• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Main














Group Title: Biennial report of the Department of Agriculture of the State of Florida.
Title: Biennial report of the Department of Agriculture, State of Florida
ALL VOLUMES CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00053494/00004
 Material Information
Title: Biennial report of the Department of Agriculture, State of Florida
Alternate Title: Biennial report of the State Department of Agriculture
Biennial report (Florida Dept. of Agriculture)
Physical Description: 40 v. : ill. ; 23-29 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Florida -- Dept. of Agriculture
Publisher: The Dept.
Place of Publication: Tallahassee Fla
Publication Date: 1925-1926
Frequency: biennial
regular
 Subjects
Subject: Agriculture -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Dates or Sequential Designation: -40th (July 1, 1966-June 30, 1968).
Dates or Sequential Designation: Began with 1st report for 1891?
General Note: Title varies slightly.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00053494
Volume ID: VID00004
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 12642663
 Related Items
Succeeded by: Biennial report

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page 1
    Main
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 118
Full Text







NINTH

BIENNIAL REPORT

Of The


Department of Agriculture
Inspection Division


STATE OF FLORIDA



Division Of Pure Food And Drugs, Stock
Feed, Fertilizer, Oil And Citrus Fruit



FOR THE YEARS 1925 AND 1926




NATHAN MAYO,
Commissioner of Agriculture
TALLAHASSEE, FLA.


Ptg.Dept.-Fla.Ind.School for Boys
















LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL



THE STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
INSPECTION DIVISION

Tallahassee, Jan. 15, 1927.

Hon. John W. Martin,
Governor of the State of Florida,
Tallahassee.
Sir:
In pursuance of Section 27, of Article 4, of the Constitu-
tion of the State of Florida, I beg to submit herewith the
Biennial Report of the Division of Pure Food and Drugs,
Stock Feed, Fertilizer, Oil and Citrus Fruit for the years
1925 and 1926.
Respectfully Submitted,
NATHAN MAYO,
Commissioner of Agriculture.













PERSONNEL OF THE INSPECTION DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE



NATHAN MAYO, COMMISSIONER

PURE FOOD AND DRUGS, STOCK FEED, FERTILIZER, OIL AND
CITRUS FRUIT

J. Hinton Pledger, Chief Clerk and Supervis'g Inspector.
R. J. Mays, Clerk and Cashier.
Nails Berryman, Oil Chemist.
Mrs. Eugene Davis, Stenographer.
Miss Helen Parks, Stenographer.
Miss Margaret Walker, Stenographer.
J. B. Wilkerson, Inspector, Pensacola.
D. P. Daniel, Inspector, Marianna.
J. B. Brinson, Inspector, Madison.
Wm. McCarrel, Inspector, Jacksonville.
Nathan Mayo, Jr., Inspector, Ocala.
A. N. Turnbull, Inspector, Daytona.
J. W. Davis, Inspector, Ocala.
Ellis Woodworth, Inspector, Tampa.
J. B. Taylor, Inspector, West Palm Beach.
I. D. Stone, Inspector, Lakeland.
S. W. Clark, Inspector, Ft. Myers.
W. D. Eminisor, Jr., Inspector, Miami.
G. W. Britt, Inspector, Tampa.











FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF
REVENUE COLLECTED DURING THE
YEARS 1925 AND 1926


Sale Fertilizer Stamps 1925 .....$
Sale Feed Stamps 1925..............
Sale C. S. Meal Stamps 1925........


Total for year 1925 ............
Sale Fertilizer Stamps 1926....... $
Sale Feed Stamps 1926 ......
Sale C. S. Meal Stamps 1926 .....


98,892.58
66,689.97
727.50


Total for year 1926 ...........
Sale Citrus Fruit Stamps 1925....$ 37,246.58
Refund from Arthur Thomas
1926 ....... ......................... 23.62
Sale Citrus Fruit Stamps 1926 .... 35,413.41

Total Receipts for 1925-6 ...
Oil Inspection Tax (1-8c) 1925 $285,150.61
Oil Inspection Tax 1926 ......... 399,820.67


$148,242.83




$166,310.05





$ 72,683.61


Total Receipts for 1925-6 $684,971.28
Total Gross receipts for 1925-6........................ $1,072,207.77
Total operating expenses both years .............. 235,902.49

Net Balance both years ............................$ 836,305.28


88,446.80
58,577.03
1,219.00











RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS-1925


RECEIPTS


DISBURSEMENTS


Jan. ..................$ 43,072.51 Jan. ..................$ 641.52
Feb ................... 40,627.09 Feb. .................. 385.42
March ................ 33,681.62 March ................ 249.10
April .................. 28,763.17 April .................. 136.29
May .................. 34,689.60 May .................. 520.07
June ................. 13,483.30 June .................. 379.93
July .................... 26,606.52 July .................. 602.65
Aug. .................. 31,416.11 Aug. .................. 2,776.87
Sept. .................. 44,281.03 Sept. .............. 9,716.54
Oct. .................. 61,763.15 Oct. .................. 25,306.57
Nov. .................. 60,512.70 Nov. .................. 34,833.76
Dec. .................. 51,743.22 Dec. .................. 3,231.62

Totals .........$..$470,640.02 $ 78780.34
Net Recpts. 391,859.68

$470,640.02 $470,640.02
RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS-1926
RECEIPTS DISBURSEMENTS
Jan. ..................$ 57,694.75 Jan. .............. $ 4,816.89
Feb. .................... 55,257.65 Feb. .............. 4,392.82
March ................ 53,986.67 March .......... 4,553.47
April .................. 44,854.75 April ............ 4,636.23
M ay .................... 47,979.46 M ay .............. 4,815.07
June ................. 39,552.69 June .............. 5,010.82
July .................. 37,701.12 July .................. 4,785.23
August ............ 37,277.66 August ............ 7,805.70
Sept. ................. 49,945.58 Sept. .................. 16,881.37
Oct ................... 57,638.43 Oct. .............. 39,953.53
Nov. .................. 67,950.30 Nov. .............. 54,179.39
Dec. .................. 51,728.69 Dec. ................ 5,291.63

Totals ................$601,567.75 157,122.15
Net Recpts. 444,445.60
$601,567.75 $601,567.75









7

ESTABLISHMENT OF INSPECTION DIVISION
The Inspection Division of the Florida Department of
Agriculture was created by the enactment of Chapter 10149
by our last Legislature, which consolidated the inspector-
ships of Pure Food and Drugs, Stock Feed, Fertilizer, Oil
and Citrus Fruit, so .as to provide for full time inspectors,
-and as many extra inspectors as might be necessary
during the Citrus Fruit Inspection Season, September 1st,
to November 26th, all of whom are commissioned and
designated as "Inspectors of The Inspection Division,"
and are authorized to inspect all commodities subject to
inspection as provided by the various laws placed under
the jurisdiction of the "Inspection Division" for enforce-
ment.







iI


- ----------


PERSONNEL OF INSPECTION FORCE.


ALI,













PARAMOUNT PURPOSE OF PURE FOOD LAW
By
J. Hinton Pledger, Chief Clerk and Supervising Inspector.

It is a well established fact that the prime and sole
purpose of the Pure Food Law, which is plain upon its face,
is to protect the public health from injury by the unwitting
consumption or use of harmful products. It also serves
the further purpose of maintaining public morals in trade
and establishes honest business customs.

It reverses the harsh and common law rule of "caveat
emptor" (let the buyer beware) and substitutes for it the
enlightened rule of "caveat Venditor" (let the seller be-
ware). Viewed in the light of its purpose it commands no
one to make or to sell. At the same time it interferes in
no way with the freedom to make and to sell, except to
enjoin purity of product, truth of label and legitimacy of
trade. It operates to promote freedom in trade by clearing
its channels of the barriers of illicit trade, with the result
that honest business is permitted to succeed in accordance
with its merit.

It does not dictate to the consumer what he shall buy
or consume. These are matters of personal discretion.
Thus, the consumer occupies the unique position of autocrat
of his own table. For the most part it is more a law of
social betterment than one of penalty for wrong, since it
serves to make the lives of our people happier by preserving
their health and keeping them well.

Conservative Enforcement Found Best.

Under our conservative enforcement of the law, actual
prosecution is made as the last resort, since the mere power
to prosecute is generally a safeguard. In most cases, noti-
fication to the violator brings reception of the damaging











power of unfavorable publicity, and proves effective in
righting conditions.

It would seem that the militant attitude on the part
of any food official should be exercised through a disposition
to provide for the safety and welfare of his people by
marshalling the forces of enlightened opinion in a strong
array against any apparent deterrent to retard or endanger
the public health.

Just how accurate food control laws may be satisfac-
torily enforced cannot be foretold, since so much depends
upon supply and demand, as well as methods of sanitation
by manufacturers and distributors.

Result Of Enforcement

During the year just closed there was condemned and
destroyed by Inspectors of the Inspection Division, approxi-
mately twenty thousand cans and packages of filthy and
decomposed articles of food, found on shelves of retail stores
throughout the State, but we have met with hearty cooper-
ation, for the most part, in our attempt to prevent this class
of unwholesome food from reaching the hands of the con-
sumer. At present both the wholesale and retail stores
throughout the State are relatively free from adulterated,
misbranded, deleterious and unwholesome articles of food
of all kinds.

PRESERVATION OF PERISHABLE FOODS

By
L. M. Rhodes, State Marketing Commissioner.

There are many factors which materialize in the pres-
ervation of perishable foods.
Preservation also means conservation, and conserva-











tion means preservation, and using both of these words it
is possible to cover many phases of the subject.

But I shall only endeavor to touch briefly a few of the
vital things in the preservation of perishable foods.

The preservation of all foods is important, but we all
know that if all perishable foods were preserved and all
farm lands produced all they are capable of producing, every
farmer would be in financial bankruptcy. For there would
be no profitable market. For markets are made by the
amount of products offered for sale, and the number of
people who want to buy them.

Insects destroy $80,000,000 worth of trees annually in
the U. S. Many of them are fruit and nut bearing trees
and much fruit or food could be saved by controlling these
insects.

There are $2,000,000,000 worth of crops and livestock
destroyed annually in the United States by insects, birds,
rodents and predatory animals. Much of this is perishable
food crops.
It is estimated that rats alone destory $70.000,000
worth of food and feed annually in this country.
200,000 farm animals are killed or crippled per annum
in shipping in this country.

120,000,000 dozen eggs and $30,000,000 worth of
poultry are thrown in the dump heap annually in the United
States on account of poor handling, a total loss of
$75,000,000.
81 percent of our food is cereals, meat and potatoes.
Both meat and potatoes require special care and storage
to properly preserve them.
It has been estimated that there is an approximate loss
of $500,000,000 annually in the United States on account of










poor handling, deterioration, damage in transit, poor storage
facilities, etc.

Perishable foods go through the following stages. On
the farm or through the processes of production, on the
road to market, in the market.
On the farm food can be conserved by insect and dis-
ease control by careful harvesting and handling, culling,
grading, packing, pre-cooling, canning, preserving and dry-
ing.
On the road, careful loading, prompt shipping, proper
routing, refrigeration, quick diversions, speedy unloads and
quick delivery to prevent damage and deterioration.
In the market, regrading, sorting and repacking, stor-
age, careful handling, quick delivery to prevent spoilage.
I have no doubt that ten or fifteen thousand carloads
of perishable foods could be saved every year in Florida by
canning, preserving, dehydrating and the manufacture of
preserves, jellies, marmalades and fruit juices.
The right kind of storgae houses and cold storage
plants would mean a great saving in potatoes and other
vegetables, meats and poultry products.
Florida has been so abundantly blessed with fresh
food that we have not preserved the waste as we should.
If we would preserve our citrus fruit juices and advertise
enough to induce half the people to drink one glass of citrus
fruit juice per week it would require 30,000,000 boxes of
fruit to supply them and if everybody in the United States
would average consuming two glasses of citrus fruit juice
per week it would take all the citrus fruit produced in the
Western hemisphere to supply them and it can be manu-
factured and sold at 5c a glass and everybody that touches
the fruit from the grower of the fruit to the seller of the
drink can make money and the consumer would be getting
his money's worth and if the people in our great population










centers drank as much pure healthful citrus fruit juices
as they do other drinks it would probably require laying
a pipe line to supply them.
The canning, preserving, drying and packing in all
kinds of containers for the preservation of perishable foods
is now and always will be important. But in this modern,
lightning age, when it requires 720,000,000 tons of food
annually to feed the world, 100,000 maximum carloads daily,
or the food consumed each day by the people of the world
would load a solid freight train 700 miles long.
Weather conditions and seasons prevent this from being
produced as it is needed and much of it is consumed
thousands of miles from where it is produced. Beef pro-
duced in Argentina may be consumed in London, or Berlin.
Pork produced in Kansas may be consumed in South Amer-
ica. Eggs produced in the United States may be consumed
in Paris, and butter or cabbage produced in Denmark may
be consumed in Florida. So in order to regulate the food
to the demands of those who consume it, rapid transporta-
tion, ample refrigeration, and enormous cold storage facil-
ities are required. Our system of distribution of food and
preservation of perishable foods has become so perfect that
no matter where people live they can enjoy a great variety
of food coming from every nook and corner of the earth's
surface.










METHODS OF HANDLING AND DISPOSITION OF
SPOILED CANNED GOODS

By
Dr. W. D. Bigelow, National Commissioner.
In discussing spoiled canned foods it is necessary to
consider also cans which are abnormal from some other
cause than spoilage. Unmerchantable canned foods may be
advantageously considered under four headings:

(1) Springers, flippers and hydrogen swells.
(2) Swells due to bacterial decomposition.
(3) Flat sours.
(4) Leaky cans.
A Brief Discussion of Packers' Cans. It will be re-
membered that ordinary packers' cans are made of tin plate
which consists of a steel sheet coated on each side with from
0.07 to 1.5 percent of tin. This tin coating is not entirely
continuous. With the best methods in manufacture of tin
plate there are many small pores through the tin coating,
thus exposing microscopic areas of uncoated tin to the con-
tents of the can. It would be better if the coating could
be absolutely continuous, but the condition just described
is normal and no way of overcoming it is known.
The ordinary tin plate (so-called coke plate) used in
the majority of packers' cans carries on both sides an
average of about 1.4 per cent of tin. Higher weights of
coating exert a measure of protection against corrosion, and
on this account tin plate with a heavier coating is used with
some fruits which have the greatest tendency to corrosion
and which can be sold for a sufficient price to warrant the
expense of the heavier coating.
Certain acid products such as kraut and some fruits
have a tendency to attack the tin and iron of the can, dis-











solving a small amount of both and giving off hydrogen gas
as the result of the action. Various products act differ-
ently in attacking the tin and iron. Fruits generally dis-
solve both tin and iron, but dissolve more tin than iron be-
cause a greater amount of tin than iron is exposed to the
contents of the can.

Certain fruits have a tendency to pit the iron, however,
and eventually perforate the cans, especially at the ends.
Kraut, on the other hand, attacks the iron rather than
the tin. It dissolves very little tin but seems to find its
way through the small pores to which reference is made
above, and dissolves the iron from under the tin coating.
In spite of this, however, kraut does not pit the plate deeply
and rarely, if ever, perforates the can. This solution of
tin and iron by canned fruits bleaches the color of red fruits,
and to prevent this, red fruits are generally packed in
enameled cans. This inside coating of lacquer or enamel
protects the color of the fruit, but greatly increases the
tendency of the fruit to perforate the can and even to form
springers, flippers and hydrogen swells.
Springers, Flippers and Hydrogen Swells. In the pack-
ing of canned foods the product is filled into the can hot, or
the can and its contents are heated before sealing so that
the contents are usually at a temperature of from 120 to
200 degrees when the can is sealed.
After the can is processed and cooled, it usually con-
tains a partial vacuum owing to the high temperature of the
contents when the can is sealed. When acid products act
on the tin plate, the hydrogen formed gradually reduces
this vacuum and then gradually produces pressure. In gen-
eral, the greater the amount of tin and iron dissolved by the
contents of the can the more hydrogen is liberated, and
hence, the greater the pressure within the can. When this
pressure is slight the ends of the can may be flat (not
bulged), but on striking the can on the end on the floor
or a block of wood the end may bulge. Slight pressure











of the fingers will then push the bulged end into place and
it remains flat. At this stage the can is called a "flipper."

