal containing 48 per cent protein is of better <|uality than cottonseed meal containing 45 per cent protein. A low protein content accompanied by a high content of crude fiber indicates tliat the cottonseed meal contains an excessive amount of hulls. The value of feedingstuffs of different kinds can not be compared on a protein basis alone. For example, a cottonseed meal containing 45 per cent of protein does not have five times the \sdue of corn chops containing 9 per cent protein. There are other constituents of botli feedingstuffs (fat and nitrogen-free extract), which are of value to the animal, and corn chops contain much more nitrogen-free extract tlian cottonseed meal. The digestibility of the constituents is also of importance. Fat (or ether extract) is composed mainly of fats and oils in the case of concentrated commercial feedingstuffs, but with fodders and hays it is often composed to a consider- able extent of waxes, coloring matter, and other substances. Fat is used in the animal body as a source of body fat and to furnish heat and energy. The animal ref)uire8 heat to keep its body warm and energy to run the animal mechanism, or to do the outside Work. The beating of the heart, clie\rtng, movements of tlie intestines, and the involuntary muscular movements recjuire energy which is furnished by the oxida- tion of fats, carbohydrates, or protein. One pound of fat is ecjual to 2.25 pounds of carbohydrates. Value of fat. — Fat ranks next to protein in value as a fe(>ding constituent. The more protein and fat a given feedingstuff contains tlie better its (piality compared with otlier feedingstuffs of the same class. Cottonseed meal containing 55 per cent of protein and fat combined is of higher \'alue than cottonseed meal containing 49 per cent of protein and fat combined, (^ottonaeed meal is indet'd often sold on the basis of its protein and fat content, as determined by chemical analysis. As witli protein alone, however, two feeds of different kinds can not be compared on the basis of their content of protein and fat, since other factors enter into con- sideration . Crn.de fiber is the proportion of the plant which resists the intense action of acids and alkalies. It consists mostly of tlie cell walls and Woody fiber of tlie plant, and is the most indigestible part of tlie feedingstuff. By means of fermentation in the intestines, crude fiber is digested to some exb^nt by animals which chew the cud. The operation, howe\'er, consumes so much energy that a large proportion of the \al\ie of tlie crude fiber is taken up by tlie process of iligestion. Hays and fodders and other roughage generally contain much crude fiber, but concentrated feeding- stuffs contain comparatively small (|uantities of it. Value of crude fiber. — Crude liber is the woody and less digestible portion of a feed- ingstuff. The more crude fiber a feedingstuff contains the poorer its cjuality com- pared witli other feedingstuffs oi tlie same cla.ss. Feeding materials of low commer- cial value and of low value to the animal, such as straw, cottonseed hulls, rice hulls, APPENDIXES. 185 oat hulls, corncobs, etc., contain large quantities of crude fiber, and their addition to a concentrated feedingstuff increases its content of crude fiber. Thus, if the crude fiber in cottonseed meal exceeds certain limits, it indicates that the meal is adul- terated mtli cottonseed hulls. In a similar way, crude fiber in excess of a given maximum indicates corncobs or corn bran in corn chops; rice hulls in rice bran, and so on. The amount of crude fiber is a much more sensitive indication of the low quality or of adulteration than the protein and fat, since the adulterants generally contain large percentages of crude fiber. ^'o repeat, the more crude fiber a feedingstuff contains the poorer its quality com- pared with other feedingatuffs of the same class. This also holds good in comparing feedingstuffs of different kinds, liut not entirely; we must also consider the protein and fat content of the two kinds of feedingstuffs. Tlius, wheat bran contains con- siderably more crude fiber than corn chops, l)ut has a higher value when protein is worth more than fat and nitrogen-free extract. Ash is the residue left when the plant is burned. It represents mostly the mineral jKirtion of the plant and the portion which comes from the soil, although a part of the ingredients withdra\xii from the soil are volatilized during combustion. Nitrogen particularly is dri\en out completely. Ash is valuable to the animal, inasmuch as it furnishes material for bone, and some constituents of it, particularly the phosphoric acid and sidphur, are essential constituents of the animal cell. Value of ash.- — Ash is necessarily present in feedingstuffs. An excessive amount indicates contamination with dirt, sand, or other mineral matter. Too little ash in the ration may give rise to disorders, especially in young animals. Nitrogen-free extract [N. F. E.] is composed of starch, sugar, dextrin, and other sub- stances of a similar nature. These substances are n^ostly carbohydrates; that is, they contain carbon and hydrogen and oxygen in proportion to form water. Crude fiber is also composed largely of carbohydrates. Value of nitroiien-free extract. — The nitrogen-fi'ee extract of most concentrated com- mercial feedingstuffs, such as corn chops, wheat bran, cottonseed meal, Kafir, etc, is composed largely of sugars and starches which are 'readily digested and have con- siderable value to the animal. The nitrogen-free extract of wheat skins, corn bran, com cobs, rice hulls, hays and straws, and similar feedingstuffs, is composed mostly of other substances than sugar and starch, and has a lower value to animals. The nitrogen-free extract of these two kinds of feedingstuffs, therefore, can not be compared directly. In general, we may say that the more protein, fat, and nitrogen-free extract and the less crude fiber and ash a given feed contains, compared with other feedingstuffs of the same kind, the better the quality. The same statement also holds in comparing feedingstuffs of different kinds, but not altogether, since in comiiaring feedingstuffs of different kinds we must also consider the digestibility and the productive value of the digested materials. Carbohydrates is a collective term applied to crude fiber and nitrogen-free extract. Appendix 2. DEFINITIONS OF FEEDINGSTUFFS. [Adopted by the Association of Feed Control Officials o( the I'nited States.] Meal is the clean, sound, groimd product of tlie entire grain, cereal, or seed which it purports to represent. Chop is a ground or chopped feed composed of one or more different cereals or by-products thereof. If it bears a name descriptive of the kind of cereals, it must bo made exclusively of the entire grains of those cereals. Alfalfa meal is the entire alfalfa hay ground, and does not contain an admixture of ground alfalfa straw or other foreign materials. Anim.IlL Products. Blood meal is ground dried blood. Cracklings