meats. In certain kinds of cotton seed, such as the variety known as the petriken, the seed has no lint on it and, therefore, it is almost impossible to make a separation of hulls. In the sea island cotton seed, which contains no fiber after it is ginned, it is also impossible to make a separation in this case and they usually grind up the seed and press the oil from this and leave the hulls and meats together. This is called sea island cotton seed meal which contains about 3.7 per cent nitrogen, or about 23 per cent protein.

After the seeds are crushed by the "huller knives," the meats pass through a series of rolls into heaters and are then cooked. The meats go into a "former" and these meats are put in a press and under high pressure the oil is extracted, which makes it into a cake and this is known as "cotton seed cake" and is sold as such on the market. The crude oil that comes from the cakes is sent to the refineries and the free fatty acid is taken from it and leaves a bright yellow oil known as "prime summer oil." This oil is bleached colorless and the odor taken from it. The refined oil is also used largely to take the place of and as a substitute for olive oil. The residue left from the refining of this oil is used in making soap. There is also a product, a gummy material, that is used in paints.

WHY HULLS ARE PRESENT.

Now as to the amount of hulls present in a meal, it is absolutely necessary that the sieves be so arranged that a certain percentage of the hulls go with the meats so that a maximum amount of the oil may be extracted, as you will most readily see that the oil is the most valuable product from the cotton seed. If there were no hulls present, there would be a mass from which it would be impossible to extract the oil with profit. The amount of meal taken from a ton of cotton seed varies considerably with the kind of seed, the season, and the locality in which it is grown, but there is an average of about 850 pounds of meal. The amount of meal that is obtained from a ton of cottonseed has nothing to do with its protein content-that is, in the ordinary method of manufacture. I will say that there is no fixed relationship between these two figures. For example, I have before me the figures of a manufacturer, taken at random, showing 714 pounds of meal from a ton of seed containing 7.5 per cent ammonia and another showing 901 pounds of meal from a ton containing 7.64 per cent ammonia. This shows that the per cent ammonia. present is practically the same, and there was considerably more pounds. of meal made in the latter case than in the former.

ASKS FOR "SQUARE DEAL."

I believe that in fixing standards as to what should be cotton seed meal and what should not be called cotton seed meal, we should take into

consideration what meal a manufacturer can make and the analysis of the same, in the ordinary course of manufacture. You will note that this product is one of the richest in protein of any on the market, and it should not be discriminated against, but given a square deal. I believe that no product that has food value should be outlawed or discriminated against and should be sold for exactly what it is, whether it be oat hulls, cotton seed hulls, oats, corn or cotton seed meal.

As to what is the cause of the different colors of meals; some being dark, some light, and some brown, I do not know. I do not approve of the use of any products as a feed in which fermentation or molds have formed. It has been stated that the cause of dark meal is that fermentation has taken place, but I know that the color is not always an indication that the meal is spoiled, because it is said that dark meal may be derived from what is known as "continuous cooking process." I have received a preliminary statement from an investigator in one of our colleges who has been feeding dark meal under very close observation and considerable degree of skill, and as yet no ill effects have been observed. I am of the opinion that this product should actually be sold on its protein content, if it is possible to educate the purchaser along this line. A good many states have standards for feeds as to the minimum content of protein and many manufacturers have only changed their formulas to meet this standard by adding some cotton seed meal.

Now it appears to me that in arriving at a standard which is just and right both to the manufacturer and consumer, we place the standard so that manufacturers can comply with the law and be able to sell as meal that product that comes from the oil mill in the ordinary course of manufacture.

FEED FOR FATTENING STEERS.

BY PROF. C. S. PLUMB,

Department of Animal Husbandry, Ohio State University, Columbus, O.

Feeders of beef cattle in Ohio must study the cost of production with much care. High priced feed and high priced land make it difficult to feed steers with profit.

DESIRABLE COMBINATION.

Under our ordinary Ohio farm conditions, clover hay, corn stover, corn on the ear, shelled or as corn meal, with oil meal or cotton seed meal in a small way, will give good results. The use of ten to fifteen per cent oil meal or cotton seed meal, with 85 to 90 per cent of corn will make a very desirable combination. At present prices, cotton seed meal

is one of the very cheapest concentrated foods the steer feeder can buy. If one has good clover hay, this with corn alone, will do very well. In steer feeding experiments at the Indiana experiment station, a combination of about 81⁄2 pounds clover hay and 191⁄2 pounds corn gave an average daily gain of two pounds for 1,000 pound steers.

Steers fed clover six months did distinctly better than those fed timothy in place of clover.

VALUE OF SILAGE.