As more tin and iron are dissolved, and more hydrogen
formed, the pressure within the can finally becomes suffi-
cient to distend one or both ends of the can. The bulged
end or ends may be pushed into place but become distended
again when pressure is removed. In this condition, the can
is called a "springer."

As the corrosion goes further and still more hydrogen
is formed, the bulged ends become progressively harder to
press in with the fingers until eventually they are distended
and firm. Such a can is called a "hydrogen swell."
It will be noted, therefore, that flippers, springers and
hydorgen swells merely illustrate different degrees of the
same condition. This is influenced, too, by the temperature
at which the can is observed. For instance, the amount of
hydrogen formed may be sufficient to just about overcome
the vacuum in the can at a temperature of say 50 dgs. F..
In this condition the ends of the can will be "flat" and the
appearance of the can entirely normal. Now, if we trans-
fer the can to a temperature of 70 dgs. or 80 dgs. and hold
it there until the entire contents of the can have reached
that temperature, the contents will, of course, expand and
the can may present the appearance of a flipper.
Again, if it is removed to a still higher temperature
further expansion of the contents occurs and the can will
become a springer. In the same way the can may appear
to be a springer when observed at a low temperature ,and
the end be firm enough to be classed as a hydrogen swell
when observed at a high temperature.
This action of the contents on the container and the
formation of hydrogen increases with time and is greatly
influenced by the temperature of storage. It is a matter
of common experience that shipments of kraut and of cer-
tain fruits sent to warm localities become springers or even











hydrogen swells, whereas shipments sent to cool localities
or held in relatively cool warehouses remain in normal con-
dition. From the fact that the formation of the hydrogen
in these cans is accompanied by the solution of tin and iron,
the question often arises whether the amount of these
metals passing into solution is sufficient to be unwholesome.
We believe that it is not. Iron, in the first place, is not re-
garded as toxic. It is widely used as a tonic. Moreover,
iron solutions are characterized by a very astringent taste,
so that very minute traces of iron indeed would be sufficient
to make the food practically inedible.

We know less of the toxicity of tin than of iron. Con-
siderable attention has been given to the study of the toxic-
ity of tin and these investigations have shown that tin has
very much lower toxicity than was formerly supposed. In
spite of the considerable work that has been done on this
subject, there is no evidence that even if all of the tin on
the inside of the can were taken up by the food the quantity
would be sufficient to make the product injurious to health.
Certainly we have no reason to believe that the amount of
tin taken up in the formation of our ordinary springers and
flippers is sufficient to be injurious to health.
In this connection it is of interest to note that the tin
taken up from the inside of the can does not remain in the
solution. The greater part of it passes into insoluble com-
binations which are even less toxic than soluble forms of
tin.
It is stated above that flippers, springers and hydrogen
swells merely illustrate different degrees of the same con-
dition. Also that the action of the contents on the container
and the formation of hydrogen increase with time and are
greatly influenced by the temperature of storage. It fol-
lows, therefore, that if certain kinds of acid foods are stored
under ordinary commercial conditions, flippers will form
sooner or later, the time depending in part on the tempera-
ture of storage. Thus, under some commercial conditions










of storage with some products, flippers may form within a
very few months after packing, whereas in storage under
especially cool conditions the formation of flippers may be
delayed for a year or more.
It also follows that after the cans become flippers
longer storage at the same temperatures will convert them
into springers and still longer storage will convert them
into hydrogen swells. These hydrogen swells must be
sharply distinguished from the regular swells which are
described below and which are due to bacterial action.

Swells. The term "swells" unmodified is used to des-
ignate cans whose ends are bulged because of the decomposi-
tion of their contents by gas-forming bacteria. They should
not be confused with so-called "hydrogen swells" which are
an advanced form of springers, and which are not caused by
decomposition.
The contents of true swells, by their appearance and
odor, give unmistakable evidence of decomposition, although
the nature of this decomposition varies according to the
character of the bacteria causing it. The contents of even
true swells are not usually injurious to health, but as some
of them are it is obvious that they should never be used
for food.
Flat Sours. The term "flat sours" is applied to cans
whose contents are decomposed by bacteria which form acid
rather than gas. The term, therefore, implies, first, that
the ends of the cans are flat (not bulged) and second, that
the contents are sour.
Flat sours are not injurious to health. They show
faulty manufacture of the canned food, however, and in
some kinds of food (especially in string beans) are evidence
that the process used in canning was not sufficient to de-
stroy resistant spores of B. botulinus. Hence, the presence
of flat sours with some kinds of canned foods is evidence
that the food should not be eaten.










Causes of Spoilage. Whether the spoilage takes the
form of swells or flat sours, it is due primarily either to
insufficient processing, improper cooling or leaky cans. In-
sufficient processing, may, of course, leave alive the spores
of bacteria which may subsequently germinate and cause
spoilage of the food. With some foods, improper cooling
may lead to the germination and growth of bacteria (so-
called thermophiles) which only grow at relatively high
temperatures and which, therefore, do not decompose canned
food that has been properly cooled. Leaky cans, whether
due to improper sealing or to the subsequent perforation of
the can by rusting from without or by corrosion from with-
in, cause the contamination of the contents with spoilage
bacteria.

Judgment of Abnormal Cans. By abnormal cans, as
used in this connection, is meant cans whose appearance
should lead the observer to question the suitability of the
contents to be used as food. Abnormal cans, therefore, in-
clude leakers, swells, springers, flippers and hydrogen
swells; also cans that are so badly rusted that they appear
to be on the point of rusting through the plate or so badly
dented as to buckle the side of the can to such an extent as
to cause a leak. There is no harm in rust on the outside of
the can as long as the can remains tight. When a lot of
cans become badly rusted, however, it is only a matter of
time until some of them rust through and the contents be-
come contaminated.

It is my belief that canned foods should not be con-
demned because of the rusty condition of the outside of the
container, unless that condition has become so bad that the
can is absolutely on the point of rusting through. With
proper storage this condition does not come unless it is
brought about by the contents of other cans which had
leaked. Dented cans are usually uncommon and rarely will
lead to spoilage. It sometimes happens the dent may be so
deep as to cause a leak, or may be located near the seam and










may therefore distort the seam and produce leaking in that
way.
Disposition of Abnormal Cans. I have attempted to
distinguish sharply between abnormal cans whose condition
is due to spoilage of the contents and those due to other
causes and whose contents are not decomposed. Obviously
all spoiled goods should be destroyed. It seems an economic
waste to cause the destruction of abnormal cans whose con-
tents are sound and in all respects suitable for food. It is
obvious, however, that under some circumstances no other
course is open. The first purpose of food inspection is to
protect the consumer. The bulging of the ends of the can
however slight should be taken as a warning sign. Bulged
cans, therefore, whether springers, flippers, hydrogen
swells, or true swells, should not be placed on the market.
They should not be available to consumers. It is sometimes
possible to so dispose of them that the condition of the con-
tents can be determined with certainty and some salvage
effected. In considering this question each lot of cans
should be judged by itself. The important thing to re-
member is that bulged cans are not merchantable, whatever
the cause of the bulging.
In closing I would like to discuss briefly the method of
disposing of spoiled canned foods with reference to the re-
spective interests of buyer and seller. Food control officials
are not interested in controversies that may arise between
canner and distributor regarding the payment for such
goods, but obviously they desire to so conduct their work as
to cause no injustice to either. When a lot of canned foods
is condemned as unmerchantable, the canner desires an op-
portunity to have a representative inspect them for various
reasons. First, he wishes to know if the goods were packed
by him; second, if they were sold within the period of his
guarantee so that he should reimburse his distributor for
their value; third, and most important, in order that he may
learn tb a cause of spoilage or other abnormal conditions and
be able to guard against it in the future.










When it is at all possible to do so, however, it is impor-
tant that questionable goods be held until such an examina-
tion can be made by a representative of the canner. When
it is found necessary to destroy abnormal cans without af-
fording the canner such an opportunity to examine them, an
adequate description of such cans will facilitate the settle-
ment claims arising between buyer and seller. This descrip-
tion should be sufficient to identify the goods. It should
include all the letters and figures either stamped or em-
bossed on either end of the can, and should state whether
they are embossed or stamped in ink. It should also be ac-
companied by representative labels stripped from the cans.
The preparation of such a description will take a little time
on the part of the inspector and is of great value to the in-
dustry.
I wish to emphasize the fact, however, that where it is
at all possible to do so, it is highly advantageous to the can-
ner to have an opportunity for an examination of the goods
themselves by a qualified representative. This enables a
more certain identification of the cans than is possible from
any descrpition which an inspector might make, and makes
it possible to effect salvage, under the observation of food
control officials, of products which are sound and entirely
suitable for food.

QUALIFICATIONS OF A STATE FOOD INSPECTOR
By
Dr. J. J. Taylor, Assistant State Chemist, Atlanta, Ga.
A food inspection unit is necessarily composed of three
essential parts, a chief, a well equipped laboratory, with ex-
perienced and efficient personnel, and a field force, to act as
a contact point between the laboratory and the various man-
ufacturing and distributing agencies throughout the par-
ticular territory over which they are called upon to exercise
control. This unit cannot be expected to function efficiently
unless these component parts of which it is made up, viz.'










the chief, the laboratory and the inspection force are well
chosen and able to co-ordinate their work. An effective
field force is as necessary as the chief or the laboratory
force if effective results are to be obtained.
A personal call by a diplomatic and efficient inspector
very often clears up an unfortunate and unsatisfactory local
condition when any amount of effort directed from the lab-
oratory alone might fail of its purpose. We must not lose
sight of the fact, that in business it is the personal touch
that counts, and that is the goods that we have to sell. Per-
sonal service, official though it be, ought to be sold to both
consumer and distributor, because, and mainly because, both
want the goods.
What then are some of the qualifications that go to
make an efficient food inspector? First, he must be phy-
sically fit and of a good personal appearance. By physically
fit, I do not mean that he must be an athlete in the pink of
condition, but that he must be physically strong enough to
endure the hardships of travel, the constant change in diet
and interference with regular rest and recreation. Rugged
health and endurance should be the physical endowment of
every efficient inspector. No one can maintain rugged
health in living the life of a traveling man unless regard
is taken of the laws of health. He cannot work hard all day
and rob himself of the necessary sleep and rest by habits of
dissipation. It would seem to be entirely possible for every
inspector to so systematize his work and his reports that
due regard might to given to his proper rest and meals, to
the end that a minimum amount of discomfort and irregu-
larity might result from the necessity of constant change.
It is assumed, of course, that those who direct the move-
ment of inspectors must likewise give proper consideration
to the amount of work that the inspector' may be expected
to accomplish in an efficient manner within a given time.
Second, personal appearance. It is necessary that he
should be reasonably well dressed and should be clean and











tidy in appearance, and one cannot be clean in appearance
without having clean personal habits. An inspector should
have what we call a good personal appearance on the theory
that first impressions are often permanent, in that they af-
fect the intuitive judgment of those with whom he comes
in contact. It is apparent at once that the personal appear-
ance should be pleasing and reassuring. Clean habits, with
a due regard to personal hygiene, cleanliness of hands and
linen, should go hand in hand with orders made by him to
those who are in violation of the sanitary laws or ordinance
in the inspector's jurisdiction. In other words, an inspector
who is careless about his personal habits and appearance
will not make a very good impression upon those whom he
assumes to criticize because of insanitary conditions.
It is somewhat difficult to classify good manners, as to
whether they belong to the physical, mental or moral qual-
ifications under discussion, but generally speaking, I think
it may be said that good manners are the outward physical
expression of a presumably clean, wholesome, healthy man.
Certainly good manners with all the term implies, courtesy
and a proper regard for the conventions of good society, is
one of the greatest physical assets which any inspector may
be fortunate enough to possess, and this virtue may be
possessed by anyone, regardless of size, of comely appear-
ance, or the lack of same. Perhaps no other virtue will at
once disarm a suspicious or antagonistic person, or will so
quickly open the door of welcome and good fellowship, as
good manners. Too often inspectors assume a familiar or
brusque attitude, presuming on long acquaintance, or official
authority or superiority of attainments, all of which must
sooner or later end in the discomfiture of those assuming
such an attitude. It always pays to be a gentleman, not
obsequious, nor yet entirely and strictly conventional, but
a plain American Christian gentleman.
Third, he must be mentally equipped for the job. In-
herited mental characteristics, natural aptitude and home
training will do much toward developing the mental quali-











ties that should be the possession of a good inspector; but
however fortunately one may be thus endowed, if he be not
mentally trained with a reasonably good education, he will
always suffer a tremendous handicap by such a lack. Edu-
cation in its broad sense not only assumes a speaking ac-
quaintance with at least a part of the accumulated knowl-
edge of the ages, but it means more particularly such train-
ing and disciplining of the mind that will permit straight
thinking, clear reasoning, and the ability to express one's
thoughts intelligently and accurately. I believe most mis-
understandings may be attributed to a lack of clear and ac-
curate expression. Certainly this is true in inspection
work, and time and again a dealer, whose reputation for
truth and veracity is unquestioned, has stated that one in-
spector has told him so-and-so concerning a matter in which
the regulations were clear and explicit, after another in-
spector had checked him up on what appeared to be a viola-
tion of such rule, thus conveying an entirely different idea
or impression of the same rule. Similar numerous in-
stances of misunderstanding can be charged to the inability
of an inspector to express himself clearly and accurately.
Not only should a good inspector be in possession of the
kind and character of education referred to above, but he
should have some technical knowledge of the manufacturing
processes of food and drugs, and a wide and general knowl-
edge of their production. Inspectors should be students,
and if they are good students, this technical knowledge will
be a sort of accumulation, the result of contact with people
who know and the acquisition of interesting facts through
reading.
No less important mental essential to that of education
is a trait we call "poise," also tact. We can all visualize a
highly educated and well trained individual who, if he lacks
this cardinal virtue, would be like the proverbial "bull in a
china shop." A good inspector must be able to quickly and
constantly address himself to the varying moods and the
different mental attitudes and capacities of those whom he











inspects. He must be a diplomat of the highest order, if he
is to thus successfully and quickly adjust himself. One of
the most grievous things of an otherwise good inspector is
an inability to meet people and have them quickly and
cheerfully respond to his suggestions or orders for a better-
ment in the sanitary conditions in the conduct of their busi-
ness as it relates itself to the law.
It is difficult to place the virtue of industry, but it is
perhaps more a mental attitude toward your particular line
of endeavor than anything else. Most of us are "smart" if
we are doing something we love to do, and on the the con-
trary, most of us are more or less laggards when we have
to work long at a task which has no appeal to us and in
which we are not interested. "A genuine love for the job"
must be classed as one of the essential qualifications of a
good inspector. The man who loves his work cannot help
but be industrious, and nothing else will take the place of
his particular job in his thought and endeavor. It is and
should be the "apple of his eye," to be jealously guarded
from the time-consuming inroads of any other interest.
He is the man whom we speak of as being "always on the
job."
Another essential is that of intellectual honesty. Not
only honesty in keeping and submitting his expense ac-
counts and a record of his travel and work, but equally im-
portant is intellectual honesty as applied to his dealings
with others, a rugged honesty that will not countenance
side-stepping a duty or placing expediency over against
duty. Such an inspector is a joy to his department and the
one who is called upon to do any difficult and hazardous task.
Such a man, of course, has a keen moral perception. It is
not necessary for him to consult the dictionary to learn the
difference in the meaning of the words "right" and "wrong."
He has uncompromising principles of right and a solid foun-
dation on which to stand.
Most State food inspectors are appointed and must











work under conditions different from those of his federal
co-laborers in that his appointment and term of office is de-
pendent upon the whirl of political fortune, whereas, that
of the federal inspector is determined by civil service. In
addition to all of the qualifications enumerated above, it
must necessarily take time and experience to make a really
good and efficient inspector. It is difficult to keep an organ-
ization operating in a uniform and in a progressive way
when you are inevitably going to encounter changes, not
only in heads but perhaps changes every two or four years
in subordinates, with changed and modified political condi-
tions that will switch the entire organization scheme. In
such circumstances, even if there is anything specific and
definite for the succeeding officials to begin work on, it is
necessary frequently for them to undertake a course of
training which often may consume the entire period of a
given term in office, so that the community or State is not
benefitted very much by his appointment. In the appoint-
ment of a food inspector, the commissioner making the ap-
pointment is naming a man who is to render a distinct serv-
ice to the whole people, and at the same time, one who is
to act as the personal representative of his (the commis-
sioner's) administration. It is well then that the qualifica-
tions of the man under consideration should be well looked
into. This should be true whether the appointment is to
be made under civil service regulation or under the political
scheme of appointment, such as that under which most
states are now operating.
In writing this paper, I have followed closely the line
of thought expressed by Dr. Crumbine, of Kansas, in a paper
entitled "Qualifications of a Good Inspector," in the con-
cluding paragraph of which he states that in his opinion,
the crowning virtue of a good inspector is loyalty, not only
loyalty to his department and his associates, but loyalty to
his friends and acquaintances, and above everything else,
to his job and all that it includes Loyalty as applied to
citizenship is the highest eulogy that can be paid to any









27

individual, for it means that nothing can swerve the truly
loyal citizen from his devotion to duty and to his country.
Loyalty is the most precious virtue of friendship, for it
means one which will endure through evil and good report.
through success and disaster. Such a friend accepts with-
out question, and will sacrifice and endure much for the sake
of a friendship. Happy is the commissioner whose inspect-
ors are loyal, and if perchance he has inspectors who are
endowed with all the qualifications herein set forth, we may
know at once that food, drug, and dairy control in such an
inspector's district, is of the highest possible service which
will benefit not only the consumer, but likewise the manu-
facturer and dealer.