are the residue after partially extracting the fats and oils from the animal tissues. If they bear a name descriptive of their kind, composition, or origin, they must correspond thereto. Digester tankage is the residue from animal tissues, exclusive of hoof and horn, specially prepared for feeding purjwses by tanking imder live steam, drying under 186 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. hi,e:h heat, and suitaWo prindine:. If it ronfains mnre than 10 per cent of phosphoric arid ( P2 Of,) it must be dosigiiated digester meat and bone tankage. Meal scrap anil meal meal are the ground residues from animal tissues exclusive of hoof and horn. If they contain more than 10 per cent of phosphoric acid (P, Oj) they must be designated meat and bone scrap and meat and bone meal. If they boar a name deBcrijJtive of their kind, {om position, or origin, they must correspond thereto. BATiLEY PhOHUCT.S. Barley hulls are the outer chaffy coverings of the barley grain. Barley feed is the entire by-product resulting from the manufacture of pearl barley from clean barley. Barley-mijed/eed is the entire offal from the millijig of barley flour from clean barley and is composed of barley hulls and barley middlings. Brewers' and Distillers' Products. Brewers' dried grains are the properly dried residue from cereals obtained in the manufacture of beer. Distillers' dried grains are the dried residue from cereals obtained in the manufacture of alcohol and distilled liquors. The pioduct shall bear the designation indicating the cereal predominating. Distillers' corn solubles, a by-product from the manufacture of alcohol from corn, is a mash liquor concentrated after the removal of the alcohol and wet grains. Distillers' corn and rye solubles, a by-product from the manufacture of alcohol from corn and rye, is a mash liquor concentrated after the removal of the alcohol and wet grains. Distillers' rye solubles, a by-product from the manufacture of alcohol from rye, is a mash liquor concentrated after the removal of the alcohol and wet grains. Malt sprouts are the sprouts of the barley grain . If the sprouts are derived from any other malted cereal, the source must be designated. Buckwheat Products. Buckwheat shorts or buckwheat middlings are that portion of the buckwheat grain immediately inside of the hull after separation from the flour. Corn Products. Com bran is the outer coating of the corn kernel. Com feed meal is the by-product olitainod in the manufacture of cracked corn, with or without aspii'ation products added to the sif tings, and is also the by-product obtained in the manufacture of table meal from the whole grain by the non-degerminating process. Corn germ meal is a product in the manufacture of starch, glucose, and other corn products, and is the ,germ layer from which part of the corn oil has been extracted. , Grits are the hard, flinty portions of Indian corn, without hulls and germs. Corn gluten meal is that Jiart of commercial shelled corn that remains after the separation of the larger part of the starch, the germ, and the bran by the processes employed in the manufacture of cornstarch and glucose. It may or may not contain corn solubles. Com gluten feed is that portion of commercial shelled corn that remains after tlie separation of the larger part of the starch and the germs by the processes employed in the manufacture of cornstarch and glucose. It may or may not contain corn solubles. IJominy feed, hominy meal, or hominy chop is the kiln-dried mixture of the mill-run bran coating, the mill-run germ, with or without a partial extraction of the oil and a part of the starchy portion of the white corn kernel obtained in the manufaciure of hominy, hominy grits, and corn meal by the degerminating process. Yellow horn in y feed, yellow hominy vual, or yellow horn iny chop is a kiln-dried mixture of the mill-run bran coating, the mill-run germ, mth or wathout a partial extraction of the oil and a part of the starchy portion of the jellow corn kernel obtained in the manufacture of yellow hominy grits and yellow corn meal by the degerminating process. Oil Cake. Oil cake is the residual cake obtained after extraction of part of the oil by crushing, cooldng and hydraulic pressure from seeds screened and cleaned of weed seeds and otlier foreign materials by the most improved commercial processes. When used alone APPENDIXES. 187 the term "oil cake" shall be understood to designate the product obtained from partially extracted, screened, and cleaned flaxseed. When used to cover any other product, the name of the seed from wliich it is obtained shall be prefixed to "oil-cake." Ground oil cake is the product obtained by grinding oil cake. When used alone, the term "ground oil cake" shall be understood to designate the product obtained from partially extracted, screened, and cleaned flaxseed. When used to cover any other product, the name of the seed from which it is obtained shall be prefixed to "ground oil cake." Cottonseed Products. Cottonseed meal is a product of the cottonseed only, composed principally of the kernel with such portion of the hull as is necessary in the manufacture of oil ; provided that nothing shall be recognized as cottonseed meal that does not conform to the fore- going definition and that does not contain at least 36 per cent of protein. Choice cottonseed meal must be finely ground, not necessarily bolted, perfectly sound and sweet in odor, yellow, free from excess of lint, and must contain at least 41 per cent of protein. Prime cottonseed meal must be finely ground, not necessarily bolted, of sweet odor, reasonably bright in color, yellow, not brown or reddish, free from excess of lint, and must contain at least 38. G per cent of protein. Gooil cottonseed meal must be finely ground, not necessarily bolted, of sweet odor, reasonably bright in color, and must contain at least 36 per cent of protein. ('ottonseed feed is a mixture of cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls, containing less than 36 per cent of protein. Cold pressed cottonseed is the product resulting from subjecting the whole unde- corticated cottonseed to the cold pressure process for the extraction of oil, and includes the entire cottonseed less the oil extracted. Ground cold pressed cottonseed is the ground product resulting from subjecting the whole undecorticated cottonseed to the cold pressure process for the extraction of oil, and includes the entire ground cottonseed less the oil extracted. Linseed and Flax Products. Linseed meal is the ground product obtained after extraction of part of the oil from ground flaxseed screened and cleaned of weed seeds and other foreign materials by the most improved commercial processes, provided that the final product shall not contain over 6 per cent of weed seeds and other foreign materials and provided further that no portion of the stated 6 per cent of weed seeds and other foreign materials shall be deliberately added. Oil meal is the ground product