16616. Adulteration   and   misbranding:   of   feed.    V.   S.   -v.   The   Deal   Bros. 
Milling   Co.     Plea   of   guilty.     Fine,   $25   and   costs.     (P.   &   D,   No.
22601.    I, S. Nos. 20378-x, 20379-x, 20380-x, 20381-x.)
At the May, 1929, term of the United States District Court for the District 
of Maryland, held at Cumberland, the United States attorney for the District 
of Maryland, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
District Court aforesaid an information against the Deal Bros, Milling Co., 
a corporation, Cumberland, Md., alleging shipment by said company, in viola- 
tion of the food and drugs act, in various consignments, on or about December 
31, 1927, January 12, February 27, and March 16, 1928, respectively, from the 
I State of Maryland, in part into the State of West Virginia, and in part into the 
\ State of Virginia, of quantities of feed, a portion of which was misbranded, 
I and the remainder of which was adulterated and misbranded. The article was 
| labeled in part, variously. " Ho-Mo Dairy Feed Analysis Protein 24% Fat 7% 
!
I Fibre 10% Ingredients Corn Gluten Feed, Cotton Seed Meal, Oil Meal, Wheat 
,
Bran, Ground Oats, Corn Feed Meal, Salt. Manufactured by The Deal Bros. 
Milling Co. Cumberland, Md.; " " Jersey Brand Scratch Feed * * * Analy- 
| sis Protein 10% * * * Manufactured By The Deal Bros. Milling Co. Cum- 
t berland, Md.;" " Jersey Dairy Feed 16% Analysis Protein 16% * * * 
I Fiber 12% Ingredients Wheat Bran, Ground Corn, Com Gluten Feed, Cotton 
I Seed Meal, Oil Meal, Beground Oats, Feed, Salt.    Manufactured By The Deal 
!
1 Bros. Milling Co. Cumberland, Md." 
|     Adulteration was alleged in the information with respect to the Ho-Mo dairy 
I feed for the reason that a product deficient in protein, fat, oil meal, wheat bran, 
/
|- and ground oats, and which contained excessive crude fiber, undeclared flax 
1
I by-product, and oat mill by-product had been substituted for a product com- 
'
I posed wholly of corn gluten feed, cottonseed meal, oil meal, wheat bran, ground 
j
I oats, corn feed meal, and salt, which the article purported to be.   Adulteration 
I
*? of the Jersey dairy feed was alleged for the reason that a product deficient in 
J
l protein, wheat bran, and oil meal, and which contained excessive crude fiber 
} aad an undeclared flax by-product, with respect to a portion of the product, 
i and a product deficient in protein, wheat bran, corn gluten feed, and oil meal, 
| and which contained excessive crude fiber, with respect to the remainder of 
| the said product, had been substituted for a product composed wholly of wheat 
| bran, ground corn, corn gluten feed, cottonseed meal, oil meal, reground oats, 
I feed, and salt, which the article purported to be.
| Misbranding of the Ho-Mo dairy feed was alleged for the reason that the 
I statements, to wit, " Ingredients Corn. Gluten Feed, Cotton Seed Meal, Oil 
i Meal, Wheat Bran, Ground Oats, Corn Feed Meal, Salt," and "Analysis Protein 
\24% Fat 7% Fibre 10%," borne on the sacks containing the article, were false 
|-and misleading in that the said statements represented that the said article 
I consisted wholly of corn gluten feed, cottonseed meal, oil meal, wheat bran, 
I ground oats, corn feed meal, and salt, and contained not less than 24 per- cent 
!
I of protein, not less than 7 per cent of fat, and not more than 10 per cent of 
fflber, and for the further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to de- 
jceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that it consisted wholly of 
|,eorn gluten feed, cottonseed meal, oil meal, wheat bran, ground oats, corn feed 
jyaeal, and salt, and contained not less than 24 per cent of protein, not less 
j2ian 7 per cent of fat, and not more than. 10 per cent of fiber, whereas, said 
particle did not consist wholly of the said declared ingredients but did consist 
fpf a product deficient in oil meal, wheat bran, and ground oats,  and which ' '
Icontaiued an excessive undeclared flax by-product and an excessive oat mill 
pMproduct, and which contained less than 24 per cent of protein, less than 7 
,
per cent of fat, and more than 10 per cent of fiber, to wit, approximately 19.43 | 
per cent of protein, approximately 4.12 per cent of fat, and 10.19 per cent of | 
fiber. Misbranding of the Jersey brand scratch feed was alleged for the rea- * 
son that the statement, to wit, "Analysis Protein 10%," borne on the sacks 
containing the article, was false and misleading in that the said statement 
represented that the al'ticle contained not less than 10 per cent of protein, and 
for the further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and 
mislead the purchaser into the belief that it contained not less than 10 per 
cent of protein, whereas it did contain less than 10 per cent of protein, to wit, | 
approximately 9.2 per cent of protein. Misbranding of the said Jersey dairy 
feed was alleged for the reason that the statements, to wit, "Ingredients 
Wheat Bran, Ground Corn, Corn Gluten Feed, Cotton Seed Meal, Oil Meal, 
Reground Oats, Feed, Salt" and "Analysis Protein 16%' * * * Fiber 12%," 
borne on the sacks containing the article, were false and misleading in that 
the said statements represented, that the article consisted wholly of wheat bran, 
ground com, corn gluten feed, cottonseed meal, oil meal, reground oats, feed, 
and salt, and contained not less than 16 per cent of protein and not more than 
12 per cent of fiber, and for the further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid 
so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that it consisted 
wholly of wheat bran, ground corn, corn gluten feed, cottonseed meal, oil meal, \ 
reground oats, feed, and salt, and contained not less than 16 per cent of pro- j 
tein and not more than' 12 per cent of fiber, whereas the said article did i 
not consist wholly of the said declared ingredients, but a portion of said article \ 
consisted of a product deficient in wheat bran and oil meal and which con- \ 
tained an undeclared flax by-product and which contained less than 16 per cent \ 
of protein, to wit, approximately 13.9? per cent of protein, and which contained \ 
more than 12 per cent of fiber, to wit, approximately 14.09 per cent of fiber, : 
and the remainder of said article consisted of a product deficient in wheat 1 
bran, corn gluten feed, and oil meal, which contained less than 36 per cent I 
of protein, to wit, approximately 12.81 per cent of protein, and which con- \ 
tained more than 12 per cent of fiber, to wit, approximately 13.42 per cent of , 
fiber. 
;
On May 14, 1929, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf ! 
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $25 and costs. ]
ART-HUB M. HYDEJ, Secretary of AffricuZtwe,     )