28

FERTILIZER AND STOCK FEED BRANCHES

Report of Stamp Sales

The following will show the gross receipts of this Divis-
ion of the Department of Agriciuture since these laws have
been in effect:


For the year
For the year
For the year
For the year
For the year
For the year
For the year
For the year
For the year
For the year
For the year
For the year
For the year
For the year
For the year
For the year
For the year
For the year
For the year
For the year
For the year
For the year


1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926


$ 31,534.86
42,790.19
43,535.71
46,805.92
56,822.60
61,971.05
71,353.25
82,820.55
87,721.12
89,968.55
80,312.37
85,240.49
86,719.26
83,846.59
103,332.12
108,229.58
114,535.51
137,716.94
153,691.74
149,742.53
148,242.83
166,310.05


............ ................
............ ................
............ .................
................................
.............. .................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
............................ ; ...
........... ....................
................................
................................
................................
................................











MINERALS IN MIXED FEEDS
During recent years much has been said and written
concerning the advantages of mineral substances in mixed
feeds. It has been clearly demonstrated by a number of Ex-
periment Stations that the use of certain minerals in the
manufacture of feeds has been found beneficial from the
feeders standpoint, but those who have made a careful
study of the question are not all agreed as to the com-
bined percentage of such materials that should in all cases
be allowed used. Some Authorities on the question rec-
ommend as high as 5% of mineral substances in the manu-
facture of feeds, while others suggest a less quantity, but
our experience and observation has been that a 5% min-
eral mixture in any brand of feed would be excessive and
might in such cases be considered as adulterant.

Prior to January 1st. 1925, the use of minerals as
ingredients in the manufacture of feeds sold to the trade
in this State was not allowed, but subsequent to that time
manufacturers have been permitted to use such substances
in their feeds, in quantities not to exceed two percent.
This allowance may be too low, and probably is, but until
it is determined just what the proper percentage should
be, we do not feel justified in raising the percentage of 2%
of such materials to be used in the manufacture of feeds.

ADVANTAGES OF MINERAL SUBSTANCES IN
COMMERCIAL FEEDING STUFFS
By Prof. J. A. McLean, Chicago
The fundamental importance of mineral matter in
feeding all classes of live stock and poultry has long been
recognized.
The good breeders of horses, sheep, cattle and swine
always have been governed by the conviction that certain
feeds excel in building bone and that the quality and char-











acter of bone in live stock varies with the kind of pastures
available and with the type of soil underlying these pas-
tures.
Great Britain has been the birth place and breeding
ground for superior live stock, largely because of her chalky
hills and well-limed valleys. In our own country, Virginia
and Kentucky produce horses that can't be beaten. Why?
Because of their blue grass growing on their lime rich soils.
The early agricultural scientists devoted most of their
time to a study of protein, carbohydrates and fats. Yet such
outstanding men as Kellner, Lawes, Gilbert, Jordan and
Armsby are on record concerning the importance of bone-
building materials. Only within the last ten years have
minerals in the ration been intensively studied by our ex-
periment stations and their importance recognized. As
might be expected, the findings do not always agree. How-
ever the results have been so compelling that a large pro-
portion of our experiment stations are giving serious atten-
tion to the study of mineral matter in the ration, in its re-
lation to health, to bodily growth, to production and to re-
production. At the same time they are seeking the possible
sources of mineral supply.
The earliest students gave chief consideration to lime
and phosphorus, putting the emphasis upon lime. The ex-
tended research of the last few years gives that same em-
phasis to lime and phosphorus and in addition indicates the
impotrance of other minerals in the ration such as iron,
iodine, sulphur and sodium. It has also brought out the
astonishing fact that the body can not make use of lime
and phosphorus without the utra violet ray of direct sun-
shine or vitamin D which is found in cod liver oil, alfalfa
or legume hay and green pastures.
What are the advantages of minerals? Let us consider
in turn their necessity and the part they play in the rations
of swine, dairy cattle, herd cattle and poultry. Let us begin










with the one everybody knows and appreciates-common
salt. Its importance and necessity cannot be denied. Salt
is an inorganic mineral compound, yet is a food of prime
importance. Nothing is more necessary to horses, cattle,
sheep, swine and even poultry. For a continued good health
for normal production and for reproduction, sodium and
chlorine are as important to our animals as the air they
breathe.

Salt may be fed in the feed mixtures or the animals
may have a separate supply constantly before them. The
most general recommendation is to supply one half of one
per cent salt in the feed for swine and one per cent in the
ration for dairy cattle, and in addition allow the animals
free access to an unlimited supply.
Iodine plays a dramatic role in the live stock and human
history of this and every nation. It is necessary in the ra-
tions of both man and beast. Its presence secures a better
functioning of the ductless glands of the body, particularly
the thyroid. Its absence from the ration is immediately
advertised by the appearance of goitre and its accompany-
ing ills. In a large area of Northern United States the soil
and consequently the drinking water and the crops are
markedly deficient in iodine. In that area goitre is the cause
of large losses. Frequently calves, lambs and pigs are born
with thick necks; they are weak; they can't breathe rightly
and as a result many die. Hairlessness in little pigs, which
is associated with goitre also is common. One of the leading
investigators in that area is of the opinion that few if any
females amongst either the livestock or human families can
be found there without some form of goitre. The use of
iodine absolutely prevents the occurance of these maladies.
Fortunately, Florida lies outside the area that is deficient
in iodine. Countries bordering on the ocean secure a fairly
liberal supply of iodine from the air, consequently Florida
is doubly protected from diseases that follow the lack of
iodine.










For all classes,of live stock, and for that matter the
human family too within the goitrous area, iodine must be
supplied or misfortune may be expected.
Dr. Forbes, now director of the American Institute of
Research at State College, Pennsylvania, when at the Ohio
Experiment Station did monumental pioneering work re-
garding minerals. That work consisted chiefly in a study
of mineral balance in milk cows and the influence of min-
erals from different inorganic sources upon the skeleton.
Forbes, and later Meigs, proved that live stock can make
good use of such substances as limestone, rock phosphate,
bone meal, and marl. He showed that on ordinary rations,
dairy cattle receive less lime than good production requires,
that they drain the calcium out of their body to make milk
and so must have that supply replenished. In his study of
growing swine, Dr. Forbes proved that the addition of in-
organic calcium and phosphorus to a grain ration greatly
improved the strength and quality of the bone. He also
proved that these factors vary according to the kind of min-
erals added to the ration.
These results opened a new field in the science of ani-
mal nutrition and of economic live stock production, and
many experiment stations were quick to enter the field.
Through the last eight years extensive research has been
carried on at many places under widely different conditions.
From the findings of all this work we shall endeavor to pre-
sent those that are basic, that can be widely applied, that
are fully proved and are generally accepted.
Professor Evvard and his associates at the Iowa Ex-
periment Station have done a great deal of careful work,
studying the use of inorganic minerals in pork production.
They found when minerals were added to a corn ration that
was supplemented by high protein oil meals, that it took
approximately one half as long to take pigs from 85 pounds
to 225 pounds. Every pound of minerals saved over 132
pounds of feed and 33 days of time. The minerals acceler-












ated the growth of the animals, promoting greater growth
of front shin and length of body. All lots fed minerals made
more rapid gains, and the cost of gains was less. The ben-
efits of minerals were outstanding even if the growing pigs
had access to good pastures and even where the supple-
mental feed carried some tankage of blood meal. If only
one mineral is to be fed, common salt is to be emphasized.
But more is needed and these Iowa investigators recommend
for swine a mixture of 20% salt, 40% fine grained calcium
pure limestone and 40% bone meal. They find in dry lot
feeding, in winter feeding, in cereal feeding with the sup-
plemental oil meals, or even with tankage, the use of a
simple mineral mixture is profitable and commendable.
Professor Vestal has been working along the same lines
at the Indiana Station. He says it pays to give a mineral
mixture in addition to a corn and soy bean ration.
Dr. Bohstedt, summarizing work carried on at the Ohio
Experiment Station in 1924-25, emphasizes the need of in-
organic mineral additions to rations composed of corn and
proteins from plant sources. Stronger, healthier pigs, mak-
ing greater, cheaper gains, followed the use of minerals.
The use of mineral supplements makes possible efficient
pork production from corn balanced with soy bean meal,
cottonseed meal, peanut meal or linseed meal without the
use of tankage. This is important in all sections, but es-
pecially throughout the South.
Ohio recommends a mineral mixture of the same ma-
terials and from the same sources as does Iowa.
Rickets, stiffness, rheumatism and posterior paralysis
are so common in swine as to be costly and expensive to the
grower. Studying these, Dr. Bohstedt found that the par-
alysis was almost invariably due to a crushing or breaking
of one of the vertebrae in the loin, this results in a mis-
placement which produces pressure on the spinal cord and
causes immediate incurable paralysis. Furthermore, Dr.












Bohstedt has proved that rickets in its various forms, and
this common form of paralysis is entirely preventable by
feeding 2% of ground limestone in the ration, assuming, of
course, that vitamin D is also supplied.
The Wisconsin Experiment Station has done a great
deal of work with minerals for all types of livestock. They
have tested limestone, marl, bone meal and alfalfa, with and
without tankage, with and without sunlight, with and with-
out pasture. In summarizing all their work on minerals for
swine, Dr. Hart says: "Whether extra lime should be
added depends upon what is fed. Rations from seeds or
seed by products will always be low in lime. Thus a mix-
ture of corn meal, ground oats, wheat middlings, cottonseed
meal, soy bean meal and linseed meal could be too low in
lime for the maximum growth of pigs. With such a ration
a certain amount of lime would have to be added in the form
of bone meal, ground limestone or marl. These materials
in proportions up to 2% of the grain mixture, would pro-
vide ample lime for hogs. Where plenty of skim milk or
tankage is fed there may be no advantage in furnishing
added mineral.
It is equally necessary to supply vitamin D which is
found in cod liver oil, alfalfa hay, green pastures and sun-
light, since without this vitamin the animal can make only
a limited use of calcium and phosphorus.
"If your pigs squeal, feed them" is now revised to read
"If your pigs squeal feed them-and feed them minerals."
The dairy cow uses a great deal of calcium and phos-
phorus. She needs to have her ration carefully balanced
in regard to these elements. Protein is important, has been
of paramount importance in feeidng for many years, but
the mineral supply is just as important. The findings of
Hart and his associates at Wisconsin, Savage and Maynard
at Cornell, Meigs and Woodward at Beltsville, Forbes and
his successors at Ohio, and many others have established











beyond the question of a doubt that when high producing
cows are given liberal rations without enough minerals, they
will extract mineral material from their own skeleton to
maintain production. This will continue until the skeleton
becomes depleted and the general vitality wrecked. These
men, by feeding ordinary rations deficient in minerals have
brought about abortion, weak and dead calves, retained
afterbirth and barrenness. And on the other hand, by feed-
ing good rations properly balanced from the mineral stand-
point, have secured higher production, maintained better
health, avoided much loss from pneumonia, secured greater
fertility, eliminated retained afterbirth, and received
stronger, healthier calves.

Not only is a supply of mineral necessary but at the
same time the factor which makes it available to the animal
must be provided. That factor is found in Runshine, cod
liver oil, properly cured alfalfa, and other legumes and fresh
green grasses.
.There is a ready supply of phosphorus. The grains
carry a fair amount while bran, cottonseed meal and oil
meal are all rich in this mineral. Lime is the mineral used
in greatest amount and it is the one most difficult to secure
in sufficient quantity. Where cows receive generous sup-
plies of alfalfa or legume hay their needs for lime are satis-
fied. But from any other kind of roughage, or on good pas-
tures, with the usual liberal grain rations good dairy cows
in milk cannot secure sufficient lime to maintain their pro-
duction and health. Until farmers everywhere succeed in
growing their own alfalfa or other legumes what shall be
done?
Professor Hart of Wisconsin summarizes the recom-
mendations of the nation's best investigators very well when
he says:
"If poor roughage such as hay from the grasses, corn
stover, or straw be used add 3 to 4 pounds of ground lime-











stone, or marl to each 100 pounds of the grain mixture; if
less than 20% of the grain ration be of wheat bran, linseed
meal and cottonseed meal, then use from 3 to 4% of bone
meal.
"If plenty of legume hay is fed then there may possibly
be no advantage in adding a mineral rich in calcium; how-
ever even with legume hay available for winter feeding, it
can do no harm and may do considerable good to add one
of these lime carriers to the ration.
"Fresh green crops contain an especially large amount
of the vitamin needed to enable animals to assimilate cal-
cium. Therefore the best way of replenishing the calcium
in the cow's body is to feed a calcium supplement when she
is on pasture. Hence it is especially important to add a lime
carrier to the grain ration when cows are on pasture. As
much as 4 or 5 per cent of the calcium supplement may be
used."
For cattle receiving a poor quality of roughage or while
on pasture, Michigan recommends 3% of mineral in the
grain ration exclusive of salt.
All the investigators recommend as sources of lime,
calcium carbonate in the form of a pure grade of ground
limestone, marl, or bone meal and when both calcium and
phosphorus are needed particularly recommend the latter.
Many thousands of tons of ready-blended rations for
dairy cattle, swine and horses are supplied the New England
States, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wiscon-
sin, New Jersey and contiguous areas through the Grange
League Federation, the Eastern States Farmers Exchange
and affiliated co-operative bodies. Their formulas are pre-
pared by the Eastern College Conference Board, which con-
sists of the representatives of the Live Stock Departments
of thirteen Eastern colleges. In all these live stock rations
they use a 1% salt, 1% calcium carbonate and 1% bone
meal.