obtained after the extraction of part. of the oil by crushing, cooking, and hydraulic pressure, or by crushing, heating, and the use of solvents from seeds, which have been screened and cleaned of weed seeds and other foreign materials by the most improved commercial processes, ^\^len used alone the term "oil meal' ' shall be understood to designate linseed meal as defined. When used to cover any other product the name of the seed from which it is obtained shall be prefixed to the words "oil meal. '' Old process oil meal is the ground product obtained after extraction of part of the oil by crushing, cooking, and hydrauKc pressure from seeds screened and cleaned of weed seeds and other foreign materials by the most improved commercial processes. \\'hen used alone the term "old process oil meal" shall be understood to designate linseed meal as defined, made by the old process. When used to cover any other product the name of the seed from which it is obtained shall be prefixed to "old process oil meal." New process oil meal is the ground product obtained after extraction of part of the oil by crushing, heating, and the use of solvents from seeds screened and cleaned of weed seeds and other foreign materials by the most improved commercial processes. When used alone the term "new process oil meal" shall be understood to designate linseed meal as defined, made by the new process. When used to cover any other product the name of the seed from which it is obtained shall be prefixed to "new process oil meal." ■ Flax plant by-product is that portion of the flax plant remaining after the separation of the seed, the bast fiber and a portion of the shives, and consists of flax shives, flax pods, broken and immature flax seeds, and the cortical tissues of the stem. Ground flaxseed or flaxseed meal is the product obtained by grinding flaxseed which has been screened and cleaned of weed seeds and other foreign materials by the most improved commercial processes, provided that the final product shall not contain over 4 per cent of weed seeds and other foreign materials, and provided further that 188 COMMERf'IAL FEEDS. no portion of 243 «259 ' Average, January-June. Average prices of mill feeds, sacked, f. o. b. Minneapolis, by months, January, .1913, to June, 1920, inclusive} Month. Bran. StLimlard middlings. Mixed feed.2 Flour middlings. Red dog. Rye middlings." 1913. 119. ?9 ls..V> 17. 1.-) 16. :!.■> 16. R'S 17. m 16.90 19.94 21.25 19.90 20.06 20. 25 519.66 IS. 94 17.25 16.70 17.00 IS. 81 1,S. SO 21.25 23.13 22.35 21.63 20.70 $22.50 22.38 21.81 20.75 19.63 21.31 21. 65 23.25 25. .SS 24.90 24.25 23.00 »24. 19 24.00 23.38 22.80 23.44 24.25 24.20 2.5.69 27.00 28. 20 2.5.00 24.50 July Year K.63 19.68 22.57 24.55 1914. 21.17 22.17 23. 5S 23. 67 22. 0(1 20.67 IH. 17 ■n . .iO 21.67 19.67 20. 33 21.50 21.17 22.00 22. .'iO 23.67 22.00 21.83 21. 00 24.00 23.00 19.67 20.33 21.50 122.67 23.50 24.33 24. .S3 24.00 23. .50 22.17 25.00 24.67 22.67 23.33 24.50 24.17 25.00 25.17 25.67 25.00 25.00 25.00 27.50 27.67 25.33 25.33 26.50 2.5. 42 26.25 26.42 26.92 26.25 28.25 28.25 28.75 29.92 28.92 28.68 30.25 $21.17 22.00 22.33 April 22. .S3 22.00 21.50 July 21.00 23.50 22.67 19.33 20.33 21.50 Year 21.34 21.89 23.78 2.5.61 27.51 21.88 191.-I. 22.83 23.00 21.17 22.17 20.33 20.00 20.33 20.33 18.33 18.67 18.33 18.83 22.83 23.00 21.17 22.67 23.33 23.00 24.83 25.33 20.33 19.00 18.33 18.83 25.83 26.00 24.17 25.33 24.33 24.00 25.83 26.33 22.33 21.00 20. .33 20.83 27.83 28.00 26.17 27.33 27.33 27.33 29.50 29.33 25.33 23.50 22.83 2.3.33 31.58 31.25 28.42 29.58 29.25 30.25 32.75 32.58 29.25 2,5.75 25.08 25.58 22. .S3 2:i.0O 21.17 April .. 23.17 23. ,50 23.67 July 25.50 2.5.33 20.33 19.00 18.33 18.83 20.36 21.89 23.88 26.48 29.28 22.05 ' See text p. 113for sources of these Tigures and mi'lhod of computing averages. ' Figures for 1913 not available in source from which other figures were derived. APPENDIX TABLES. 193 Table 2. — Average prices of mill feeds, sacked, f. o. b. Minneapolis, by months, January, 1913, to June, 1920, inclusive — Continued. Month. Bran. Standard middlings. Mixed feed. Flour middlings. Red dog. Rye middlings. 1916. $19.33 20.00 18.33 18.50 18.83 18.50 18.00 20.33 22.00 24.00 27.33 26.67 S19.33 22.67 20.33 19.50 20.17 20.50 20.00 21.33 23.00 26.00 30.33 29.33 S21.33 23.00 21.00 21.00 21.33 21.33 21.00 23.33 25.00 27.67 32.33 31.67 $24.00 26.00 24.00 24.00 24.33 24.33 24.00 26.33 28.00 30.67 35. 33 36.00 $26.25 28.00 26.00 26.33 27.33 27.33 27.00 29.33 31.00 33.67 38.33 41.67 $19 33 mSv July October 26 00 Year.. 20.98 22.71 24.17 27.25 30.19 22 61 1917. • 28.33 31.67 34.33 37.67 36.67 28.33 31.00 35.33 30.00 31.00 31.00 40.00 28.33 31.67 3.5.00 38.67 37. 67 34.33 39.33 45.33 34.33 36.00 36.00 40.67 33.33 36.67 38.00 39.67 39.33 38.00 41.33 46.33 36.33 38.00 38.00 42.67 36.67 39.67 41.00 42.67 45.00 45.00 48.33 54.00 46.33 48.00 48.00 50.00 43.67 46.67 48.00 48.00 48.00 48.00 62.33 58.67 56.00 56.00 56.00 58.00 March April.... May Julv 32.94 32.43 32.76 32.91 33.14 29.84 29.88 24.20 23.20 28.90 28.49 27.81 34.87 36.44 38.97 45.39 51.53 1918. 34.43 34.76 34.25 35.14 31.84 31.88 26.20 31.20 30.90 30.49 29.81 38.37 36.43 36.76 36.91 37.14 32.93 31.13 25.45 30.45 30.15 29.74 29.06 40.50 40.89 41.18 41.31 41.49 35.86 31.23 25.65 30.56 30.30 29.93 29.32 40.63 46.77 47.03 47.15 47.33 39.79 31.35 2.5.67 30.62 30.23 29.86 29.21 43.08 35.67 March April May 45.67 July " Year 30.37 32.44 33.05 34.85 37.34 1919. 50.00 40.33 38.00 38.00 39.00 34.67 37.00 41.00 39.33 36.33 39.00 41.33 50.00 40.33 38.33 40.33 45.00 42.67 46.00 53.00 52.33 45. 33 44.00 44.00 55.00 45. 33 43.00 45.00 47.00 47.67 49.00 55.00 54.33 61.00 50.00 48.33 55.00 45.33 43.00 45.00 50.00 50.67 52.33 69.00 58.33 55.07 55.00 53.33 60.00 53.33 50.67 52.00 55.67 56.67 58.67 65.00 64.33 63.00 63.00 60.33 40.33 38.33 39.67 40.00 38.00 43.33 53.00 52.33 45.33 44.00 44.00 March..;... April May ■ ■ Julv 39.50 45.11 49.22 51.89 58.56 43.86 'As pointed out in the te.\t, a very marked increase in prices took place Dec. 20, 1918, and additional advances were made before the end of the month. An average of the prices for the 1st, 10th, and 2Uth, therefore, does not correctly represent the price for this month. Accordingly, in computing the averages for December, 1918, the method was changed and the price on the 20th was given twice the weight of the prices on the 1st and 10th. This does not apply to the figures for rye middlings, the price of which did not mcreasewith the advance in wheat feeds. 42976°— 21- -13 194 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. Table 2. — Average prices of mill feeds, sacked,f. o. b. Minneapolis, by months, January, 1913, to June, 1920, inclusive — Continued. ^ Month. Bran. Standard middlings. Mixed Flour middlings. Red dog. middlings. 1920. January February March..: »13.00 43.00 40.00 49.33 .52.t;7 52.00 J44.00 47.33 51.33 53.67 57.33 57.00 »48.00 49.00 52.00 54.87 58.33 58.50 $53.00 54.00 56.67 58.33 62.33 63.00 $.58. 