In the economical feeding of cattle, no food surpasses silage in value. Many silos are being constructed in Ohio in these recent years, but mainly for use with dairy cattle. Yet enough feeding has been conducted with steers, where silage formed a part of the ration, to demonstrate that this is a most valuable food. The experiment stations of Ohio, Illinois and Indiana have conclusively shown that steers fed silage made good use of it. Mr. Carmichael, at the Ohio station, fed one lot of steers a combination of 24.3 pounds silage, 5 pounds mixed hay, 0.8 pounds corn stover, 14.9 pounds shelled corn, and 1.7 pounds cotton seed meal, and another lot 11.2 pounds mixed hay, 1.7 pounds corn stover, 17.8 pounds shelled corn and 1.7 pounds cotton seed meal. The steers had an average weight of 955 pounds each and were fed 140 days. The silage fed lot required 714 pounds of grain, 1,043 pounds silage and 215 pounds of hay for 100 pounds gain in live weight, while the other lot required 845 pounds grain and 845 pounds mixed hay for 100 pounds gain. Cattle fed silage ship equally well with those not so fed.

Our Ohio farmers engaged in steer feeding will do well to establish silos on their farms, if they have not already done so, if they wish to make use of one of the cheapest and most palatable food stuffs for cattle.

CEREAL MILLING OFFALS.

BY S. K. JOHNSON,

Ohio Department of Agriculture.

In order to elicit expression from feed manufacturers and those having in charge the inspection of feeding stuffs in the various states, The Ohio Department of Agriculture sent out several hundred letters to feed control officials and feed manufacturers asking what materials they considered cereal milling by-products and cereal milling offals, and whether the nutritive value of "offals" was commensurate with the price asked, with the result that the replies were most interesting, but showed a lack of uniformity of opinion as to what are considered the cereal

milling "by-products" and "offal" products. For instance, wheat bran is classed as a milling "by-product" in one section and as a milling "offal" in another section.

As there is no legal or trade distinction between the terms "byproducts" and "offals," shall this convention go on record as attempting to formulate a clear and satisfactory definition of the terms as used today, thus terminating sectional interpretation affecting the true meaning of the terms "by-products" and "offal"?

DEFINITIONS.

Based upon my investigations, and in accordance with the foregoing remarks, I have reached the conclusion that a generally recognized definition of these terms is desirable, and would suggest for your consideration those definitions which have occurred to me as probably meeting all requirements.

Cereal Milling By-Products are feeding stuffs made from the one time cereal "offals" incidental to the manufacture of human food, and which have a recognized market and food value independent of the principal product manufactured.

Cereal Milling Offals are waste materials of little or no market and food value as a raw material, such as rice hulls, oat hulls, corn cob and similar refuse, and from which no product of value is derived, and which are often used to adulterate and debase for fraudulent purposes “byproducts" with a recognized commercial and food value.

CEREALS.

The six most important cereals of the world are wheat, rye, barley, maize, oats and rice. Rye is the leading cereal of northern Europe, and barley of southern Europe, while rice is the leading cereal of Asia. In this country the three just mentioned occupy a minimum place, while maize, wheat and oats occupy by far the largest part of the cultivated

area.

Cereal is a grass grown for its edible grain, and is applied to the plant as a whole and to the grain itself. This definition would exclude buckwheat as a cereal, though it is generally so classed, because the seed is used in the same manner as the true cereals.

CEREAL MILLING.

Cereal milling, once a rural industry, has undergone a complete revolution in the course of the last thirty years. Refuse materials once considered valueless have with the aid of science and the necessity of the times become useful. The profits of manufacturers are now often made

entirely from the refuse formerly thrown away, and which are now clearly "by-products."

What is today known as the "by-products" of starch and glucose factories, flouring mills, breweries and distilleries, were only a short time ago classed as milling offals. Possibly due, no doubt, to the fact that manufacturers found it difficult and expensive to dispose of them; there being no commercial demand at the time. Today they have a value all their own, and are an important factor in the earnings of the various industries. "Offals" through some scientific discovery may acquire a fixed commercial value, which must necessarily take it from the “offal” class and place it in the "by-product" class. In the same manner, by the discovery of some cheaper or more useful method, a "by-product" may be relegated to the "offal" class. Thus any definition of these terms which may be agreed upon must ever be subject to change with the advance of scientific discovery.

BY-PRODUCTS.

The cereal milling "by-products" are understood to include feeding stuffs made from the cereals incidentals to the manufacture of human food, or chief product.

The term "by-product" is defined as a secondary or additional product, something produced, as in the course of a process of manufacture, in addition to the principal product or material, and of value independent thereof.

Where milling "by-products" and milling "offals" begin, is a question for you to determine. It is here that my suggestion as to those definitions is a matter for consideration. The "by-products" of wheat we know as bran, shorts, middlings, shipstuff and red dog flour; of corngluten meal, gluten feed, corn feed meal, hominy feed, corn germ meal and corn distillers dried grains. of rye, rye bran and rye middlings; of barley, brewers' grains, malt sprouts and barley feed; of oats, oat middlings, oat groats and oat feed; of rice, rice bran, rice polish and rice meal. These "by-products" make nutritious and excellent feed.

Some mills question the use of the term "by-product" as the name for mill feeds, because they have become a most essential factor in milling, and are far from being of secondary consideration. A one-time "by-product" through increased demand may become the principal production of a factory, thus relegating to the position of "by-product" that which was originally the principal product.

If the millers themselves question and disagree as to the use of the term "by-product," which means a secondary or additional product, is it not just as essential that this convention take action also on the term "offal," which means waste? The two terms have for a long time been confused and used synonymously, when such should not be the case.