POULTRY
Turning to poultry, we encounter quite a new set of
conditions. The need for mineral is apparent and the long
established practice of the best poultry men has been to
furnish a liberal supply of it. Nearly 12% of the total
weight of the egg is calcium and phosphorus. A 200-egg
hen secreates in one year nearly 3 pounds of mineral matter,
mostly lime, or over one half of her total body weight. Un-
like the cow, the hen cannot, for any length of time con-
tinue to produce at the expense of her body supply of min-
erals-when the daily supply of mineral is deficient, egg
production quickly lessens or stops.
It was impossible for the Israelites to make bricks with-
out straw, and it is just as impossible for the hen to lay eggs
without lime.
The chick matures rapidly. From less than two ounces
it grows to two pounds in about twelve weeks. Its growth
is amazing, and lime is an absolute essential for that
growth. As in every other class vitamin D or its equivalent
in sunshine is a co-realted necessity. The Kentucky, Ohio,
and Wisconsin stations have done most work finding the
place of minerals in rations for poultry and determining
the right amounts to be used.
In working with laying hens these stations have found
when using rations deficient in minerals that they get
(1) lower production,
(2) smaller eggs,
(3) thinner, weaker, rougher shells,
(4) retarded bone development,
(5) depletion of the body skeleton followed by de-
pleted health, ending in a physical breakdown.
With young chicks their findings regarding necessity
of minerals are just as positive. A liberal supply, particu-
larly of lime is imperative. Leg-weakness, rickets, high











mortality, with a retarded development on the part of sur-
viving birds all follow in the wake of mineral starvation as
surely and swiftly as famine follows drouth.
For growing baby chicks Wisconsin recommends the
use of 10% mineral matter in the starter ration (5 parts
raw bone, 5 parts pearl grits or oyster shell). As the chicks
get older the necessity for mineral decreases somewhat un-
til they approach the laying stage when again they must
have plenty of lime.
The Wisconsin laying mash, which is representative of,
contains approximately 1% salt and 4% limestone or ground
oyster shell. This is in addition to the mineral in the meat
scrap which constitutes from one-fifth to one-eighth of the
ration.
No fixed rule can be laid down; the amount of limestone
in the mash depends upon the other ingredients but its
value is unquestioned. Apparently at least 5% lime is de-
sirable in the laying mash and somewhere between 5% and
10% is desired in the growing mashes, depending upon the
age of the chicks.
What bearing has all this upon commercial feeding
stuffs?
The use of blended commercial feeds is steadily in-
creasing. Thirty-five years ago only 2 per cent of all the
feed stuffs in Vermont were blended feeds. Today over
fifty per cent of Vermont's total volume consists of ready
mixed rations. In the last ten years the proportion of
blended feeds in Indiana, a distinctly corn belt state, has
increased to over 35 per cent of her total feed bill. What
holds true in Vermont and Indiana is equally true of every
section of the United States.
Undoubtedly the trend of the practice in feeding is to-
ward the use of blended rations. Commercial feeds must
serve the live stock and poultry industries; and they must













serve efficiently, thoroughly and economically. They must
meet the needs of the various classes of animals and birds
under greatly different conditions. This means, according
to the findings of our leaders, that these commercial rations
must contain anywhere from 1 to 10 per cent of inorganic
mineral matter exclusive of common salt.






The following is a statement of the number of tons
of fertilizer sold in the State of Florida during the year
1925; the number of inspection stamps sold for use there-
on together with the revenue derived therefrom:


January ........
February ......
M arch ............
A pril ..............
M ay ................
J u n e ................
J u ly ................
August ..........
September ......
October ..........
November ......


December


Tons
47,651
58,409.20
37,873
9,344
39,915
11,215
3,150
14,300
19,550
39,260
37,120


..... 36,000


Total ..............353,787.20


Dollars
$11,912.75
14,602.30
9,468.25
2,336.00
9,978.75
2,803.75
787.50
3,575.00
4,887.50
9,815.00
9,280.00
9,000.00


100 lbs.
128,120
146,410
129,200
18,480
142,000
28,300
12,000
48,000
129,000
229,600
236,200
178,400


$88,446,80 1,425,710


The following is a statement of the number of tons
of cotton seed meal (for fertilizer purposes) sold in the
State of Florida during the year 1925; the number of in-
spection stamps sold for use thereon, together with reve-
nue derived therefrom:


200 lbs.
412,450
510,887
314,130
84,200
328,150
98,000
25,500
119,000
131,000
277,800
253,100
270,800

2,825,017












Tons Dollars 100 lbs.


January ......................................
February ..................................
M arch ........................................
A pril .........................................
M a y ..........................................
June ........................................
July ................ .......................
A ugust ........................................
Septem ber ...............................
October ............... .................
N ovem ber .................................
D ecem ber ............. ...................


775
565
300
350
366
550
100
950
400

120
400


Total ........................................4,876


$ 193.75
141.25
75.00
87.50
91.50
137.50
25.00
237.50
100.00

30.00
100.00

$1,219.00


15,500
11,300
6,000
7,000
7,320
11,000
2,000
19,000
8,000

2,400
8,000

97,520


The following is a statement of the number of tons of
commercial feeding stuff sold in the State of Florida during
the year 1925; the number of inspection stamps sold for
use thereon, together with the revenue derived therefrom:


Tons
January ............ 25,587.52
February .......... 18,135.60
M arch ................ 12,480
A pril ................ 21,405
M ay .................. 16,075
June ................. 20,575
July ................ 18,311
August .............. 16,380
September ........ 20,967
October ............ 22,592.04
November ........ 22,077.96
December ..... 19,722

Total ............. 234,308.12


Dollars
$ 6,396.88
4,533.90
3,120.00
5,351.25
4,018.75
5,143.75
4,577.75
4,095.00
5,241.75
5,648.01
5,519.49
4,930.50

$58,577.03


50 lbs.
32,900
12,200
4,000
28,200
26,000
9,000
4,800
37,800
24,000
36,000
27,459
20,000

262,359


100 lbs.
495,300
356,612
247,600
414,000
308,500
407,000
363,820
308,700
407,340
433,840
427,829
384,440

4,554,981


The following is a statement of the number of tons
of fertilizer sold in the State of Florida during the year










1926; the number of inspection stamps sold for use thereon
together with the revenue derived therefrom:


January ........
February .....
M arch ...........
A pril .............
M ay ................
June .............
July ...........
August .........
September ....
October .....
November ......
December ......


Tons
47,057.72
56,279.80
33,208.80
20,317
37,000
18,035
7,250
13,820
24,252
32,190
60,630
45,530


Dollars
$11,764.43
14,069.95
8,302.20
5,079.25
9,250.00
4,508.75
1,812.50
3,455.00
6,063.00
8,047.50
15,157.50
11,382.50


100 lbs.
134,800
210,000
104,000
65,080
128,000
62,700
49,000
64,000
176,040
192,000
434,600
346,000


200 lbs.
403,177
457,798
280,088
170,630
306,000
149,000
48,000
106,200
154,500
225,900
389,000
282,300


T otal ...........
The follow


395,570.32 $98,892.58 1,966,220 2,972,593
wing is a statement of the number of tons


of cotton seed meal (for fertilizing purposes) sold in the
State of Florida during the year 1926; the number of in-
spection stamps sold for use thereon, together with revenue
derived therefrom:


Tons
January ................ ............. 700
February ................... ........ 50
M arch ..... ...................... ..... .... 560
April .... .....................
M ay ........ ............................
June ........... ........ ................ 300
July ...................................... 400
August ........... ................ 100
September ............................ 700
O ctober ...... ............................ .....
November .............
D ecem ber ................... ............. 100

T otal ................ ............ ............. 2,910


Dollars
$175.00
12.50
140.00


100 lbs
14,000
1,000
11,200


75.00 6,000
100.00 8,000
25.00 2,000
175.00 14,000


25.00 %,000

$727.50 58,200








42

The following is a statement of the number of tons
of commercial feeding stuff sold in the State of Florida
during the year 1926; the number of inspection stamps
sold for use thereon, together with the revenue derived
therefrom:


January ............
February ......
M arch ................
April ................
M ay ..................
June ..................
July ..................
A ugust ..............
Septem ber ........
October ............
November ........
Decem ber ..........


Tons
27,890.48
18,139
22,712.40
20,007
21,470
19,194
22,475
19,450
29,974
20,324
24,490
20,634


Total .......... 266,759.88


Dollars
$ 6,972.62
4,534.75
5,678.10
5,001.75
5,367.50
4,798.50
5,618.75
4,862.50
7,493.50
5,081.00
6,122.50
5,158.50

$66,689.97


50 lbs.
17,699
49,200
32,200
17,800
5,600
49,800
45,000
40,200
43,200
35,000
33,000
34,000

402,699


100 lbs.
548,960
338,180
438,148
391,240
426,600
358,980
427,000
368,900
577,880
388,980
473,300
395,680

5,133,848


The following is a statement of the consumption of
commercial fertilizer by counties in the State of Florida
during the year 1926:
County Tons Fertilizer
Alachua ...................................................................... 6,894.2
Baker ................. ............. ................. 586.
B ay ........................................................ ............... .. ... ........... 357.
Bradford ............................ ........... ................. 1,340.9
Brevard .................................... ......... ............... 6,523.7
B row ard ............................................... ..................... 4,710.2
Calhoun ..... .......................... ............ 587.1
Charlotte ........ ..................................... ............... 1,089.2
Citrus ..... ........................ ............. 365.7
C lay ....... ......................................................... ............... 1,499.3
Collier ...................... ..... ............. 93.5









43

County Tons Fertilizer
Columbia ................................ 827.2
Dade ............... ........................ ..................... ............22,772.4
DeSoto ...................... .. ............. 7,752.4
Dixie .... .................. ....................... 13.3
Duval ......... ... ...... ......... ........ .... ............ ...2,055.2
F scam bia .................................................................... 3,338.9
Flagler ........ .... .... ... ...... .......... ................ ... 2,909.
Franklin ............................................ ..... ...... 9.
Gadsden ...... .............................................. ............... 3,510.6
Gilchrist ................................................ 165.4
Glades ........... ................................... 143.
Gulf ...................... ............................... 22.5
H am ilton ................................................. ............. 1,328.3
H ardee .................................................. .......................11,110.8
H endry ................................................................ 597.4
H ernando .............................. ... ........................ 1,151.8
Highlands ................................. 7,294.4
Hillsborough ................................................................19,270.
H olm es ............. ... ............................................... 2,004.4
Indian River ............................................... 4,155.4
Jackson ............... ................................................ 7,653.9
Jefferson .................................. ................................. 1,612.8
Lafayette .................................................. 303.5
Lake ............................................. .................... 20,669.6
L ee ........ ..... ................................. .......... ..... .............. 6 ,8 6 4 .4
Leon ....... ............................................ 710.6
L evy ......................................................... ........ ........ 2,132 .4
Liberty ...................... ....................... 149.
M adison ........................................ ....... ............... 2,024.1
M anatee ..................................................15,022.5
M arion ........... ..... .............................................. 7,928.2
M artin ........................................................................ 1,154.2
M onroe ......................................... ............ 1.6
N assau ......................... .............. 403.5
Okaloosa ................................................... .................. 1,543.8
O keechobee ..................................... .. ....... 331.4








44

County Tons Fertilizer
O range ................................... ............ ............ .. ....... 25,258.4
Osceola ......................... ....... ... ............. 2,185.2
Palm Beach ............... ..... .................................... 3,130.
P asco ...................................... .................................... 3,133.8
P inellas ............. ...... ........ .... ...... ...... ....... 11,522.4
P olk ........................................ ... ........... ....................53,29 1.1
P utnam ................... .......... ..... ... .. ...... ........... 6,992.1
St. Johns ............................ ..... .. ........ .......... 15,646.
St. Lucie ............................ ......... 5,775.3
Santa Rosa .............. ....... .................................... 1,493.9
Sarasota ..................... ...... ... ...... ..................... 2,113.1
Sem inole ................................ ..... ..................... 19,147.7
Sumter .............................. ............. 5,723.2
Suw annee ..... ............................................. ............. 2,931.
T a y lor ................................. ......... .... ....... ..... 2 3 6 .
U nion ................................... .. .. ... .. ............... 1,450.9
Volusia ................. ............ ...... .... ............ 9,162.
W akulla ................................ ... ... ....... 106.9
W alton ............ .... ............ .. .... ... ....... ... .. 1,359.3
W ashington .............................................. ............... 2,202.7
Note: The above figures do not include shipments
in lots of less than one ton.
COMMERCIAL STATE VALUES OF FERTILIZING
MATERIAL FOR 1927
For the season 1927 the following State values are fixed
as a guide to purchasers, quotations January 1.
Values of the ingredients of fertilizer per pound are
as follows:
Available Phosphoric Acid ........................$7.03 Per pound
Insoluble Phosphoric Acid ................................c Per pound
Am m onia ............................... ...............23 3-5e Per pound
Potash ........................ ................ ............. 6 13-20c Per pound
If calculated by units (a unit being 20 pounds, or 1%









45

of a ton) the State values for Fertilizers are as follows:

Available Phosphoric Acid ................$1.41 per unit
Insoluble Phosphoric Acid .............................. .20 per unit
A m m onia ......... ..................................... 4.73 per unit
Potash ....... .......................... ................. 1.33 per unit
An allowance of $3.50 per ton for mixing and bagging
is usually charged.
To find the commercial State value, multiply the per-
centages of valuable ingredients by the price per unit.
EXAMPLE

Available Phosphoric Acid ........... 8.00 x 1.41-$11.28
Insoluble Phosphoric Acid ................ 2.00 x .20- .40
Ammonia ................. ..........4.00 x 4.73- 18.92
Potash ... .. .................................. 6.00 x 1.33- 7.98
Mixing and Bagging ......... .................. ...... 3.50

State value per ton .... ......... ....... ..... .. ... $42.08


Appropriations for purchase of Feed & Fertilizer
Stamps and purchases made.
Jan. 1, 1925
Balance of Appropriation of 1923 ................$1,590.98
Appropriated for 1925-26 ..... ........................ ... 7,000.00

$8,590.98
Used for purchases during 1925 as shown by ac-
companying statement ................... .... ....... $3,149.37
Used for purchases during 1926 as shown by ac-
companying statement .... .............................. 3,455.96
Unused and turned back at Expiration of 1925 ...... 214.76
Balance on hand Jan. 1, 1927.................................. 1,770.89

$8,590.98











FEED AND FERTILIZER TAX STAMPS PURCHASED
DURING THE YEAR 1925
Jan. 19, Stamps Purchased ....................................$ 336.13
Feb. 9, Stam ps Purchased ..................................... 147.63
Feb. 18, Stamps Purchased ................................... 96.19
March 2, Stamps Purchased .................................... 287.80
March 16, Stamps Purchased .................................... 28.98
April 7, Stamps Purchased ........................................ 95.75
April 22, Stamps Purchased..................... ................ 95.97
May 9, Stamps Purchased ....................................... 95.88
May 19, Stamps Purchased ..................................... 96.01
June 1, Stamps Purchased ..................................... 95.88
July 1, Stam ps Purchased ......................................... 191.02
Aug. 6, Stamps Purchased ...................................... 190.90
Sept. 1, Stamps Purchased .................................... 138.89
Sept. 4, Stamps Purchased .................................... 96.21
Sept. 8, Stamps Purchased .................................... 32.10
Sept. 15, Stam ps Purchased ...................................... 95.97
Sept. 29, Stamps Purchased .................................... 95.84
Oct. 10, Stamps Purchased .................................... 96.48
Oct. 27, Stamps Purchased .................................... 98.15
Nov. 12, Stamps Purchased ............................ 130.64
Nov. 19, Stamps Purchased .................................... 65.68
Nov. 25, Stamps Purchased .................................... 254.47
Dec. 15, Stamps Purchased .................................... 286.80

$3,149.37
FEED AND FERTILIZER TAX STAMPS PURCHASED
DURING YEAR 1926
Jan. 19, Stamps Purchased ................................... $ 381.95
Feb. 5, Stam ps Purchased ...................................... 95.41
Feb. 13, Stamps Purchased ...................................... 95.46
March 8, Stamps Purchased ................................ 272.13
March 26, Stamps Purchased ................................ 95.63
April 28, Stamps Purchased .................................. 166.68









May 17, Stamps Purchased ................................... 95.46
May 22, Stamps Purchased ................................... 96.43
May 27, Stamps Purchased ..................................... 95.67
June 16, Stamps Purchased .................. .......... 239.36
June 26, Stamps Purchased ................................. 133.35
July 29, Stamps Purchased .................................... 96.18
Aug. 19, Stamps Purchased ................................. 96.05
Sept. 1, Stamps Purchased ................................... 95.50
Sept. 16, Stamps Purchased .................................. 95.97
Sept. 27, Stamps Purchased .................................. 190.94
Oct. 18, Stamps Purchased .................................... 95.84
Nov, 4, Stamps Purchased ............................... 95.90
Nov. 10, Stamps Purchased .................................. 191.28
Nov. 26, Stamps Purchased .................................... 95.33
Nov. 30, Stamps Purchased ................................... 188.69
Dec. 4, Stamps Purchased ...................................... 95.23
Dec. 28, Stamps Purchased ............................... 159.90
Dec. 30, Stamps Purchased .................................... 191.62

$3,455.96









































1. PROPER METHOD OF DRAWING FEED AND FERTILIZER SAMPLES.


i, i .