67 61.00 62.67 64.33 67.33 68.00 $44.00 46.00 51.33 53 67 May. .. 57 33 47.67 51.78 53.42 57.89 63.67 51 47 ' Average of prices for two dates only. Table 3. — Average pricesper ton of xvhite hominy feed, in biill.f. o. b. mill, Indianapolis, and for New Vork City and Boston freight-rate points, hij months, January, 1913, to June, 1920, inclusive. ' I'.l ^l 1913 1914 1913 1916 Month. In- dian- apoli.s. New York. Bos- ton. In- dian- apolis. New York. Bos- ton. In- dian- apolis. New York. Bos- ton. In- dian- apolis. New York. Bos- ton. January Fel)ruary $19.40 IS. 70 $22.85 21.50 19.75 21.66 22.50 24.42 23.75 28.50 29.30 26.87 26.25 26.75 $23. 57 22. 57 20.85 21.98 22.85 23.57 24.27 27. 18 29.90 27.73 27.15 27.40 523.80 23.85 24.50 24.00 25.00 25.80 25.50 28.35 27.30 24.00 23.05 23.60 $26.75 26.62 27.00 27.25 27.00 27.66 27.50 29.66 31.91 29.12 26.47 26.62 $27. .52 27. .57 27.53 27.57 27.57 29.90 28.40 31.07 31.43 27.57 27.18 27.57 $27.25 27.15 25.00 2.5.00 26.90 26.10 26.15 28.25 27.00 24.00 24.75 25.00 $27.35 29.50 30.28 28.92 30.25 30.20 29.10 30. 30 31.50 28.14 26.37 26.60 $30.00 30.99 28.64 29.16 30. 43 30.23 29.49 31.18 31.75 28.41 26.60 28.26 $25.00 24.50 24.25 24.00 24. .50 24.25 24.50 27.00 29.00 32.50 33.00 35.85 $26.86 28. 30 27.44 27.00 27.00 27.25 27.87 30.87 33.00 32.80 33.70 39.15 S29.06 29.08 AprU May 19. 45 20.30 27.18 27.2:i 20.95 20.95 24.80 27.80 22.90 23.10 23.60 July 27.58 31.88 September October November December 34.00 34.41 41.33 41.40 Year 21.66 24.51 24.92 24.90 27.80 28.41 26.05 29.06 29.60 27.53 30.10 31.45 1917 1918 1919 1920 Month. In- dian- apolis. New York. Bos- ton. In- dian- apolis. New York. Bos- ton. In- dian- apolis. New York. Bos- ton. In- dian- apolis. New York. Bos- ton. January February jtbrch $37.00 38.00 41.00 48.85 51.75 50.00 51.00 54. 85 56.00 53. 00 58. 65 57.95 $41.70 41.50 43.66 48.25 54.55 55.66 55.10 62. M 58.00 53.80 57.00 53.16 $41.22 41.92 43.89 52.90 55.90 51.47 52.77 •r.B.oo 66.57 56.84 53. 60 3 60.00 $58.50 60.30 63.55 53.45 47.40 51.40 57.50 58.85 56.00 49.00 48.50 $53.50 64.25 65.75 63.67 61.25 53. 50 56.66 65.00 59.50 57.66 55.33 $58.00 60.59 66.90 57.20 45.90 48.43 58.15 .59. 32 58.47 54.70 52.47 •62.90 $56.25 5(1.10 57.50 62.35 64.75 65. 85 72.50 75.15 61). (10 49.50 55.45 58.90 S63. 50 37.16 52.33 63.00 67. 33 70.00 75.00 77. 33 70. .SO 56. 50 56.50 36.25 $61.56 50.21 52.69 58.15 61. .54 62.93 74.10 76.02 66.45 55.81 58.97 63.60 $61.50 59. 30 63.40 65.00 70.00 68.30 $61.00 63.33 64.00 65.00 67.60 73.33 $63. 58 63.14 April m"::.:.: September October November December Year 49.84 52.07 52.76 55. 17 1 59. 71 56.92 60.69 6:!. 77 61.83 »M.58 •65.71 ' The figures in the first two columns were furnished by two leading manutactmers, operating plantsin the middle west , the first giving prices f. o. b. factory. In Jianano.i-, and the second prices on the New Yorli freight-rate basis. The figures in the third column were turmshcd by a leading jobber and are for Boston frei-iht-rate points. 5 Interpolated. ' Price for one date only. < .\verage, January-Jime. APPENDIX TABLES. 195 Table 4. — Average prices per ton oj rice bran and rice polish. /. o. b. mills, by months, January, 1913, to April, 1920, inclusive} EICE BRAN. Month. 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 January February Marrh April May $17. 28 16.18 19.03 15.79 17.34 16.12 16.03 15.60 16.01 13.90 15.21 15.95 $14.90 14.62 15.31 15.30 15.53 16.04 17.00 17. Ofi 15.77 15.33 14. S7 14.48 $15. 76 17.65 21.21 21. 05 18.89 15.00 18.45 14.71 15.44 14.28 13.33 14.66 S14.98 16.36 16.42 16.79 17.01 17.71 15.00 15.18 17.07 22.30 23.01 23.82 $24.05 24.12 28.65 38.26 33.68 42.00 $39.74 41.60 40.85 39.45 39.45 37.92 36.00 36.00 36.02 36.02 36.19 36.00 $36.02 36.03 35.55 37.64 33.07 35.22 36.16 43.97 41.72 33.71 34.07 33.29 $30.80 32.60 30.50 34.09 July August September 34.69 34.46 34.97 35.45 38.39 Year 16.21 15.30 14.80 17.17 2 31.67 36.36 38.81 3 30. 89 RICE POLISH. January February Mareh April May $23.25 22.19 21.05 18.77 20.67 18.68 18.00 22.00 23.29 23.52 23. 35 23.62 $22. 22 23.00 21.69 23.12 22.77 25.40 25. IX) 24.71 25.14 25.45 25.33 25.65 $24. 83 24.84 24.90 27.76 25.39 30.23 27.90 24.53 24.30 24.29 22.96 23.83 $23.83 23.72 23.46 23.95 22.64 24.92 25.00 23.08 25.43 27.66 35.09 29.17 $30.26 29.41 34.13 39.14 40.48 50.60 $58. 34 62.42 64.21 64.85 54.87 56.73 $51. 60 50.17 52.09 51.00 51.71 54.58 61.41 68.59 64.19 61.50 58.60 59.62 $57.43 57.74 58.89 58.67 July 50.00 50.45 60.94 50.97 57.39 50.01 50.116 50.50 51.18 51.30 Septemlier Year 21.77 24.16 24.44 26.27 2 40. 25 2 56. 41 69.50 3 57.96 1 Weighted avrragcs. See p. 119. 2 Average, 11 months. 3 Average, January-April. Table 5. — Average prices per ton of merchantable cottonseed hulls, j. o. h. mills, by months^ February, 1913, to April, 1920, inclusive.^ Month. 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 $7.33 6.35 6.94 8.00 S.04 8.0O 8.00 8.00 6.29 4.31 4.08 5.06 $6.02 6.72 6.79 7.25 7.06 6.25 5.75 5.29 4.25 7.75 8.96 11.92 $12.00 11.58 11.67 13.50 14.67 13.25 12.00 10.67 9.58 13.00 15.50 15.25 $15.96 16.50 16.50 16.50 16.50 16.00 15.54 13.50 12.50 14.21 17.63 19.58 $20.50 21.50 21.50 21.50 21.50 21.50 21.50 21.50 20.00 20.00 18.00 14.50 $11.50 10.23 7.88 7.88 7.88 6.44 5.96 7.25 6.67 7.08 9.21 8.17 $8.10 7.81 8.81 8.94 9.06 9.42 10.00 10.00 7.02 7.13 7.77 May July Year 8.56 6.70 7.00 12.72 15.91 20.29 8.01 ! 11.02 1 Simple averages of the means of low and high quotations on the 1st . 5th, 10th, 15th, 20th and 25th of each mouth from records of the Memphis Merchants' Exchange. 3 Average, January- April. 196 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. Table 6. — At^erage prices of No. 1 alfalfa meal, carload lots, /. o. b. Colorado and Karuas mills, and average of quoted prices/or Kansas City rate points, by months, January, 191S, to June, 1920, inclusive.' 1913 1914 1915 1916 Month. Mill prices. Kan- sas City rate points. Mill prices. Kan- sas City rate points. Mill prices. Kan- sas City rate points. Mill prices. Kan- sas Colo- rado. Kan- sas. Colo- rado. Kan- sas. Colo- rado. Kan- sas. Colo. Kan- rado. 1 sas. City rate points. 117.50 16.50 15.50 15.50 14.50 16.00 17.00 20.00 21.00 20.50 20.00 19.50 $18.58 >1A. 25 $20.00 19.00 19. 00 19.00 17.00 13.00 15.00 17.00 16.50 13.50 16.00 15.50 'J19.50 « 18. 33 > 17. 75 2 17. 75 J17.00 S17.00 2 15.50 2 16. 00 2 16. 50 18.33 17.00 16.83 $13. .'*0 SLI. .iO $16.83 17.00 16. nS 17.00 20.67 18.83 18.00 16.67 16.92 17.17 17.00 17.00 $13.20 $15.50 13.41 16.00 14.11 i 15.50 13.00 ' 15.80 13. 70 15. 00 13. 25 14. 50 13. 70 1 14. 25 13. 40 : 17. 00 15. 47 ; 17. 50 16. 90 IS. 50 19. 79 23. 50 20. 58 23. 50 $17.00 17. 75 ] is! 00 17 25 1 14.00 17.42 ' 14.00 16.00 ; 14.00 15. 17 15. 90 15.00 13.90 17. 50 ! 13. 78 18.83 1 14.00 19. 67 1 13. 90 20. 17 j 13. m 19. 50 1= 13. 80 12. 90 16. 00 17.00 14.40 15.75 15.20 14.89 '14.00 13. S) n4.oo 14.25 13.00 14.22 16.50 10. 50 16.00 15.50 15.00 15.50 16.00 16.50 16.00 16.00 16.00 April l.i. 83 May 17.00 17.25 July in. is IG.OO 16.23 16.90 19.00 14.00 17.00 August September October November. . .. December 17.17 17.92 18.75 22.83 25.67 Year'... '16.05 i 17.79 1 17.74 j 14.34 17.04 17. 