~ :?r~j






I~a


-^ ' *
-** '- *,


:-.:^









































2. PROPER METHOD OF DRAWING FEED AND FERTILIZER SAMPLES.


; FI
,, -,
a


".^









MANUFACTURERS OF FEEDING STUFF
The following is a list of feed manufacturers who have
filed their oaths of analyses with this Department for the
years 1925-26:
A tlanta M ig. Co ................ ..................................... A tlanta, G a.
American Maize Products Co. ..................New York, N. Y.
Atlantic Importing Co. ..............................Jacksonville, Fla.
Acme Mills, The .................. .................. Hopkinsville, Ky.
Arcady Farms Milling Co. ....................N. Kansas City, Mo.
American Linseed Co. ...................................Buffalo, N. Y.
Atlantic Milling Co. ............ .................Augusta, Ga.
Archer, Daniel Mlg. Co. .........................Minneapolis, Minn.
Albert Dickinson Co. ..........................................Chicago, Ill.
Adams Mlg. Co., Geo. A. ..........................Kansas City, Mo.
Arkadelphia Mlg. Co. ................................Arkadelphia, Ark.
A llen Co., E T ................................................... A tlanta, G a.
Alfocorn Mlg. Co. ......................................... St. Louis, Mo.
Avondale Alfalfa Mill & Elevator Co. ....Avondale Colorado
Aubrey & Company ..... ............................... Louisville, Ky.
Alabama Cotton Oil Co. ........................Montgomery, Ala.
Atlantic Rice Mills Co. ...........................Beaumont, Texas
Anheuser Busch, Inc. .................................... St. Louis, M o.
Alco Feed M ills ............................................... Atlanta, Ga.
Buckeye Cotton Oil Co...............................Cincinnati, Ohio
Birdsey Flour M ills ................ ..... .............. Macon, Ga.
Bernch, Croft & Kauffman Mlg. Co. ............Mt. Carmel, Ill.
Ballard & Ballard Co. ................................... Louisville, Ky.
Boney & Harper Mlg. Co. ......................Wilmington, N. C.
Bell Mill & Elevator, J. W., ....................Spartanburg, S. C.
Barrett, Denton & Lynn Co. ............................... Dalton, Ga.
Balgrio Seed Co., J., The ..............................Baltimore, Md.
Lewis Bear Co., The ............................. Pensacola, Florida
Bell Grain Co. ............... ........ ...........Nashville, Tenn.
Black & W white Mlg. Co. ............................E. St. Louis, Ill.
Blue Star Mililng Co. ....................................Augusta, Ga.
Cole M ig. Co., H. C.......... ................................ Chester, Ill.










Manufacturers of Feeding Stuff-(Continued)
Capital Grain & Feed Co. .....................Montgomery, Ala.
Clark M ig. Co. ................................. ............. A ugusta, Ga.
City M ills Co. ................................................Colum bus, Ga.
Cosby Flour & Grain Co., Wm.................Birmingham, Ala.
Corno M ills Co.................................. .......E St. Louis, Ill.
Carolina M ig. Co., Inc. .................................... Dillon, S. C.
Corn Products Refg. Co. .............................. ...Argo, Ill.
Capital Grain & Feed Co. ......................Montgomery, Ala.
Conkey Co., The G. E...................................Cleveland, Ohio
Christopher & Co., B. C.............................Kansas City, Mo.
Concentrated Feed Products Co. ............... Baltimore, Md.
Continental Grain Co. ................................New York, N. Y.
Church Alfalfa Mills ........... .................Hobart, Okla.
Cleveland Milling Co. ............................Cleveland, Tenn.
Consolidated Mills, Inc. ............................New Orleans, La.
Crawford & Co., W. N..................................Columbus, Ga.
Central Elevator Co. ....................................Memphis, Tenn.
Camilla Cotton Oil Co. ................................... Camilla, Ga.
Central Cotton Oil Co. ....................................... M acon, Ga.
Denver Alfalfa Mig. Products Co. ............Lamar, Colorado
Dunlop Milling Co. ............. ................. Clarksville, Tenn.
Dreyer Commission Co. .............................. St. Louis, Mo.
D ixie M ills ...................................................E St. Louis, Ill.
Dixie Grain Co. ...........................................N ashville, Tenn.
Dubuison, J. E. ........................... ............Pensacola, Fla.
Domestic Milling Co. ..............................Kansas City, Mo.
D arling & Co. .......... ............... ................ .Chicago, Ill.
Dixie Grain Co. ............ .... .................... Shelbyville, Tenn.
Dunlop Mills, The ........................................Richmond, Va.
Empire M ills Co. ................. ...................... Columbus, Ga.
Evans Milling Co. .................... ........ Indianapolis, Ind.
Evansville Mill & Elevator ..........................Evansville, Ind.
Early & Daniel Co., The ..............................Cincinnati, Ohio
Eko Feed M ills ..............................................Jackson, M iss.
Empire Rice Mill Co. ................................New Orleans, La.
Feed Marketing Co. ....................................St. Louis, Mo.










Manufacturers of Feeding Stuff-(Continued)
Farmers' Cotton Oil Co. ................................ Americus, Ga.
Fowler Commission Co. ............................ Kansas City, Mo.
Gilster Milling Co. .........................................Chester, Ill.
J. T. Gibbons, Inc. ....................................New Orleans, La.
General Commission Co. ........................... Kansas City, Mo.
Gobers Great "8" Mig. Co. .......................... Jackson, Miss.
M. F. Gonzalez Co., The ..... ......................... Pensacola, Fla.
Grain Belt Mills Co. ................................S. St. Joseph, Mo.
Ga. Cotton Oil Co. .......................................... M acon, Ga.
Gulf Cotton Oil Co. ................................Montgomery, Ala.
Grain Products Co. ....................................W ichita, Kansas.
Garrison Valley Mills ..............................W artrace, Tenn.
Haskins Trading Co. ........... ........ New Orleans, La.
Sam uel Hastings Co. ......................................... Cairo, Ill.
Hecker, Jones, Jewell Mlg. Co. ............. New York, N. Y.
Hales & H unter Co. ........................................ Chicago, Ill.
Hiawatha Gin & Mlg. Co. .............................Jackson, Miss.
Hanover Star Mlg. Co. ..............................Germantown, Ill.
The Hughes Co. ........... ...... ......... ........Meridian, Miss.
Happy Feed Mills, Inc. ............................... Memphis, Tenn.
Hogan Mill Feed Co. ........................... Kansas City, Mo.
The Hermitage Mills .............................. Nashville, Tenn.
Indian M killing Co. ......................................Tuskaloosa, Ala.
International Vegetable Oil Co. ............... Memphis, Tenn.
International Mig. Co. ..........................Minneapolis, Minn.
International Sugar Feed Co. No. 2 ............Memphis, Tenn.
International Agricultural Corp. ............... Columbus, Ga.
Juliette M lg. Co. .................................................. M acon, G a.
Jackson Grain Co. .......................... .................Tam pa, Fla.
D. Kugelman & Co. ........ ......................... Pensacola, Fla.
Kansas Flour Mills, The ......................... Kansas City, Mo.
Kieser Milling Co., The ............. ....................Toledo, Ohio
Chas. H. Krause Mlg. Corp. ......................Milwaukee, Wis.
Lawrenceburg Roller Mills Co. ............Lawrenceburg, Ind.
Louisville Milling Co., Inc. ............................ Louisville, Ky.
Larabee Flour Mills Corporation, The ....Kansas City, Mo.











Manufacturers of Feeding Stuff-(Continued)
Larrowe Milling Co., The .......................... Detroit, Mich.
Lyons Milling Co., The ......................Lyons, Kansas.
Louisville Cereal Mills Co. ...........................Louisville, Ky.
Lexington Roller Mills Co. ................. ...Lexington, Ky.
Lee's Milling Co. .................................... St. Louis, Mo.
Iurton Company, The ............ ...... ..........Pensacola, Fla.
Lake Charles Rice Milling Co. ............. Lake Charles, La.
M ayo Mlg. Co., Inc. .............. ........ ......... Richmond, Va.
Mississippi Valley Grain Co. ..................... Memphis, Tenn.
Monroe Milling Co. ............ .. ..... ........ W aterloo, Ill.
Milam-Morgan Co. .... .............................. New Orleans, La.
Meridian Grain & Elevator Co. ................. Meridian, Miss.
Mutual Rendering Co, Inc. ....................... Philadelphia, Pa.
Mountain City Mill Co. ............................. Chattanooga, Tenn.
Geo. B. Mathews & Sons ............................New Orleans, La.
Mount Vernon Milling Co. ................... Mount Vernon, Ind.
The Midland Flour Mlg. Co. ....................... Kansas City, Mo.
Merchants Mill & Elevator Co. ....................... Laurel, Miss.
The M yer M lg. Co. ............................................ N ashville, Ill.
Model Mill Co., Inc. ............................... Johnson City, Tenn.
Middle Tennessee Mlg. Co .......................Tallahoma; Tenn.
M marshall, Hall M lg. Co. .................................. St. Louis, M o.
Manwaring & Wood, Inc. ..........................New York, N. Y.
Montezuma Cotton Oil Co. ........................Montezuma, Ga.
Minneapolis Mig. Co. .............................Minneapolis, Minn.
Mobile Importing & Trading Co. ................... Mobile, Ala.
Malony & Carter Co. ............................... Charleston, S. C.
R. N. Neal & Co., Inc. ................................Memphis, Tenn.
Norfolk Tallow Co., Inc. ................................. .Norfolk, Va.
National Feed Co. ........................... ... ........ St. Louis, M o.
Nixon Grain & Elevator Co. .......................... Augusta, Ga.
Nowak Milling Corporation ........... ...... ..... Hammond, Ind.
Planters Cotton Oil Co. ....................................... Tifton, Ga.
Geo. P. Plant Mig. Co. ................................... St. Louis, Mo.
Phoenix Flour Mills ................................. Evansville, Ind.
Pillsbury Flour Mills Co. ....................... Minneapolis, Minn.










Manufacturers of Feeding Stuff-(Continued)
Penick & Ford, Ltd., Inc. ..........................Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Pease & Dwyer ...........................................Memphis, Tenn.
Pfeffer M lg. Co. .................... ............................ Lebanon, Ill.
Pinnacle Mills ................ .......................Morristown, Tenn.
Polo M ills Co. ....................................................E St. L ouis, Ill.
Presto Feed Co., The ................................S. St. Joseph, Mo.
Pratt Food Company ................................Philadelphia, Pa.
M. C. Peters Mill Co. ................ .......................Omaha, Neb.
Pelham Oil & Fertilizer Co. ................................Pelham, Ga.
Quaker City Flour Mills Co. ....................Philadelphia, Pa.
Quaker Oats Co., The ........................................Chicago, Ill.
Russell Miller Mlg. Co. .......................Minneapolis, Minn.
Ralston Purina Co. ............. ........................St. Louis, Mo.
Rosenbaum Bros. ..........................................Chicago, Ill.
Rossville Grain Co., The ........................Lawrenceburg, Ind.
Rudy Patrick Seed Co. .............................Kansas City, Mo.
Rea-Patterson Mlg. Co. ........................ Coffeeville, Kansas.
Sham rock M ills ............................................E. St. Louis, Ill.
Spartan Grain & Mill Co. .......................Spartanburg, S. C.
Suffolk Oil Mill Co. .................... ...................Suffolk, Va.
Sw ift & Co. ................................... ................. Chicago, Ill.
South Ga. Milling Co. ..................................... Valdosta, Ga.
Sauers Milling Co. ........................................Evansville, Ind.
Southland Mill & Elevator Co. ....................Nashville, Tenn.
J. A. Allen Smith & Co. ............................Knoxville, Tenn.
The Scott County Mlg. Co. ............. ..............Sikeston, Mo.
Spencer Kellogg & Co. .................................Buffalo, N. Y.
The Sheets Elevator Co. ..........................Cleveland, Ohio.
Southern Cotton Oil Co. ..............................Pensacola, Fla.
Southerland Flour Mills Co. ..................................Cairo, Ill.
Security Mills ..............................................Knoxville, Tenn.
Spratts Patent (Am) Ltd. ............................Newark, N. J.
The Sugarinne Co., Inc. ...............................Owensboro, Ky.
Springer Mill Feed Co. ............................Kansas City, Mo.
Sessum Grain Co. ....................................... Memphis, Tenn.
Southern Feed & Grain Co. ............................ Louisville, Ky.










Manufacturers of Feeding Stuff-(Continued)
Southwestern Mlg. Co., The ......................Kansas City, Mo.
Staley M killing Co. ....................................Kansas City, Mo.
Seaborad Feed Mills, Inc. ....................... Henderson, N. C.
A. W Scott, Co., The ......... ......................San Francisco, Cal.
Statesville Flour Mig. Co. ........................Statesville, N. C.
South Ga. Cotton Oil Co ................ .................Boston, Ga.
Southern Cotton Oil Co. ..................................Atlanta, Ga.
Texas Star Flour Mills ............................Galveston, Texas.
Three Minute Cereals Co. ....................Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
Transit Milling Co. ................................... Cincinnati, Ohio.
W R. Tate Co. ............................................N ashville, Tenn.
Union Elevator Co. ............. .................. Memphis, Tenn.
Ubiko Milling Co., The .................................Cincinnati, Ohio
Van Iderstine Co. ....................... Long Island City, N. Y.
Volier & Spies Mig. Co. ................................... St. Louis, Mo.
Vincent & Surre'ncy ................................. Jacksonville, Fla.
Washburn Crosby Co. ........................... Minneapolis, Minn.
Western Grain Co. ..............................Birmingham, Ala.
J. H. Wilkes & Co. ..................................Nashville, Tenn.
Wall-Rogalsky Mlg. Co. ...................... McPherson, Kansas
J. F. Weinnman Mlg. Co. ........................Little Rock, Ark.
W ells-Kahn Co. ................... ..................... Pensacola, Fla.
West Coast By-Products Co. ............... St. Petersburg, Fla.
John W ade & Sons .................... ............. Memphis, Tenn.
Yukon Mill & Grain Co. ........................... Yukon, Okla.
J. Zim m erm an Co. ........................ ................... ... M obile, Ala.
Zilias & Schafer Mlg. Co .............................Mobile, Ala.
MANUFACTURERS OF FERTILIZERS

List of fertilizer manufacturers who have filed their
oaths of analysis with this Department for the years
1925-26.
Atlantic & Gulf Fertilizer Co. ................Jacksonville, Fla.
Armour Fertilizer Works ..................... Jacksonville, Fla.
American Agricultural Chemical Co. ........Pensacola, Fla.