29 1 14. 18 15.92 17.47 15.04 1 17.19 18.28 1917 1918 1919 1920 Month. Mill prices. Kan- sas City rate points. Mill prices. Kan- sas City rate points. Mill prices. Kan- sas City rate points. Mill prices. Kan- sas Colo- rado. Kan- sas. Colo- rado. Kan- sas. Colo- rado. Kan- sas. Colo-, rado. Kan- sas. City rate points. January February March. S21. 36 20.98 20.00 2S.41 22.40 23.92 26. S3 27.67 26.50 26.60 31.16 34.72 $24.00 23.50 25.00 28.00 28.00 26.00 25.50 2S.00 28.60 29.50 34.50 35.00 $25. 25 $33. 13 24.75 ! 34.33 24. 00 j 32. 97 25. 17 1 27. 50 34. 33 1 26. 50 35.33 1 23.50 29. 33 i 25. 49 31.60 1 31.21 .30. 67 33. 97 31. 17 33. 19 35. 17 32. 29 37. 00 29. 76 $36.00 3.1. 50 35.50 30.00 26.50 25.00 25.00 25.50 35.50 34.50 34.50 3.3. OO $37.50 37.60 37.60 34.00 30.50 29.33 29.17 33.67 38.50 38.50 37.50 36.30 $30 84 2S. 69 29.03 35. 73 30 23 29.13 29.69 31.83 29.81 30.87 31.99 31.63 $34.50 33, (M 38. IM) 40.00 32.50 31.00 33.00 35.00 34.00 34.50 35.00 37.00 $3.5. 50 34.08 3.5. 17 41.33 40.58 37.58 <33.33 <35.50 '35. 17 <34.60 <34.60 <35.67 $33.66 34.74 31.27 35.61 37.40 33.65 $37.00 33.00 .35.00 35.50 35.50 36.00 '40.50 ' 39. 17 '35.67 '36.17 Mav.. '44.67 S46.C0 August September Year"... 25.87 27.96 30. 56 30 32 31.37 35.01 30.79 34.96 .36.08 '34.69 '35.33 '4a3i 1 See text, p. 12s , for sources and methods of computing average prices. ' Nominal prices paid to country mills. ' Interpolated. ' Bids to arrive. 6 Nominal quotations, limited olTcriugs. 8 Simple averages of tne monthly averages. ' Average, January-June. APPENDIX TABLES. 197 Table 7. Average prices per ton of three dairy Jeeds, J. o. h. Boston rale points, by months, January, 1913, to June, 1920, inclusive. Month. 1913 1914 1915 1916 No. 1. No. 2. No. 3. ! No. 1. ! No. 2. I 1 No. 3. No. 1. No. 2. No. 3 No.l. No. 2. No. 3. $30.50 $31.67 '$33.00 $33.00 $32.00 $34.00 832.33 $32.50 $33.25 $33. 17 $31.37 30.50 31.50 33.00 1 32.92 31.67 34.17 33.00 32.50 33. .50 33. .50 31.70 29. S3 1 30.25 $27.50 3.3.00 .32.92 31.33 33.33 32.00 31.00 33.00 33.00 31.70 2S.17 1 29.00 28.50 33.00 , 33.08 32.00 33.00 32.33 31.00 32.83 33.17 31.70 May 2S.33 i 29.00 29.50 31.00 1 31.83 .32.00 32.67 32.60 31.67 32.17 32.83 30.70 28. 00 29. 00 28.50 31.42 ; 31.50 31.20 33.00 32.25 31.60 32.33 31.83 30.80 July 28.83 29.00 28.20 31.17 31.50 30.80 32.67 32. 25 31.60 32.67 32. 17 31.80 August 30.83 30.83 28.20 33.00 ' 33.00 30.00 33.00 32.50 31.20 33.17 33.17 32.13 33.00 32.67 29.13 33.67 ,2.33.75 30.00 33.00 32.00 31.00 34.00 34.03 33.03 October 32.00 32.50 31.00 32.83 :=32.00 30.00 32.00 !i32.00 30.33 35.83 34. S3 3.5.00 November 32.50 32.33 31.80 33.17 31.25 30.33 32.50 i 31.75 30.00 40.50 40.67 3S.70 December 32.67 : 32.67 31.30 33.75 ' 32.00 30.50 33.00 [ 32.00 31.20 43.00 41.83 39.80 Year 30.43 ] 30.87 <29.36 1 32.67 ' 32.40 30.99 33.03 ' 32.24 31.. 30 34.09 34. 52 33.20 Month. 1917 191S j 1919 1920 ' 1 1 No. 1. No. 2. No. 3. No. 1. No. 2. , No. 3. No. 1. 1 No. 2. No. 3. No.l. No. 2. No. 3. January $43.08 1*42.25 $40.80 $60.00 S59.17 $56.00 $69.33 $67.00 $64.17 $79.50 $76.67 February 44.67 ! 44.00 43.50 60.00 ; 59.50 56.33 68.50 65.00 64.83 SO 00 75.33 45.00 ! 2 45.00 44.40 62.00 61.67 , 60.00 67.33 64.33 63. S3 79.33 74.50 April 48 67 151.00 = 46.50 66.00 61.17 • 60.00 67.50 65.67 63.50 78.50 74.33 52.67 i 51.50 63.00 : 61.. 50 57.67 68.17 66.17 64.50 79.17 75.83 June 51.00 50.67 49.00 64.00 60.33 57.07 68.33 66.00 64.50 80.00 77.33 July 52.17 1 51.25 56.67 1 58.67 56.67 1 56.00 51.82 54.33 53.00 65.00 ! 61.33 5.8. S3 65.00 64.00 1 59.33 71.50 180.75 80.00 69.50 76.50 77.33 67.67 77.80 77.33 65.67 64.00 57.00 1 56.50 53.00 67.00 64.83 02.50 76.67 73.17 73.17 November 57.17, 57.17 53.83 57(1(1 66.25 67.17 6.5.33 1 62.50 66.00 1 63.17 76.67 79.50 74.00 74.33 73.17 73.33 Year 52.06 ! 51.94 I' 49. 74 64.26 62.40 ii59.40 72.85 69.92 68. 98 3 79.42 3 7.5. 06 ' Average of prices for two dates. » Price for one date only. » Average, January-Jiine. < Average, March- December, s Average for 11 months only. Table 8. — Average prices per ton 0/ eight dairyjeeds^j. o. h. factory, by months, January^ 1915, to June, 1920, inclusive. 20 to 24 per cent protein. 14 to 17.5 per cent protein. Month. No.l, St. Louis. No. 3, No. 2, New Memphis. York State. No. 4, St. Louis. No. 5, Nebraska. No.O, Illinois. No. 7, Memphis. No. 8, New York State. 1915. $27. 33 27.83 2S.00 27. S3 27.83 26.00 26.00 26.67 27.50 27.83 2S. 17 2S. 83 i $24. S3 25. 33 2.5.50 25.33 2.5. 33 24.00 24.00 24.67 25.00 2.5. S3 26.33 26. S3 826.00 20.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 28.50 2S.50 27.50 27.50 26.50 26.50 27.17 $22.67 23.50 23.50 23.50 23. 17 22.50 22.75 23.17 23.50 23.50 22.83 23. 17 i May.. 1 July 1 25.25 22.64 22.72 23.24 Year 27.48 25.25 27.10 23.15 I Average for less than 12 months. 198 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. Table 8. — Average prices per tonof eight dairy feeds, f. o. h. factory, by months, January, 1915, to June, 1920, inclusive — Continued. 20 to 24 per cent protein. 14 to 17. 5 per cent protein. Month. No.l. St. Louis. No. 2, Memphis. No. 3, New- York State. No. 4, St. Louis. No. 5, Nebraska. No. 6, IlUnois. No. 7, Memphis. No. 8, New York State. 1916. ?30.00 31.00 29.83 29.50 29.50 28.83 28.50 29.50 30.50 31.83 37.17 39.50 133.50 33.50 33.50 33.42 32.93 33.00 31.55 32.33 33.67 35.13 39.40 41.50 $27.83 28.50 27.83 27. .50 27.50 26.83 26.50 27.50 28.83 30.00 35.00 37.50 $27.67 28.00 28.00 28.33 28.50 26.50 26.50 26.50 ■26.75 $24.00 24.83 25.50 24.00 23.00 25.50 23.75 24.00 24.25 25.00 28.33 30.67 $26.82 28.15 29.10 2S.13 29.89 2S. 62 29.85 2S.S4 32.10 32.76 35.83 36.73 $24.41 25.60 21.59 April 24.68 Mav 24.50 $28.20 25.26 July 24. SO 27.60 28.67 30.57 32.46 35.02 24.28 26.57 27.27 30.06 32.12 31.30 » 30. 42 34.45 29.28 1 27. 42 2.'.. 24 30.30 26.03 1917. 39. .W 39.50 39.50 •42.50 48.67 45.67 46.83 50.33 50.50 50.67 53.83 56.00 30.83 35.15 39.50 41.12 45.08 42.00 44.56 49.25 43.03 43.98 49.31 49.92 41.87 44.27 46.47 49.30 54.30 53.13 51.30 .56. 30 54.50 54.60 56.73 59.47 37.50 37.50 37.50 40.50 44.67 43.67 45.17 48.33 48.50 48.67 52.00 54.17 38.00 39.00 32.00 33.83 3.5.17 39.67 41.00 38.00 38.67 42.50 42.50 41. S3 41.50 42.50 38.71 38.34 39.18 43.83 39.90 42.27 44.59 53.33 46.58 47.88 49.79 51.56 32.33 32.85 34.61 38.80 May. . July 42.50 44.97 44.42 45.17 40.62 40.89 46.79 41.14 51.85 44.85 39.10 43.91 '37.69 1918. 58.83 59.50 59.83 58.17 53.33 50.50 53.83 59.00 62.00 62.83 63.00 63.17 50.00 53.94 57.04 56.00 54.44 53. 27 53.73 54. 82 57.56 58.07 62.85 58.47 60.80 60.80 61.80 56.67 57.00 57.33 55.17 50.33 47.50 51.83 56.00 59.00 > 59. 75 <60.00 60.00 55.00 54.00 54.33 58.67 53.00 51.33 52.67 54.33 58.00 57.50 56.67 56.00 43.50 43.67 46.00 45.33 44.00 43.25 43.25 44.25 44.92 46.25 46.25 45.58 53.12 55.80 56.56 56.64 56.03 57.05 57.80 50.19 51.46 52.78 53. 9S 63.14 44.02 45.30 March.... 42.76 April 53.50 May... 63.07 62.13 61.80 62.70 64.83 65. 47 65.80 66.40 51.23 43.87 July... 43.72 42.96 43.57 October 42.15 40.07 41.41 58.67 55.85 2 63.24 55. !!8 55.13 44.69 r>i. 19 43.13 1919. 64.17 62.67 61.83 64.00 65.50 65.50 69.50 76.83 74.50 71.00 72.33 72.33 60.35 60.00 60.00 68.00 5S.25 57.63 63.08 65.13 66.63 65.49 64.92 65.21 66.70 63.95 62.20 63.50 64.57 63.60 69.30 76.30 75.80 69.80 72.47 73.97 59.83 56.50 56.17 58.50 59.67 59.17 61.17 67.33 65.50 62.83 •63.00 56.33 55.00 56.00 57.00 57.00 58.00 59.67 67.33 61.33 60.83 61.67 63.33 46.58 46.25 46.25 46.25 46.58 45.42 44.08 53.75 53.75 53.08 52.08 51.08 5.3.66 53.43 51.51 52.07 52.49 52.52 53.70 53.26 59.40 57.88 58.01 60.49 42.43 46.14 March 42.60 April... 47.00 May 49.34 60.65 July 63.60 57. .35 66.60 55.75 55.02 64.36 Year. 68. 35 62.06 68.51 : f.O. 88 59.46 48.76 54.50 48.73 1920. 73.33 73.17 72.33 71.83 74.17 75.00 65.52 63.49 66.00 73.25 76.00 76.00 75.30 70.60 77.30 75.47 76.47 77.30 64.33 63.67 65.33 68.00 2 69.50 70.00 52.75 52.75 53.75 55.75 59.42 62.42 59.10 60.44 60.29 55.41 55.26 March 57.03 April... 60.58 May... 64.42 66.42 73.31 70.04 7«. 41 66. SI .50.14 59.85 ' Average of two dates only. 3 ,\veragefor less than 12 months. ' Price for one date only. APPENDIX TABLES. 199 T.'VBLE 9. — Average prices per ton 0/ six brands 0/ stock feeds, by months, January, 1913, to June, 1920, inclusive} 1913 1914 Month. No.l, Illi- nois. No. 2, St. Louis. No. 3, Ne- bras- ka. No. 4, Ohio. No. 5, New Or- leans. No. 6, Bos- ton. No.l, Illi- nois. No. 2, St. Louis. No. 3, Ne- bras- ka. No. 4, Ohio. No. 5, New Or- leans. No. 6, Bos- ton. $19.00 18.50 IS. 33 1S.X3 $21. 17 21. 50 21.33 21.00 21.00 22.17 22. 50 25.00 26.50 25.83 25.60 25.17 $25.84 25.98 24.48 25.33 25.32 24.60 24.80 25.39 26.43 27.07 26.59 25.60 $25.17 24.83 23.83 23.50 at. 50 25.50 26.25 27.8.3 30.00 $19.83 19.50 19.33 20.50 21.00 20.00 18.50 18.67 19.00 18.50 18.33 $24.00 24.50 24.83 2.5. 00 24.33 24.83 24.50 27.17 29.50 25.67 24.50 24.83 $26.57 26.46 25.95 $28.83 MM Mav 19.00 19.00 19.00 19.83 22.00 22.00 21.00 19.50 26.35 ' 28.67 July $25.00 25.00 27.00 25.75 i 28.67 25.04 1 30.92 26. 13 1 32. 33 29.42 j 28.66 28.67 28.00 29.00 28.00 27.35 1 29.83 25.63 2S.50 Year . 1 19.67 23.22 25.58 26.54 '<26.83 ] 19.26 25.31 26.27 I 29.25 1 1915 1916 Month. No.l, IIU- No. 2, St. Louis. No. 3, Ne- bras- ka. No. 4, Ohio. No. 5, Now Or- leans. No. 6, Bos- ton. No 1, lUi- nois. No. 2, St. Louis. No. 3, Ne- bras- ka. No. 4, Ohio. leans. '»"■ January Februarv March. $28.00 28.00 28.00 27.00 27.00 2S.0O 28.00 28.00 28.00 28.00 28.00 28.00 2$24.00 24.67 2.5.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 26.00 26.00 26.00 26.33 $17. S3 17. 50 17.67 18.83 19.00 19.00 19.00 18.83 19.33 20.00 20.00 20.00 $25.44 26.65 26.50 26.70 27.36 27.24 26.85 28.00 26.64 24.15 23.64 23.92 $26. 57 25.58 26.98 26.38 26.54 26.77 26.08 26.23 25.61 26.39 26.29 25.42 $29.75 31.33 29.83 30.08 31.50 31.08 31.50 33.00 31.83 29.58 28. 08 29.25 $28.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 32.00 36.00 38.00 $27. 17 28.50 28.50 28.50 28.50 2S.50 28.83 29.00 29.67 30.67 33.50 34.50 $20.33 22.67 22.00 22.33 22.50 22.50 22. .50 22.50 22.83 23.17 25.33 26.00 325. 05 25.66 2.5.29 25.29 25.47 24.52 25.63 26.49 S28. 76 28.69 33.32 34.64 1 $26.45 $30^08 26.13 1 30.33 27.39 i 29.33 May June July 29.51 1 28.67 August September October November December 29.66 1 31.50 3a06 I 33.50 29.89 1 33.83 30.07 l«39.50 30. .88 , 41.08 Year 27.83 25. 25 18.92 25.89 26.20 30.57 31.00 29.65 22.89 26.95 28. 17 , 32. 19 1917 1918 Month. No.l, lUi- Dois. No. 2, St. Louis. No. 3, Ne- bras- ka. No. 5, »,„ „ No. 4, New No-S- No.l, Illi- nois. No. 2, St. Louis. No. 3, Ne- bras- ka. No. 4, Ohio. No. 5, New Or- leans. No. 6, Bos- ton. January February $40.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 46.00 48.00 48.00 50.00 52.00 53.00 53.00 $34.50 37.00 37.33 40.33 42.00 43.00 4.5.83 $26.00 26.17 28.50 32.17 34.17 33.50 .■?S S3 $35.24 $34.45 $41.25 37.73 36.36 1 43.67 39.09 38.37 1346.00 $53.00 53.00 53.00 53.00 53.00 53.00 51.00 51.00 51.00 .51.00 51.00 51.00 $53.33 53.50 51.83 49.83 47.67 45.83 48.00 50.67 54.00 .54.00 .53. 33 53.00 $38.00 37.00 39.67 39.33 35.00 33.33 34.00 39.00 44.00 «43. 50 40.67 39.33 $49.69 52.50 57.69 57.29 49.36 43.56 45.91 46.52 47.40 46.92 46.08 46,61 $50.99 52.81 57.76 56.50 56.75 55.22 55. 51 51.93 54.25 .50.39 49.96 50.43 $.58.40 39.50 May 53.46 38.70 48. 28 39. 16 49.26 ; 40.95 53.66 1 48.10 50.12 ! 46.81 48.35 1 44.45 47.23 46.64 47.97 47.86 56.83 53.67 .53.67 63.17 55.25 54.83 54.33 58.50 July 48.83 1 34.17 September October November December 49.17 4S..50 49.50 50.67 33.50 3.5.00 37.50 39.33 .57.00 ,57.67 5.5.67 58.17 Year 46.83 43.89 32.82 48.23 j 40.92 53.06 52.00 51.25 38.57 48.31 53.90 »57.75 1 Prices are f. o. b. factory except those for brand No. 6, which are for deliveries Boston freight rate points. » Average of prices for two dates. > Price for one date only. * Average for 6 months. 6 Average, 11 months. 200 COMMERCIAL, FEEDS. TiBLB 9. ■Average prices per Ion of six brands of stock feeds, by months, January, 1913, to June, 1920, inclusive — Continued. 1919 1920 Month. No.l, Illi- nois. No. 2, 8t. Louis. No. 3, Ne- bras- ka. No. 4, Ohio. No. 5, New Or- leans. No. 6, Bos- ton. No.l, lUl- nois. No. 2, St. Louis. No. 3, Ne- ; No. 4, bras- Ohio. ka. No. 5, Now Or- leans. No. 6, Bos- ton. January February $51.00 51.00 50.00 48.00 46.00 45.00 45.00 4S.00 48.00 4S.00 48.00 50.00 $53.00 $as.G7 48.83 36.00 .50.00 38.00 51.50.1 39.00 51.17 37.07 50.67 , 37.00 52.17 37.00 .5.5.00 36.00 52.67 3.5.33 50. 50 j 35. 00 51.67 37.33 51.33 39.00 $49.08 47.25 47.20 51.55 52.75 .52.99 54.94 60.72 57.48 54.19' 52.05 51.96 $50.97 $59.00 52.03 , 53.00 49.99 53.17 49.25 , 55.83 48. 9S 1 59. S3 50.65 61. 50 $50.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 53.33 54.00 $51.67 52.00 55. 33 00.83 64.33 6.3.33 «$40.00 '$53. 54 ! 56.20 42.67 1 58.94 •39.50 i 60.72 '45.00 i 66.33 45.00 |»68.00 $.5.3.23 51. 84 .58.36 51.97 64.74 64.50 $63.33 64.00 May.'.'.:; July 50.74 51.49 50.57 50.66 49.94 49.74 64.50 69.00 64.67 j September 60. S3 1 November 60.07 61.83 \ Year 4S. 17 51.54 37.00 52. 16 50.48 60.32 «52.22 S57.92 942.43 ,660.29 857.44 «67.75 « Average of prices for two dates. ^ Price for one date only. 8 Average, January-Jane. 9 Avera.tje for five months. Table 10. — Average prices o/six brands o/horse andmulejeeds,/. o. h. factory, by months^ January, 1913, to June, 19^0, inclusive. 1913 1914 Month. No.l, Ne- bras- ka. No. 2, Mem- phis. No. 3, Mem- phis. No. 4, St. Louis. No. 5, St. Louis. No. 6, Ohio. No.l, Ne- bras- ka. No. 2, Mem- phis. No. 3, Mem- phis. No. 4, St. Louis. No. 5, St. Louis. No. 6, Ohio. $20.92 21.25 21.83 22.67 23.67 24.33 21.67 28.67 27. .50 26.33 26.50 25. .83 828. .54 29.55 28.35 28.05 29.95 28.38 24.49 28.35 27.12 26.77 27.59 28.88 $26.47 24.62 25.23 25.45 2.5.30 25.16 26.51 20.02 27.40 27.45 27.81 27.69 $23.00 23.00 23.00 23.33 24.00 25.00 26.00 $25.00 24.67 25.33 26.00 26.50 26.33 26.00 $28.32 28.32 27. .55 28.90 28.35 28.31 27.05 $28.24 27.74 27.39 28.19 28.36 28.22 27.72 29.49 29.21 2,8.59 27.01 28.61 $28.00 27.33 27.17 27.33 27.00 27.50 26.83 29.17 29.50 28.17 27.67 26.33 328.00 27.50 27.75 27.75 28.00 2S.75 28.00 29.25 30.50 29.50 2.S.50 26.00 $23.50 23.00 March 23.00 23-00 Mav 23.00 23.00 Julv 23.17 26.83 28.17 28.17 27.83 28.17 27.83 28.00 26.3.3 25.67 24.67 27.31 29.27 20.72 2.5.66 26.48 24.67 September 26.33 24.17 24.00 26.70 Year 24.35 26.86 ] 26.22 25. M . 