Manufacturers of Fertilizers-(Continued)
Alabama Chemical Co. ............................Montgomery, Ala.
Andalusia Fertilizer Co. .........:.................. Andalusia, Ala.
Atlantic Fertilizer & Phosphate Co. ............Savannah, Ga.
Ashcraft W ilkinson Co. ....................................Atlanta, Ga.
American Cyanamid Co. ............................New York, N. Y.
American Agricultural Chemical Co. ....Jacksonville, Fla.
Barrett Company ................40 Rector St., New York, N. Y.
Blackshear Mfg. Co. ................................... Blackshear, Ga.
Blue Belt Fertilizer Co. ............................. Savannah, Ga.
W. C. Bradley Co. ................................ .. Columbus, Ga.
Beall Mercantile Co .............. ....................Malone, Fla.
Baker Chem ical Co. .............................................Inglis, Fla.
Baugh & Sons Company ........................Philadelphia, Penn.
Capitol Fertilizer Co. .............................Montgomery, Ala.
Coweta Fertilizer Co. ...........................Montgomery, Ala.
Chase & Company ..........................................Sanford, Fla.
Columbus Fertilizer Co. ............ ................ Columbus, Ga.
Chatham Fertilizer Co. ............................... Savannah, Ga.
Dothan Guano Co. ........................................... Dothan, Ala.
Florida Fertilizer Co., Inc. ..................... Jacksonville, Fla.
Florida Cotton Oil Co. ............................. Jacksonville, Fla.
Fla. East Coast Fertilizer Co. ................. Homestead, Fla.
Ford Motor Company ................................... Detroit, Mich.
Farmers Fertilizer Co. ................................Andalusia, Ala.
Georgia Chemical Works ........................ Montgomery, Ala.
Gulf Fertilizer Co. ............. ............................Tampa, Fla.
Ga. Fertilizer & Oil Co. ................ ................. Valdosta, Ga.
Grasselli Chemical Co. ............................Birmingham, Ala.
W. R. Grace & Company ............................New York, N. Y.
J. C. Harris Co. ........................ ....................Atlanta, Ga.
Home Guano Co. ............ ..................Dothan, Ala.
Houston Fertilizer Co. .................................... Dothan, Ala.
Hand Trading Company ....................................Pelham, Ga.
International Veg. Oil Co., Inc. ................Memphis, Tenn.
International Agricultural Corp. ............Jacksonville, Fla.
Jackson Grain Co. ...............................................Tam pa, Fla.












Manufacturers of Fertilizers-(Continued)
Kutroff, Pickhard & Co., Inc. ................... New York, N. Y.
Lyons Fertilizer Company .............................Tampa, Fla.
Mapes Formula Peruvian & Guano Co, The New York, N. Y.
Marlboro Guano Co., The ...............................Dothan, Ala.
Morris & Holloway ....................................... Samson, Ala.
Montezuma Cotton Oil Co. .......................Montezuma, Ga.
M acon Fertilizer Co. ............................................M acon, Ga.
Merchants Fertilizer & Phosphate Co. ....Charleston, S. C.
McIver, Dulany Co. ............ .......... .......... Savannah, Ga.
N natural Guano Co. .................... .. ... ................A urora, Ill.
Nitrate. Agencies Co. ..............................Jacksonville, Fla.
Non Acid Fertilizer & Chemical Co. ............Lakeland, Fla.
Oak City Guano Co. ................................... Bartow,, Fla.
Ocilla Oil & Fertilizer Co. ................................... Ocilla, Ga.
G. Ober & Sons Co. ......................... Baltimore, Md.
Planters Cotton Oil Co. .......................................Tifton, Ga.
E. O. Painter Fertilizer Co. ................... Jacksonville, Fla.
Pulverized Manure Co., The ........National Stock Yards, Ill.
Planters Oil Company ................................... Albany, Ga.
Premier Poultry Manure Co. ......................... Chicago, Ill.
F. S. Royster Guano Co. ..........................Montgomery, Ala.
Reliance Fertilizer Co. ............ ................ Savannah, Ga.
Read Phosphate Co ............. ................. Cordele, Ga.
Swift & Co. Fertilizer Works ....................Atlanta, Ga.
Shore Fertilizer Co. ........................ Plant City, Fla.
Southern Fertilizer & Chemical Co. ............Savannah, Ga.
Southern Cotton Oil Co. ................................ Pensacola, Fla.
Standard Fertilizer Co. .............................Gainesville, Fla.
Southern States Phosphate & Fertilizer Co., Savannah, Ga.
Southern Fertilizer Works, Inc. ..............Orlando, Fla.
A A Sm ith, Inc. .......... ............. .................A tlanta, Ga.
Swift & Co. .......................................... New Orleans, La.
The Southern Cotton Oil Co. ..............................Macon, Ga.
Trueman Fertilizer Co. ........................... Jacksonville, Fla.
Thomasville Fertilizer Co. ........................ Thomasville, Ga.
Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. ............... Jacksonville, Fla.












Manufacturers of Fertilizers-(Continued)
Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. ............Montgomery, Ala.
Wilson & Toomer Fertilizer Co. ............Jacksonville, Fla.
W essel Duval & Co. ...................................New York, N. Y.
W est Coast Fertilizer Co. ..............: ...................Tampa, Fla.

DEFICIENCIES IN COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS
By Dr. Ward H. Sachs, Agronomist, Nat. Fertilizer Assn.
The need of inspection of commercial fertilizers as well
as food and feeds is at once apparent. When properly car-
ried out, it is of benefit to all concerned, farmers and fer-
tilizer men as well. I am glad to say that more and more
farmers are buying guano for the plant food that it con-
tains rather than on the smell. While in the past the farm-
er was in position to be his own judge with regard to the
strength and quality of the odor given off by the guano, he
is not now in position to make an estimate of the plant
food that is contained in a sack. He must depend on the
analysis shown on the tag as being a truthful statement
of the contents of the bag which I am glad to say is in
most cases correct, or he must have a sample analyzed by
the state chemist who can tell him if the fertilizer has
been properly tagged. The farmer needs and demands in-
spection and should have it.
The fertilizer manufacturers, at least all the pro-
gressive manufacturers who are in business to stay and
know that a satisfied customer is the best advertisement
possible, are glad to see proper fertilizer inspection, as it
is a means of putting competition on a fair basis. With
no inspection, no check-up on the plant food in the fer-i
tilizer, the unscrupulous manufacturer would have an ad-
vantage in selling that would be difficult for the honest
manufacturer to overcome, for available plant food costs
money, and the honest producer, trying to maintain his
high standard both as to quantity and quality, would ne-
cessarily have to charge more for his product. In the











long run, this advantage is not so real, although price per
ton is still a very important consideration with the buyer.
There is probably nothing that will do more to keep
unscrupulous manufacturers out of the field than the
yearly publishing of the findings of the inspection depart-
ment. It has been found in other states, and probably is
true here, that the publishing of these reports has a much
greater effect on holding up the guaranteed analysis than
the mere collection of penalties when a deficiency is found.
As you all likely know, the usual form which these
reports take is to show the guaranteed analysis, and that
found, so that one can quickly note in what plant foods
overruns or deficiencies occur. I wish to call your atten-
tion to the fact that some of these deficiencies may only be
apparent, not real.
In presenting the following data, which show the vari-
ations in analysis of the same fertilizer when analyzed by
different chemists, I wish to have it clearly understood
that I do so with no spirit of criticism. I only wish to
present some facts as they were found.
It is my belief that there is no body of men who are
more awake to their own limitations, who scrutinize their
own data more closely, or who criticise their own work
more severely than the chemists. The fact that I have this
data to present is only one evidence of their desire to get
to the bottom of things, to find out their present limita-
tions that they may be of still greater service.











VARIATIONS IN ANALYSES
Phosphoric Acid
Available Ammonia Potash
% % %
Sample No. 2 6-7-5 grade
6.01 6.86 5.40
6.05 6.99 5.40
6.93 7.41 5.84
7.63 7.42 5.91
Average 6.48 7.12 5.62
Sample No. 5 8-4-4 grade
7.58 4.06 4.05
8.16 3.98 4.11
8.64 4.59 4.58
8.69 4.97 4.67
Average 8.43 4.18 4.22
Sample No, 9 10-4-4 grade
9.73 3.81 3.86
9.99 3.83 4.08
10.49 4.05 4.44
10.55 4.10 4.50
Average 10.23 3.93 4.22
About three years ago, some thirty chemists, state,
commercial, and chemists connected with the fertilizer
industry, began collaborating, through Dr. E. W.
Magruder, of the F. S. Royster Guano Co., in an effort to
improve technique in fertilizer analysis and to check up
on the accuracy of their work.
From time to time carefully prepared samples of fer-
tilizer were sent out to each co-operating chemist. These
samples were analyzed and the results sent back to Dr.
Magruder who tabulated them and sent a copy of the re-
sults to all interested chemists.
Realizing the value of such work as a means of keep-











ing in line with other chemists the number of co-operating
chemists has grown to 54. Naturally each chemist, or
rather each laboratory wishes to make a good showing so
that as a rule one of the better chemists in the laboratory
is assigned the task of analyzing these check samples. We
can safely assume that good chemists made these analyses.
On the chart we have the two lowest, the two highest,
together with the average analyses for the different plant
food elements reported on three check samples. It is at
once apparent that considerable variation in analysis ob-
tained by different chemists working on the sample may
occur.
These results were obtained on finely-ground, well-
mixed samples, so that the sampling error was not a factor.
With a sampling error added, variation would likely have
been considerably more. With variations such as these,
you. can see that it is not at all unlikely for one chemist
to pass a sample while another lists it as being deficient.
It's likely that occasionally some apparent deficiencies are
not real.
When the deficiency is real, and we must assume that
most of those shown are real, it is in nitrogen or ammonia
content where the deficiency usually occurs. There are
several reasons why this is the case.
I have no doubt some of you are thinking that the
real reason is because ammonia costs so much more per
unit. That likely is the most impotrant factor. Being
the most expensive plant food, the over-run is probably
watched much more closely than with the other two plant
foods, and, where attempting to work on a close margin,
occasionally the ammonia content drops too low.
Another factor operating here is that phosphoric acid
and potash are usually obtained from only one source each,
while the ammonia frequently is obtained from many dif-
ferent sources. I believe that this would be especially











true here in Florida. With your open soils, you probably
find more need of organic in the mixed fertilizer than is
generally found in the fertilizer in either Georgia or Ala-
bama, and probably several sources of organic ammonia
are used. This use of several different sources of am-
monia introduces that many more opportunities for an
error in ammonia content to creep in.
While the practice of obtaining ammonia from several
sources tends to complicate the problem of meeting the
guarantee, with no large overage and no deficiency, it is
not my purpose to in any way discourage the practice, for
I realize the value of different sources of ammonia, par-
ticularly on sandy soils, and also the importance of the
practice in helping to hold down the price of ammoniates
by not centering too much on any one material. All that
can be suggested is closer supervision in the fertilizer fac-
tory.
Deficiencies in phosphoric acid and potash occur less
frequently. Occasionally the available phosphoric acid in
the mixed fertilizer falls below the guarantee, as result
of change in availability of the phosphoric acid after bag-
ging, due to reaction with some added material. Such
reversion of the available phosphoric acid in mixed fer-
tilizers has ben traced to lime, where the manufacturer
has used a small amount of ground limestone in the mixeo
fertilizer.
I have a copy of the last annual report of the state
chemist of Florida. From it I gather that your inspection
department has been aware of the fact that too sharp ai
line can be drawn with regard to deficiencies and have
ruled that a fertilizer whose deficiency is 20% or less in one
or more elements of available plant food shall be consid-
ered as meeting the requirements. This plan is in line
with the best thought in other states, although I may say
that in some states the leway is greater, as, for instance,
20% nitrogen or 24% ammonia and 30% for phosphoric












acid and potash. This pain shows your department to be
striving to put inspection on a reasonable, and above all,
a workable basis.
Turning to this report, I find that 23% of the samples
of complete fertilizer analyzed exceeded the guaranteed
ammonia content by 20%, while 21% fell below the guar-
antee by 20%. Sixty-three per cent of the samples an-
alyzed exceeded the guaranteed phosphoric acid content
by 20%, while 4% fell below the guarantee by 20%.
Sixty-one per cent of the complete fertilizer samples an-
alyzed exceeded the guaranteed potash content by 20%,
while 8% fell below the guarantee by 20%.
When this is all summed up, we find that the average
for all the complete fertilizers drawn showed an excess
above guarantee of .04% ammonia, 67% phosphoric acid
and 34% potash. Putting it another way, the average
state value guaranteed per ton $36.90; average state value
found per ton $38.45; excess $1.55 per ton. In other
words, the average fertilifier carries more than the guar-
antee.
While the average fertilizer sold in Florida carries
more plant food than the guaranteed analysis shows, we
must not lose sight of the fact that some of these fertil-
izers making up this average fell short. In such average
figures we let the deficient fertilizer profit by the overage
of some of the other fertilizers. Each individual fertilizer
and each individual fertilizer manufacturing plant must
stand on its own merits.
My subject was deficiencies in commercial fertilizers,
but I wish to say a few words with regard to over-runs, as
over-runs and deficiencies are closely related in the at-
tempt to meet the guaranteed analysis. In some states
a compensating value allows over-runs in one element to
offset shortages in another. Such a ruling permits great-
er flexibility, and, with proper restirctions, would seem to
be a very good plan. Certainly, where a sharp line with












regard to deficiencies is drawn, some sort of compensation
should be made for large over-runs.
If you study this State Chemist's report, I think you
will be convinced that the fertilizer manufacturers are
trying to furnish fertilizers that meet the guarantee. In
the light of the data presented, showing the variation
which may occur between different analyses of the same
fertilizer, I think you will agree that it is not surprising
that some cases are found where the fertilizer does not
meet the guarantee. The surprising thing is that so
many of them come so close-
I am sure that, if the state officials who have charge
of the inspection work continue to administer the laws
with sympathy and understanding, great good will come
from such work. Only one evidence of this feeling on the
part of your own department is this three-day confer-
ence. As we come to learn more of each other's problems,
we cannot fail to become more sympathetic.





Statement showing the total number of gallons of


gasoline, kerosene and signal
ida during the year 1925.
Gals.
Gasoline
January .............. 15,457,142
February ............ 13,702,115
March ................. 14,695,705
April ........... ..... 14,629,460
M ay ................... 15,338,020
June .................. 14,182,278
July ...................... 16,009,214
August ................ 17,565,5791,


oil sold in the State of Flor-


Gals.
Kerosene
2,287,034
2,156,581
2,132,615
1,871,112
1,692,277
1,558,250
1,523,500
1,641,4431/2


Gals.
Sig. Oil
3,060
3,728
3,916
3,014
1,758
2,060
1,950
1,9591/2












Gals.
Gasoline
September ......... 18,872,446
October ............... 22,273,275
November ........... 22,959,6361/2
December ......... 26,276,566

Total ................. 211,961,436


Gals. Gals.
Kerosene Sig. Oil.
1,765,998 3,078
2,260,807 2,899
2,870,332 5,5551/%
3,888,4121/2 5,353

25,648,362 38,331


Statement showing the total number of gallons of
gasoline, kerosene and signal oil sold in the State of Flor-
ida during the year 1926.


January ................
February ...............
M arch .....................
A pril .......................
May ................. .
J u n e .................
J u ly ..... .. ........ .
August ................
September .......... .
October ................


Gals.
Gasoline
26,740,885
25,913,127
28,162,367
25,206,209
24,278,834
22,233,939
22,176,238
21,173,371
20,537,729
22,321,916


November ................ 23,092,248
December ................ 25,134,808

286,971,671


Gals.
Kerosene
4,264,363
3,397,609
3,658,602
2,610,080
2,407,949
1,900,270
1,958,153
1,972,684
2,118,908
2,433,592
3,070,629
2,992,576


Gals.
Sig. Oil
2,002
2,376
2,068
2,695
2,754
2,125
1,302
2,009
3,486
2,558
3,439
2,636


32,785,415 29,450









r 1 11
I I


2. GASOLINE PUMP TEST DEMONSTRATION.


IB


;Bt~


i



















" "0


.t-.


2. GASOLINE PUMP TEST DEMONSTRATION.


.7









68

CONSUMPTION OF GASOLINE, KEROSENE AND SIG-
NAL OIL BY COUNTIES DURING THE
YEAR OF 1926


County
Alachua


Baker .... ...... .......
B a y ................ ..............
Bradford ............ ......
Brevard .....................
Broward ................. .
Calhoun .......... ..........
Charlotte .... ..............
Citrus .............. .... ..
Clay ............ ......
C ollier ........ .. .........
Columbia ............... .
D ade ..................... ..
DeSoto .......................
D ix ie ........... .. .. ..
Duval ......... ...... .
Escambia .................
F lagler .......................
Franklin ...................
Gadsden .....................
Gilchrist .......................
G lad es ............ ..........
G u lf ............ .. ......
Hamilton ......................
H ardee .. .....................
Hendry .........................
Hernando ......................
Highlands ....................
Hillsborough .........
H olm es ........................
Indian River ...............
Jackson .......................
Jefferson .....................


Gasoline
..... ...... .. 5,138,513


492,986
1,621,158
764,880
4,961,080
8,875,476
588,902
1,413,331
1,003,846
616,851
211,493
2,265,814
48,153,074
1,784,614
343,177
21,886,423
4,800,555
696,421
651,086
1,791,534
278,915
512,390.5
143,798
1,074,401
1,911,512
483,875
1,212,161
2,739,772.5
30,777,472
475,797
1,747,964
1,938,419
869,862


Kerosene Signal Oil
477,698 1,731
42,084 ..........
157,958 .........
85,438 .......
478,257 ........
857,203
42,827
200,035 .........
121,189
85,060
28,451 .........
180,692 ....
4,222,317 2,065
245,345 5
43,894 .....
3,732,919 15,795
549,494
70,037 .....
*111,187 .....
222,246
36,871 ........
147,948 ..
16,094 .........
72,517
217,218 ....
74,561
189,572 ..
338,483 ....
3,140,945 1,062
39,011 ..........
227,365 ..........
185,257 ...
96,433 ..........









69
County Gasoline
Lafayette ........ .. 237,887
Lake .. ..... ........ 5,661,777
Lee ................... .... 3,915,900
Leon .............. ...... 2,138,292
Levy ........................ 1,467,606
Liberty ................... 165,476
Madison ....................... 1,356,139
Manatee .................. 5,172,396
Marion ....... .......... 5,209,099
Martin ..................... 1,389,492
M onroe .......................... 1.301,789.5
Nassau ........................ 1,000,609
Okaloosa .................... 8%3,209
Okeechobee ................. 1,4,5,218
Orange ... .................. 11,904,407
Osceola .......................... 1,983,342
Palm Beach ............... 16,850,595
Pasco ........ .............. 1,840,617
Pinellas ........................ 19,324,686
Polk ........................ 15,235,623
Putnam ........................ 2,724,073
St. Johns ..................... 3,987,724.5
St. Lucie ...................... 2,839,210
Santa Rosa ................ 990,309
Sarasota ...................... 5,046,110
Seminole ...................... 3,766,940
Sum ter .......................... 1,666,698
Suwannee .................... 1,511,585
Taylor .......................... 1,053,120.5
U nion ............................ 290,738
Volusia ........................ 10,434,058
Wakulla ........................ 348,325
Walton ......................... 1,025,642
Washington ................ 605,426

Totals ......................... 286,971,671


Kerosene Signal Oil
26,536 ........
814,729 5
540,795 50
205,594 ........
154,065 .........
16,037 ..........
93,963 ...
839,513
491,382 156
201,848 ..
172,085 211
160,618
52,042
143,716 ....
1,259,913 2,030
287,885 ..........
1,895,453 106
231,858 5
1,999,212 420
2,070,793 1,659
322,393 101
477,077 800
310,120 1,279
75,408 ..........
763,779 ..
416,284 481
209,995 ...
142,904 .........
125,291 ..
55,848 ..
1,315,597 1,489
20,917
91,467 .......
63,695 ..........

32,785,415 29,450










THE LIFE OF AN AUTOMOBILE
(Literary Digest)
The results of a study to determine the normal life
history of automobiles are given in a bulletin issued re-
cently by the Bureau of Business Research of the Univer-
sity of Michigan. The study was conducted by C. E. Grif-
fin, Professor of Marketing at the University, says a re-
viewer in Roads and Streets (Chicago.)
The method employed was to take a sample of cars
of the 1923 registration and, by comparing it with a sample
of the 1924 registration, determine the "death-rate" for
cars of various ages in the intervening period. The study
was made on automobiles in the State of Michigan. It
happened that in 1923 and 1924 the registration author-
ties of Michigan obtained from automobile registrants the
year-model of the car registered as well as other data;
and they have published in some thirty-five volumes (1924)
the license number, name and address of owner, make of
car, and year of manufacture. Employing this source of
information, a sample of 41,641 cars was taken from the
1923 reports and 49,245 from the 1924 reports. The total
number of cars each year-model in the two registration
periods, as indicated by the samples were then compared.
The following conclusions are given by Professor Grif-
fin in the bulletin:
1. The mortality rate for automobiles follows a curve
similar in form to that for human lives and for various
types of industrial goods.
2. The average life of motor vehicles generally is
7.04 years.
3. The average life of Ford cars is substantially
longer than the average life of all other cars as a group.
4. The average life of automobiles has shown a def-
inite though not a steady increase.











5. The rate at which automobiles of a given year's
production are eliminated from use is indicated by the fol-
lowing facts: of any given 100,000 cars placed in use, 75
per cent will still be in use at the end of 4.75 years, 50
per cent. at the end of 6.94 years, and 25 per cent. at the
end of 9.2 years.
6. The normal "expectation of life" for cars of dif-
ferent ages is as follows: for new cars it is 7.04 years; for
cars 3.5 years of age, 4.27 years; for cars 6.5 years of age,
2.8 years; for cars 9.5 years of age, 1.8 years; and for cars
12.5 years of age, 1.2 years.
7. On December 31, 1924, 93.1 per cent. of the cars
produced in the preceding five years, 76.9 per cent. of those
produced in the preceding ten years, and 71.3 per cent. of
those produced in the preceding fifteen years were still in
use.
8. The average age of the cars in use on December
31, 1924, was 3.07 years.
9. The replacement demand has shown a marked in-
crease both absolutely and relative to the total demand.
This tendency will continue. It is predicted that the re-
placement demand of 1926 will be 1,796,000 cars, of 1927,
2,063,000 cars, and of 1928, 2,341,000 cars. This increase
in replacement demand means that the automobile market
is approaching a stabilized condition.
10. At a rate of production of 4,000,000 motor vehi-
cles a year (last year's total was 4,480,000) and exports of
five per cent. of production there would be in the United
States in 1930 a total of 28,580,000 such vehicles, or one
for every 4.3 persons of the estimated population of that
year.











STANDARD AND HIGH GRADE GASOLINE
By Dr. Roger Chew, New York City
Within a period of time of scarcely more than a
quarter of a century we have seen the product from crude
oil known as "Gasoline" removed from the class of useless-
ness as a fuel for the internal combustion engine, to the
class of necessity. At the beginning of the industry of
building internal combustion engines most of the atten-
tion of the automobile engineer was directed to the per-
fection of the mechanical development of the engine and
little attention was paid to the quality of the fuel, a factor
just as important as the engine itself. Naturally the auto-
mobile builder turned to the most available fuel, which
was the lighter products from distillation of crude oil,
which products had up to this time been used for the man-
ufacture of illuminating gas, cleaning and to some extent
solvent purposes, and in fact about twenty years be-
fore the application of the internal combustion engine for
propulsion of vehicles a portion of the product now used in
the internal combustion engine was a waste product and
a loss to industry.
During the period just prior to the invention of the
automobile, and until the increase in the use of the auto-
moblie had made a demand for motor fuel, the endeavor
of the oil refiner had been to produce the greatest volume
possible of kerosene, this product being in great demand
for lighting and heating purposes. Therefore, for purely
commercial reasons the quality of gasoline was dependent
upon the quality of kerosene, and as the demand for kero-
sene decreased and the demand for motor fuel greatly in-
creased, the volatility of the gasoline was gradually low-
ered, due to the fact that the lower the volatility of the
gasoline the greater the increase in the yield of this pro-
duct from the crude oil.
This continued until the volatility was reduced (to











meet the demands of the increase in motors), until a point
was reached beyond which it would not have been possible to
go, and by this time the oil industry through their Re-
search Laboratories, had familiarized themselves with the
automobile engine and knew that a gasoline of a still low-
er volatility would not prove satisfactory to the automobile
user.
In the meantime however, the Research Laboratories
of the petroleum industry had invented and perfected what
is known as "cracking processes" for increasing the per
cent of motor fuel from crude oil by producing motor fuel
from a lower product of distillation known as gas oil and
also by converting a portion of reduced crude (that portion
left after recovery of natural gasoline and kerosene) com-
mercially known as fuel oil and used as a substitute on
vessels and by manufacturing plants for coal.

SPECIFICATIONS
Until early in 1917 little attention had been paid by
the automobile builder or the petroleum industry to speci-
fications, each oil refiner producing motor fuel according
to his idea of the proper fuel, and of a necessity there were
many grades of motor fuel produced for use in the many
types of engines. The petroleum industry was unable to
standardize on fuel due to the great variation in the type
of automobile engine, and on the other hand, the auto-
mobile engine builder was unable to stadnardize the en-
gine due to the multiplicity of grades of motor fuels then
on the market.
The beginning of co-operation between the petroleum
industry and the automobile builder was early in the sum-
mer of 1917, when a joint meeting was held in Washing-
ton, D. C., of the petroleum industry, the automobile man-
ufacturers, two branches of the United States Govern-
ment, the Bureau of Mines and the Bureau of Standards,
and representatives of various individual States. Shortly











after this the Bureau of Mines drew up gasoline specifica-
tions to be used by the various departments of the U. S.
Government in their purchase of motor fuel. The real
step however, towards the adoption of specifications for
standard gasoline as distinctive from high grade and low
grade gasoline was a result of the World War.
President Wilson called in Mr. A. C. Bedford, Presi-
dent of the Standard Oil Company (New Jersey) who was
appointed Chairman of the Petroleum Division of the Fuel
Board, and gave to him the task of organizing the petro-
leum industry in order that the greatest volume of petro-
leum products of proper quality for the purpose intended
could be furnished the allied governments. At this time
Mr. Bedford secured not only the co-operation of the en-
tire petroleum industry, but of the Government Bureaus
and the automobile industry, and among other specifica-
tions adopted was one commercially known as navy gaso-
line, which is the standard gasoline of the United States
today.
At times there has been a fear due to the great in-i
crease in the use of internal combustion engine for pleas-
ure, travel, on the farm, and in commercial transportation
of passengers and commodities, that there would be a
shortage in the supply of motor fuel. This fear was
shared by the three interested parties, the public, the pe-
troleum industry, and the automobile manufacturer.
Having produced the cracking and other processes for
increasing the yield of gasoline from crude petroleum,
there was little further that could be done by the petroleum
industry to incerase the amount of gasoline except to trust
to the uncertain discovery of new fields of crude oil rich
in gasoline, and consequently the combined attention of
the petroleum and automobile engineers was directed to-
ward obtaining greater efficiency of the engine, or more
miles to the gallon. The Research Laboratory of the Gen-
eral Motors Corporation developed that the most practical











way to increase the efficiency of the motor, was to increase
the compression of the cylinder, but discovered that when
the compression was increased, that the motor "knocked"
with the motor fuel produced at that time.
At this point the Research Laboratories of the General
Motors Corporation and the Standard Oil Company (New
Jersey) developed that the combination of tetra-ethyl lead
with gasoline would prevent the "knock" and thus allow
the automobile builder to increase the compression and
thereby increase the efficiency of the engine, or in other
words what we are most interested in, increase of miles
per gallon.
The general distribution of gasoline containing tetra-
ethyl lead is being accomplished by the Ethyl Gasoline Cor-
poration and when such general distribution is accom-
plished I think it is safe to predict that the automobile
builder will build an engine of higher compression, there-
by increasing the efficiency of the engine and give us con-
siderable more miles to the gallon.
"HIGH GRADE MOTOR FUEL"
I have attempted to describe before in this paper
what we may consider standard gasoline and will endeavor
now to explain "Why high grade gasoline?"
Every industry has, or should have, a moral respon-
sibility to the public (customers) they serve, and they
should produce an article at the lowest price consistent
with good quality, but on the other hand, there is a pro-
portion of the public who demand and require for special
purposes a higher grade article than that which is satis-
factory to the great majority. This is true of all articles
sold to and used by the public, the motor fuel is no excep-
tion to this rule. A higher grade fuel is required in cases
where the engine is not in the best condition, where con-
ditions require overloading of the engine, where the per-
son feels that he likes to have better service from his en-











gine than the majority of users of automobiles, also, by
the use of a high grade gasoline, he is able to prolong sat-
isfactory service by the prevention of carbon for instance,
and is willing to pay for this service, and it is the duty of
the petroleum industry to furnish the public with such
a fuel and naturally the company that furnishes such a
fuel will out-strip his competitor, such as is the case in
any other industry who try to furnish the customer what
he wants and requires.
I would say that a high grade motor fuel is one that,
by a combination of volatility and anti-knock qualities pro-
duced in the engine, quick start, better acceleration, less
crankcase dilution, prevention of carbon and better gen-
eral performance than the regular grades of motor galo-
line commonly known as navy.





The following is a list of the Oil Companies who have
registered their products and obtained a permit to oper-
ate in this State during the year 1926.
Atlantic Refining Company .... ................. Brunswick, Ga.
Chestnut & Smith Corporation ............... Tulsa, Oklahoma
Clifford-Bell Petroleum Corporation, Wichita Falls, Texas
Escambia Oil Co. ........ ..... ........... Pensacola, Fla.
Galena Signal Oil Co. ............... ...... ...Jacksonville, Fla.
Geneva Oil Co. ........................................... .. Geneva, Ala.
Gulf Refining Co. ............ ....... ............ .. Atlanta, Ga.
The Hickok Producing Co. .......................... Toledo, Ohio
W. C. Robinson Son Co. .......................... Baltimore, Md.
National Oil Co. .............. ..................... Jacksonville, Fla.
New Orleans Refining Co., Inc. ..............New Orleans, La.
Pan American Petroleum Corp. .............. New Orleans, La.
Peninsular State Oil Co. ........................... Jacksonville, Fla.











Sherrill Oil Co. ..................... .. ................Pensacola, Fla.
Sinclair Refining Co. ....................................Atlanta, Ga.
Standard Oil Co. ...... ........................... Birmingham, Ala.
Standard Oil Co. ............... .. ............... Jacksonville, Fla.
The Texas Company ................................Houston, Texas

SAMPLES RECEIVED AND ANALYZED
January 1st to December 31st, 1926
Special Gasoline Samples Analyzed ........................ 1
Special Kerosene Samples Analyzed ................ 1

Total Special Samples Analyzed ........... .... .. 2
Official Gasoilne Samples Analyzed ........ ........... 280
Official Kerosene Samples Analyzed ........................ ... 96

Total Official Samples Analyzed ............ .... 376
Illegal Gasoline Sam ples ........... ......................... 0
Illegal Kerosene Samples ....... ..... 0
NOTE.-The number preceding the laboratory number
in the analyses printed herewith denotes the number of
samples making up the composite sample under one analy-
sis and one laboratory number.
Gasoline Standard
Corrosion Test.-Method 530.21. A clean copper strip
shall not be discolored when submerged in gasoline for three
hours at 122 degrees F.
Distillation Range.-Method 100.12. When the first
drop falls from the condenser, the thermometer shall not
read more than 55 degrees C. (131 degrees F.)
When 20% has been recovered in the receiver, the
thermometer shall not read more than 105 degrees C. (221
degrees F.
When 50% -has been recovered in the receiver, the









78

thermometer shall not read more than 140 degrees C. (284
degrees F.)
When 90% has been recovered in the receiver, the
thermometer shall not read more than 200 degrees C. (392
degrees F.)
The End Point shall not be higher than 225 degrees
C. (437 degrees F.)
At least 95% shall be recovered as distillate' in the re-
ceiver from the distillation.
Sulphur.-Method 520.1. Sulphur shall not be over
0.10%.
SPECIFICATIONS FOR KEROSENE
The oil shall be free from water, glue and suspended
matter.
Color-Method 10.11. The color shall not be darker
than No. 16 Saybolt.
Flash Point-Method 110.1. The flash point shall not
be lower than 100 degrees F. Tag Closed Tester.
Sulphur-Method 520.1. The sulphur shall not be more
than 0.125 per cent.
Flock-Method 130.1. The flock shall be negative.
Distillation-Method 100.22. The end point shall not
be higher than 625 degrees F.
Cloud Point-Method 210.6. The oil shall not show
a cloud at 5 degrees F.