26.03 27.59 28.09 27.67 28.29 23.96 1915 1916 Month. No.l, Ne- bras- ka. No. 2, Mem- phis. No. 3, Mem- phis. No. 4, St. Louis. No. 5, St. Louis. No. 6, Ohio. No. 1, Ne- bras- ka. No. 2, Mem- phis. No. 3, Mem- phis. No. 4, St. Louis. No. 5, St. Louis. No. 6, Ohio. $26.33 27.33 29.67 27.83 28.67 27.83 27. .83 28.00 27.00 21. S3 21.83 25.67 26.90 $27. 14 27.74 28.00 28.28 28.47 28.32 2,8.22 27.17 27.46 26.27 25.97 26.25 $28.16 2S.67 28.51 29.24 28.56 28.33 27.86 27.92 26.28 26.67 25.65 26.16 $27.50 29.17 28.33 28.67 29.50 29.17 2,8.67 29.17 2.8.00 27.00 26.07 27.07 $27.75 29.00 29.25 29.25 29. .50 2.8.75 28.50 29.00 28.75 26.75 27.00 27.00 $26.60 27.31 28.04 27.94 27.76 27.71 27.16 27.57 26. .55 24.96 25. 12 25.38 $26. .50 28.00 27.50 28. 67 29.67 29.00 29.33 20.50 29.83 31.00 35. ,83 33.67 S28.05 27.80 29.15 29.50 30.56 30.57 30.05 .30.99 32.25 32.18 31.39 35.48 $28.35 26.48 29.27 29.50 30.21 29.82 28.55 32.22 32.01 31.94 36.73 36.09 30.16 $28.50 30.80 30.00 29. SS 30.00 29.33 30.67 31.50 32.83 33.50 37.83 37.17 31.81 $27.59 28.00 27.50 27.50 28.00 27.50 27.50 27.75 29.00 29.75 34.25 35.00 $26.86 Febniarv March April May June July 27.09 27.17 27.85 28.55 29.12 29.08 August September October November December 30.14 30.82 31.58 .36.66 34.42 Year 27.77 27.57 28.29 28.37 23.45 29.88 31.80 29.10 32.12 APPENDIX TABLES. 201 Table 10,- -Average prices of six brands of horse and inule feeds, f.o. b. factory, by months, January, 191S, to Jime, 19J0, inclusive — Continued. No. 1, Ne- bras- ka. 1917 1918 Month. No. 2, Mem- phis. No. 3,1 No. 4. Mem- 1 St. phis. ] Louis. No. 5, St. Louis. No. 6, Ohio. Nn. 1, Ne- bras- ka. No. 2, Mem- phis. No. 3, Mem- phis. No. 4, St. Louis. No. 5, St. Louis. No. 6, Ohio. January Fcbniary $34.67 37.17 40.17 4.5.67 51.17 50.00 54.67 58.33 57.33 56.50 57.50 56.83 $3.5.91 36.70 36.45 38. 42 41.79 42.81 62.62 54.84 56.30 51.99 .50.23 53.81 $37.07 38.76 38. 42 42.26 42.14 41.54 52.55 56.66 51.37 51.52 49.52 54.02 $37. DO 39.50 41.00 47.67 55.67 54.00 57.33 58.67 57.17 55.67 57.33 59.33 «:w.50 37.00 38.75 "si'oo' 61.00 53.00 64.00 $36.80 38.36 39.27 46.69 51.08 52.30 51.82 6.5.61 49.89 50.51 '49. 45 50.93 $55.00 57.00 69.67 58.33 55.33 62.83 54.83 58.00 67.67 61.00 50.00 52.33 $54.59 66.61 66.16 56.99 54. (.4 55.11 52.92 54.59 &1.87 64.27 63.65 63.57 $.52.70 61.13 61.14 61.. 34 62.95 56.61 57.71 58.44 56.73 54.08 65.97 56.25 860.33 62.17 61.83 58.33 54.33 52.33 5fi.33 58.00 58.33 56.83 55.33 66.00 $50.60 61.00 51.50 50.00 47.60 42.50 44.25 45.00 45.00 50.00 46.50 48.00 >S51.9o 154.21 April May 166.80 S2.95 50.01 July 51.61 September October November December .52.72 61.99 51.60 ■50.77 Year 50.00 41.33 43.39 i 51.69 346.04 1 1 44.07 55.18 &4.74 58.62 67.43 47.65 52.78 1919 1920 Month. No. 1, Ne- bras- ka. No. 2, Mem- phis. No. 3, Mem- phis. No. 4, St. Louis. No. 5, St. Louis. No. 6, Ohio. No. 1, Ne- bras- ka. No. 2, No. 3, Mem- Mem- phis, j phis. No. 4, No. 5, St. j St. Louis. Louis. No. 6, Ohio. January February March $53.00 49.00 51.17 56.33 57.00 58.50 61.00 61.00 65.60 51.17 53.33 55.50 $52.19 52.18 48.08 51.71 51.41 62.98 65.13 67.27 54.23 56.10 54.62 52.01 $56.07 55.21 52.44 51.29 54.03 52.46 54.96 54.76 52.01 49.98 61.78 $56.00 60.67 63.17 56.33 58.17 58.17 60.17 62.00 55.17 51.67 .51.67 $62.00 49.25 49.50 53.00 57.25 59.50 59.75 63.00 58.00 54.25 54.25 56.00 $50.76 48.24 45.41 51.36 52.18 50.72 52.85 55.99 51.07 $67.33 66.67 59.00 63.33 ■66.50 68.00 $51.48 52.19 54.25 $53.46 57.36 58.30 68.25 76.00 74.50 $63.33 53.67 67.50 62.83 69.00 68.83 $58.25 59.50 61.00 63.00 05. 75 272.00 ■S51.51 54.69 56.76 May 67.60 ■' 69. CO July September 49.42 49.89 51.11 i 1 62.92 i 62.50 Year 65.21 52.68 62.86 55.47 55.48 50.22 99. 39 ' Average ol prices for two dates. ' Average, March-December. ' Average, January- June. APPENDIX TABLES. 203 -Average prices per ton of Jour brands of scratch feed, by months, January, 1913, to June, 1920, incliisive.' No. 2, Mem- phis. No. 4, Chicago. No. 2, No. 3, Mem- St. phis. Louis. $29.86 S34.00 31.92 32.00 31.41 32.40 31.39 33.00 31. 2.5 34.00 31. 4fi 34.00 31.35 31.60 33.39 35.00 33.20 37.60 33.42 35.40 32.40 34.60 30.29 33.00 31.94 33.88 No. 4, Chicago. Januarj'... February. March April May Juiie July August, . . September October. . . November. December. Year $32.33 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.50 33.92 34.75 35.75 37. .iS 37.42 37.00 37.00 $31.17 31.09 31.27 31.83 30.96 $29.00 29.00 29.00 29.00 29.00 29.40 31.00 32.00 34. 40 36.00 36.00 34.00 $26.00 28.13 26.13 26.67 27.00 2S. 07 29.67 31.00 32. ,33 31.50 31.33 31.33 $36.08 35.07 36.00 36.50 .36. 17 36. « 36.00 39.17 41.58 39.17 3S.58 37.50 S.30.00 30.00 30.50 30.50 30. .33 31.33 29.83 33.17 30. 17 33.33 32. S3 31.07 2 31.30 31.48 28.98 37.44 31.64 No. 2, No. 3, Mem- St. phis. Louis. $34.09 $35.60 33.03 39.40 35.85 37.00 35. 05 ,37.60 35.43 37.60 31.32 36.40 31.16 35.40 31.03 35.40 28.62 33.00 28.31 32.00 26.75 32.00 26.76 33.40 30.31 35.40 No. 4, Chicago. No. 2, No. 3, Mem- St. phis. Louis. $31.50 $35.00 29.85 3.5.60 30.20 34.40 28.40 34.00 30.27 34.00 31.89 33.60 29.91 34.00 30.83 38.40 34.13 41.00 33.70 42.60 40.31 48.40 44.78 40.40 33.09 38.17 January... February. March April May June July August. . . September October. . . November. December. Year January... February. March April May June July August . . . September October. . . November. December. Year $39.08 42.00 40.83 41.50 42.00 41.17 41.00 41.33 39.58 37.50 36.08 36.42 39.87 No. 2, Mem- phis. $33.83 36.50 36.00 35.67 35.83 34.33 34.17 34.00 31.83 29.83 29.67 31.17 33.57 No. 4, Chicago. $38. 25 39.33 38.50 38.83 39.00 38.33 39.00 42.17 44.83 45.83 51.58 51.33 42.25 $52. 00 54.17 '57.00 <06. 50 72.33 72.17 75.00 83.00 81.83 81.83 82.83 S3. 67 71. S6 $48. 60 50.00 51.60 59.40 68.40 66.00 70.00 79.60 79.40 76.60 73.00 71.60 60.23 $45.67 47.17 49.67 57.67 65.67 65.83 09.33 76.33 75.17 73.33 75.00 73.00 64.49 No. 2, Mem- phis. $70. 39 71.36 72.71 77.80 71.81 68.15 71.72 72.30 71.19 66.86 64.24 64.97 69.82 No. 3, $32.33 33.33 31.50 32.00 32.17 31.67 33.00 30.07 3S.S3 40.07 45.07 44.00 35.99 Chicago. $75. 40 79.00 80.40 77.00 74.40 70.40 71.40 74.00 74.60 70.00 07.00 09.00 73.60 $73.00 75.00 77.67 76.33 72.33 69.00 70.00 71.67 71.00 65.07 62.67 65.17 70.79 1 Prices are f.o.b. factory except those for brand No. I, which are for dehveries Boston freight-rate points. * Average, August-December. ' One price only. * Average of two prices only. 204 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. -Average prices per ton of four brands of scratch feed, by months, January, 1913. to June, 1920, inclusive — Continued. 1919 1920 Month. No. 1, Boston. No. 2, Mem- phis. No. 3, St. Louis. No. 4, Chicago. No.l, Boston. No. 2, Mem- phis. No. 3, St. Louis. No. 4, Chicago. 871.50 66.00 6,5. 33 71.17 72.67 75.00 79. .S3 .S4. 67 •SO. 00 74.33 73. S3 75.33 $65.68 60.20 62.67 67.13 68.90 71.46 74.91 76.55 63.20 63.58 64.70 $69.40 64.60 68.00 72.40 74.00 78.00 81.60 &5.60 77.40 71.60 73.60 75.60 $65.33 68.83 60. ,50 65. 83 69.00 71.33 76.33 82.00 7.1.00 69.00 70.50 72.83 $76. 17 76.60 77.83 79.83 80.17 90.33 $66.75 68.22 68.44 71.50 77.00 78.67 re. 00 73.40 74.00 78.60 85.60 82.00 $72.17 May July 74.14 5 66. 72 74.32 09.71 •81.14 « 71. 70 «7S.27 * Average, 11 month.s. • Average, January-June. Table 14. — Average prices per ton of 5 brands of scratch feed, f. a. b. factory, at specified points, by months, January, 1915, to June, 1920, inclusive. No. 1, New York State. No. 5, Mem- phis. No. 1, New York State. No. 5, Mem- phis. January February.. March April May June July August September. October November. December. . Year. 836. 67 36.50 36.50 36.38 35.17 34.09 33. 29 $33.71 '36.83 35.48 35.49 35.75 34.92 34.12 34.16 31.97 29.42 29.73 28.91 $33.00 37.00 35.00 35.00 36.00 33.60 33.00 33.50 33.25 31.00 31.50 31.50 $34.83 35.50 3,5.83 36,33 38.00 37.00 37.00 36.50 35.17 34.50 31. 60 31.17 $31.77 34.67 35.90 35.01 35.09 33.24 32.23 32.85 29.95 27.23 28.42 29.13 $33.59 35.24 35.00 34.00 34.38 34.21 34.91 37.43 40.98 42.25 46.89 46.20 $32.54 I 33. 59 '31.39 31.44 ' 32. 95 32.08 32.56 36.23 39.31 40.04 46.53 44.96 $32. 25 33.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 31.00 37.00 40.50 41.50 47.00 47.00 $32.00 33.67 33.50 32.00 32.67 33.00 33.17 36.33 40.00 41.50 48.50 46.17 35.86 I 31.56 33.60 35.28 31.63 28.28 29.85 29.96 30.15 30.05 30.12 33.10 36.79 38.31 40.73 43.65 32.92 No. 1, New York State. January $46.25 February ' 48. 30 March i 49.88 April 54.19 May I 65.22 June I 66.77 July ' 66.43 August 70.70 September ' 78.75 October 78.90 November 76.56 December 78. S3 Year 65.80 48.46 49.57 1 58. 91 66.80 67.15 67.96 79.54 74.05 67.36 73.97 79.81 No. 3, St. Louis. 847.00 49.00 52.75 "76.00 75.00 75.50 75.00 47.83 50.17 69.17 87.17 65.83 68. 83 75.83 74.67 73. 17 70.83 70.83 No. 5, Mem- phis. No.l, Now York State. $41.80 42.41 42.65 45. 37 49.27 51.89 65.99 74.05 68.37 69.97 62.89 63.43 $80.13 80.05 79.06 79.36 74.05 71.61 71. 50 71.77 73.60 70.00 67.42 64.75 63. 67 ^ 64. 32 64. 18 56. 83 72.44 $74.70 76.45 S80.40 75.33 70.43 72.16 70.70 71.63 64.56 62.62 64.47 1 68. 53 80.60 76.26 73.00 68.00 69.00 69.00 69.00 71.00 68. 00 69.50 72.27 $71.83 74.33 80.00 77.67 71.67 64. 75 69. 75 74,25 71.58 65.58 64.08 64.58 70.84 No. 5, Mem- phis. 866. 44 66.39 67.21 70.12 6,9. 43 67.91 67.76 68. 76 66,62 67.18 64.96 59.94 07.14 1 Average price for two dates. ' Average for less than 12 months. ' Price ior one date only. APPENDIX TABLES. 205 Table 14. — Average prices per ton of five brands of scratch feed, f. o. h. factory, at speci- fied points, by months, January, 1915, to June, 1920, inclusive — Continued. 1919 1920 Month. No. 1, New York State. No. 2, Ohio. No. 3, St. Louis. No. 4, Illinois. No, 5, Mem- phis. No, 1, New York State. No. 2, Ohio. No. 3, St. Louis. No. 4, Illinois. No. 5, Mem- phis. $65. 10 62.55 61.14 63.81 69.10 71.60 73.90 78.91 79.28 72.40 71.45 71.63 $65.67 60.03 60.56 67.41 70.24 69.08 75.51 81.35 72.41 67.88 68. 65 70.51 S71.00 65.50 67.00 71.50 73. 25 75.50 77.75 85.00 73.00 68,25 70.00 74.25 $67. 58 64.92 62.92 66.58 69.25 73.08 75. 75 81.92 74.58 68.92 69.58 70.42 $62. 81 61.82 57.69 61.66 61.47 67.80 68.99 72.35 71.46 70.15 60.78 63.80 $72. 88 72.36 75.94 78.00 81.00 83.83 $71. 34 73.17 73.59 77.10 86.67 89.00 $76. 50 73.75 72.25 73.75 77.50 '83.00 $72. 25 69.92 71.92 76.58 82.92 84.25 May Julv 1 Year . . 72.74 68.39 72.67 70.46 66.16 •77.34 < 78. 48 < 76. 12 <76.31 * Average, January-June. ' Price for one date only. Table 15. — Average prices per ton of two brands of poultry mash, f. o. b. Boston and St. Louis, respectively, by months, January, 1913, to iune, 1920, inclusive. 1913 1914 1915 1916 Month. No. 1, Boston. No. 2, St. Louis. No.l, Boston. No. 2, St. Louis. No.l, Boston. No. 2, St. Louis. No.l, Boston. No. 2. St. Louis. 831.50 35.17 37.00 37.00 37.00 37.50 37.50 38.17 39.00 38.67 38.50 38.67 $32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.40 34.00 35.00 37.40 39.00 39.00 37.00 $38.17 38.00 38.00 39.00 38,17 38, Off 38.00 39.83 40.50 38.50 38.50 38.67 $37.00 35.00 35.40 36.00 37.00 37.00 34.60 38.00 40.60 38.10 37.60 36.00 $39.00 40.00 39.00 40.17 40.17 40. ,50 40.00 40.00 39.00 38.00 37.00 37.17 $38.60 42.40 40.00 37.60 37.60 37.00 37.00 38.00 36.00 35.00 35.00 36.40 838.00 38.83 38.67 38.50 38.50 37.50 37.50 38.83 41.83 42.67 45.83 45.83 April. May Julv Year 37.14 34.48 38.61 36.88 39.17 37.55 40.21 1917 1918 1919 1920 Month. No. 1, Boston. No. 2, St. Louis. No.l, Boston. No. 2, St. Louis. No.l, Boston. No. 2, St. Louis. No.l, Boston. No. 2, St. Louis. $46.33 48.67 ' 50.00 2 60,00 61.67 59.33 59.67 64.00 61.50 62.50 65.17 67.17 $44. 40 45.60 49.00 56.60 63.40 62.40 64.40 65.40 64.60 65.00 65.00 66.00 $69.67 71.00 73.50 7.3.00 73.00 73.00 73.00 73.00 72.67 71.67 71.00 71.00 $65.60 68.60 69.60 67.00 65.60 65.00 63.40 64.60 72.00 72.00 72.00 74.00 $73.00 70.00 70.17 71.00 72.00 72.33 73.33 76.33 76.83 74.50 74,33 75,33 $74.60 71.60 72.00 75.60 74.00 74.00 75.60 80.60 76.60 73.60 75.00 75.40 $76. 17 78.83 79.67 82.17 85.67 87.50 77 OO March April 82 00 May July Year 58.83 59.32 72.13 68.28 73.26 74.88 '81.67 1 Price for one date only. 2 Average of prices for two dates. 3 Average, January-June. 206 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. Table 16. — Average prices per ton oj three brands of poultry mash, j. o. b. Jactory, at northern Illinois points, by months, January, 1917, to June, 1920, inclusive. Monlli. 1917 191S 1919 1 1920 No. 1. No. 2. No. -.). No. 1. No. 2. No. 3. No. 1. No. 2. No. 8. No.1. No. 2. $74.00 75. 33 78. 17 SI.67 St4.67 83.33 No. 3. .S43.67 46.33 45.67 54.00 57.67 $43. 17 44.83 47.33 5.5.33 61.00 62.33 65.33 67. .S3 63.50 59.50 63.33 83. 67 'm'.ob' 51.00 58.33 60.00 60.00 68.33 66.00 67. a? 66.00 69.00 S61.67 63.00 64.00 62.00 59. .^i 58.58 58.42 82.42 65.42 66.2) 66.92 66.75 165.50 70. S3 71. .W 69.33 67.17 65.83 66.33 69.50 72.67 67.00 68.00 69.83 $69.00 72.00 75.67 77.00 77.00 72.00 72.00 75.00 7.5.00 73.67 73.00 73.00 J88.08 68.75 70.75 74. 75 81.25 82. 75 83. OS 86.75 86. 08 81.75 79.75 78. OS $68.83 6J. .iO 64.8:i 67.60 71. .50 71.00 74. M 78.92 75.67 72.00 72.17 73.17 $73.00 74.33 7.3. 1)0 73.00 7.3. OO 73.00 7.3.00 79.67 8.3.00 80.00 80.00 SO. 67 S79. 75 7'J. :.", 79. 7.-. 79. 75 88.42 89.75 Febniary 82.67 8:).00 85.00 8.8.00 91 on Julv ,i8. .S3 61.50 61.50 61.. W on. 67 60.00 September '82.86 >79.3« Year 55. S2 58.10 : 61. 70 62.90 68.62 73.69 78.48 71.22 76.31 »85.28 1 AveraKC of two pricc;^. 2 Average March-December. ' Average January-June. o LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 002 816 957 74