Pw
,^r










DS I CG 3 ,S GF





DISCHARGING CARGO, 3,000,005 GALLONS GASOLINE, DOCKS, GULF' REFINING CO., JACKSONVILLE.















R. E. ROSE, State Chemist


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-DIVISION OF CHEMISTRY
OIL SECTION
Official Gasoline Analyses for the Year 1926
Samples Taken by State Inspectors Under Act Approved June 4, 1919
*N. BERRYMAN, Asst. Chemist
*N. D. DAVIS, Asst. Chemist


,4W as 2 g


"" b DATE TAKEN FROM WHOM TAKEN TOWN REFINER



.0 P M a' ;



Not NOT BELOW Not
Fla. Above Above
Standard 55 De- 225 De-
grees C. | Igrees C.
20 p. c. 50 p. c.90 p. c. 95 p. c.

5-4097 54 26 57 94 97 213 Jan. 1, 1926 Mexican Petroleum Corp. Jacksonville Mexican
8-4098 46 26 56 93 98 221 Jan. 1, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Jacksonville Standard
6-4099 50 29 60 .93 97 218 Jan. 2, 1926 Seaboard Oil Co. Jacksonville Seaboard
8-4100 54 30 60 94 97 223 Jan. 4, 1926 Peninsular State Oil Co. Jacksonville Sun
14-4101 40 36 56 90 96 219 I Jan. 4, 1926 Gulf Refining Co. Port Tampa Gulf
4103 42 26 56 93 98 220 Jan. 5, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Ocala Standard
4104 48 30 59 93 97 219 Jan. 4, 1926 Seaboard Oil Co. Ocala Pure
4105 48 30 59 93 97 219 Jan. 4. 1926 Seaboard Oil Co. Ocala Pure
4106 43 32 60 93 97 P17 Jan. 4, 1926 Texas Oil Co. Ocala Texas
4107 47 27 56 93 97 220 Jan. 4, 1926 Harlan Oil Co. Ocala Mexican
4108 45 28 59 92 98 220 Jan. 4, 1926 Harlan Oil Co. Ocala Mexican
4110 46 30 59 93 97 220 Jan. 6, 1926 Sinclair Oil Co. Ocala Sinclair
4111 40 I 33 59 93 97 218 Jan. 6, 1926 Texas Oil Co. Ocala Texas
4112 47 26 56 93 97 221 Jan. 6. 1926 Standard Oil Co. Ocala Standard
4113 40 35 60 93 97 219 Jan. 6, 1926 Gulf Refining Co. | Ocala Gulf
4114 45 26 56 93 97 220 Jan. 5, 1926 | Standard Oil Co. Citra I Standard
*N. Berrman succeeded N. B. Davis who resigned Aug. 25, 1926.













OFFICIAL GASOLINE ANALYSES FOR THE YEAR 1926


DATE TAKEN


FROM WHOM TAKEN


TOWN


I I Not
1 Not 1 NOT BELOW Not
Fla. Above I Above
Standard 55 De- I 225 De-
grees C. O pc agrees C
20 p. c. 50 p. c. 90 p. c. 95 p. c.


Jan. 4, 1926
Jan. 4, 1926
Jan. 2, 1926
Jan. 2, 1926
Jan. 2, 1926
Jan. 2. 1926
Jan. 4, 1926
Jan. 4, 1926
Jan. 5, 1926
Jan. 7, 1926
Jan. 11, 1926
Jan. 17, 1926
Jan. 18, 1926
Jan. 20, 1926
Jan. 18, 1926
Jan. 19, 1926
Jan. 16, 1926
Jan. 25, 1926
Jan. 24, 1926
Jan. 24, 1926
Jan. 25, 1926


SJefferson Co. Gas & Oil Co.
STexas Oil Co.
Messer Motor Co.
Messer Motor Co.
Texas Oil Co.
Standard Oil Co.
Standard Oil Co.
Standard Service Sta. No. 1
Texas Oil Co.
Mexican Petroleum Corp.
Seaboard Oil Co.
Mexican Oil Co.
Sinclair Oil Co.
Gulf Refining Co.
Stanadrd Oil Co.
Sherril Oil Co.
Standard Oil Co.
Texas Co.
Standard Oil Co.
Seaboard Oil Co.
Texas Oil Co.


P,


VO
Pq P
'op
o


6

.ii
Is




.ms o-
0 CO LI

- |gB


d
u

.
II

Bs?
B0
4r1


aCQ


0
>1
'so
I-.s
'*s
*e


6


b0

So
0
55N
|g
u'a3


Monticello Texas
Madison Fexaa
Madison Texas
Monticello Gulf
Madison Texas
Madison Standard
Monticello Standard
Monticello Standard
Tampa Texas
Tampa Mexican
Port Tampa Pure
Jacksonville Mexican
Jacksonville Sinclair
Jacksonville Gulf
Jacksonville Standard
Pensacola Pure
Tampa Standard
Tampa Texas
Tampa Standard
Tampa Pure
Tampa Texas


4115
4116
4117
4118
4119
4120
4121
4122
12-4123
6-4124
10-4125
4126
4127
4128
4129
4130
4131
4132
4133
4134
4135


217
217
218
220
219
218
22C
220
220
218
220
220
204
220
21S
217
217
217
217
222
215
S 213


.


_ _ .










OFFICIAL GASOLINE ANALYSES FOR THE YEAR 1926

Sd I








.Fla. Above Above

Standard 55 De- 225 De-
grees C.1 gre C


4136 '6 29 56 98 97 218 Jan. 22, 1926 Texas Oil eo. Jacksonville Texas
4137 44 25 58 96 99 213 Jan. 23, 1926 Mexican Petroleum Corp. Tampa Mexican
4138 44 24 60 95 97 219 Jan. 29, 1926 Peninsular State Oil Co. Miami Sun
6-4139 46 32 60 93 97 221 Jan. 29, 1926 Sherrill Terminal Co. Pensacola Pure
4140 46 26 56 93 97 220 Jan. 29, 1926 Standard Service Station No. 1 Marianna IStandard

4141 48 27 56 93 97 220 Jan. 27, 1A26 R. T. Williams Friendship Standard
4142 44 26 56 93 97 220 Jan. 28, 1926 R. D. Bennitt Dillwood Standard
4143 49 25 57 94 98 219 Jan. 28, 1926 A.nJ. Bradoerry Standard

4144 46 32 59 92 97 219 Feb. 2, 1926 W.Peninsular State Oil Co. Malone Sunherrll

4-14 49 26 56 93 97 220 Feb. 2, 1926 S. Harne Harnesville Standard
6-4146 49 26 56 93 97 221 Jan. 30, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Jacksonville Standard
6-4147 50 31 60 93 97 218 Feb. 3, 1926 Mexican Petroleum Corp. Jacksonville Mexican
6-4148 49 30 59 92 97 220 Feb. 9, 1926 Sherrill Terminal Co. Pensacola Pure
7-4149 50 27 57 93 97 220 Feb. 8, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Tampa Standard
6-4150 42 33 59 93 8 218 Feb. 7, 1926 Gulf Refining Co. Tampa Gulf
4-4151 46 32 60 93 98 219 Feb. 6, 1926 Texas Co. Jacksonville Texas Co.
6-4152 40 29 59 93 96 220 Feb. 7, 1926 Peninsular State Oil Co. Jacksonville Sun
6-4153 45 I 36 60 93 96 219 Feb. 9, 1926 Gulf Refinining Co. Jacksonville Gulf
6-4164 50 26 56 93 97 221 Feb. 11, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Tampa Standard
6-4155 42 34 60 93 98 219 Feb. 14, 1926 Gulf Refining Co. Tampa Gulf
5-4156 49 26 56 93 97 221 Feb. 12, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Jacksonville mStandard
2-4157 50 .29 59 93 97 219 Feb. 14. 1926 Mexican Petroleum Corp. Jacksonville Mexican










OFFICIAL GASOLINE ANALYSES FOR THE YEAR 1926

*. d u d I



i 3 Pm ao S DATE TAKEN FROM WHOM TAKEN TOWN REFINER

Si.Z 9 M PI A w
F^ l T II I s


Not NOT BELOW I Not
Fla. Above Above
Standard 55 De- i-. 225 De-
-, grees C. | | grees C.
20 p.c. 50 p. c. 90 p. c.1 95 p.

4-4158 I 44 33 60 93 98 218 Feb. 16, 1926 Texas Oil Co. Jacksonville Texas
5-4159 I 50 27 | 9 93 97 220 Feb. 18, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Jacksonville Standard
4160 43 35 60 93 97 219 Feb. 17, 1926 Gulf Refining Co. Lake City Gulf
4161 48 33 59 94 98 218 Feb. 17, 1926 Pan. Am. Oil Co. Lake City
4162 49 26 56 93 97 222 Feb. 17. 1926 Columbia Co. Lake City Standard
4164 44 29 59 93 97 217 Feb. 17, 1926 R. M. Smith Lake City Sinclair
4165 45 30 59 93 97 21" Feb. 17, 1926 Pan American Oil Co. Lake City
2-4166 42 32 62 92 1 '7 o'' Feb. 20, 1926 Mexican Petroleum Corp. Tampa Mexican
6-4167 46 30 60 93 P8 216 Feb. 20, 1926 Texas Oil Co. Tampa Texas
6-4168 31 30 52 92 96 214 Feb. 25, 1926 Sherrill Terminal Co. Pensacola Pure
4-4169 29 32 50 90 06 219 Feb. 25, 1926 Sinclair Oil Co. Jacksonville Sinclair
6-4170 30 32 53 02 I 08 214 Feb. 20, 1926 Seaboard Oil Co. Jacksonville Seaboard
4-4171 I 40 36 59 93 08 219 Feb. 23, 1926 Oulf Refining Co. Jacksonville Gulf
4172 I 40 32 59 93 97 220 Feb. 23, 1926 Texas Co. Jacksonville Texas
4-4173 50 33 63 92 I 98 212 Mar. 1, 1926 Peninsular State Oil Co. Miami Beach Sun
6-4174 42 3 60 93 I 97 217 Mar. 1, 1926 Texas Oil Co. Tampa Texas
6-4175 I 48 26 56 I 93 I 97 | 220 Mar. 2, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Tampa Standard
2-4176 | 20 63 96 90 9| 8 I 150 Mar. 4, 1926 B. C. Shinner Dunedin
4177 I50 30 59 93 I 97 I 220 Mar. 5, 1926 Sherrill Terminal Co. Pensacola Pure
4178 48 26 56 93 97 220 Mar. 5, 1926 Imperial Oil Co. Tampa Standard
4179 46 32 60 93 97 | 220 Mar. 6, 1926 Imperial Oil Co. Tampa Sunshine
6-4180 I 49 I26 56 93 97 | 221 Mar. 8, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Tampa Standard











OFFICIAL GASOLINE ANALYSES FOR THE YEAR 1926



0 b i I
.2 o 3 o c i
O .5fl .FO
S S DATE TAKEN FROM WHOM TAKEN TOWN REFINER


I I i I
as P P-* S q S'3 S


Not NOT BELOW Not
Fla. Above Above
Standard 55 De- 225 De-
grees C 95 greens C.es
20 p. c. 50 p. c. 90 p. c. 9 p. c.

5-4181 46 29 59 93 97 218 Mar. 9, 1926 Seaboard Oil Co. Tampa IPure
-6-4182 42 32 63 93 98 219 Mar. 10, 1926 Peninsular State Oil Co. Tampa Sun
4-4183 50 26 56 93 97 221 Mar. 8, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Jacksonville Standard
6-4184 40 35 60 93 98 219 Mar. 14, 1926 Gulf Refining Co. Jacksonville Gulf
6-4185 47 I 30 62 94 97 217 Mar. 11, 1926 Mexican Petroleum Corp Tampa Mexican
5-4186 50 I34 60 93 97 218 Mar. 16, 1926 Texas Oil Co. Tampa Texas
6-4187 50 27 58 93 97 220 Mar. 22, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Tampa Standard
6-4188 43 35 60 93 97 217 Mar. 23, 1926 Gulf Refining Co. Tampa Gulf
6-4189 46 30 63 92 97 220 Mar. 23, 1926 Peninsular State Oil Co. Jacksonville Sun
6-4190 47 29 59 93 97 219 Mar. 24, 1926 Seaboard Oil Co. Jacksonville Pure
5-4191 46 28 59 93 91 217 Mar. 24, 1926 Mexican Petroleum Corp Jacksonville Mexican
4192 46 26 56 93 97 220 Mar. 26, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Jacksonville Standard
6-4193 42 33 60 92 97 218 April 3, 1926 I Texas Oil Co. Tampa I Texas
6-4194 50 29 58 93 97 220 April 1, 1926 1 Sherrill Terminal Co. Pensacola [ Pure
4195 42 f 31 62 93 97 217 April 5, 1926 Sinclair Oil Co. Jacksonville I Sinclair
8-4196 47 30 62 94 I 98 219 April 6, 1926 Peninsular State Oil Co. Miami Beach I Sun
4-4197 41 32 59 93 98 219 Mar. 26, 1926 Texas Oil Co. Jacksonville Texas
6-4198 40 36 60 93 97 219 April 2, 1926 Gulf Refining Co. Jacksonville Gulf
6-4199 46 27 57 92 97 222 April 6, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Tampa Standard
6-4200 40 32 59 93 97 217 April 6, 1926 Peninsular State Oil Co. Jacksonville Sun
6-4201 45 29 59 92 97 219 April 9, 1926 Seaboard Oil Co. Tampa Pure
6-4202 43 I 32 60 93 97 218 April 11, 1926 I Texas Oil Co. Tampa Texas












OFFICIAL GASOLINE ANALYSES FOR THE YEAR 1926


L C3 d


r 0
Irees s. a re C
0I C 0 c | .


^B ZBO E o 5 >
da' 9 'S o





Fla. Above I Above
Standard 55 De- I 225 De-
Igrees C.J20 p. ej 50 p. c 95 p. c. grees C.
20 0 C p .


4203 45
4204 45
4205 45
4206 47
4207 48
4208 47
4209 48
4210 47
4211 46
4212 49
4213 47
4214 45
4215 46
4216 48
4217 46
4218 43
4219 48
4220 44
6-4221 48
4222 48
4223 48
4224 45


DATE TAKEN


April 9, 1926
April 9, 1926
April 9, 1926
April 9, 1926
April 9, 1926
April 9, 1926
April 13, 1926
April 13, 1926
April 14, 1926
April 13, 1926
April 14, 1926
April 13, 1926
April 19, 1926
April 19, 1926
April 18, 1926
April 10, 1926
April 17, 1926
April 10, 1926
April 22, 1926
April 17, 1926
April 17, 1926
April 17, 1926


FROM WHOM TAKEN


Texas Oil Co.
Texas Oil Co.
Chevrolet Co.
Standard Oil Co.
Standard Oil Co.
Gulf Refining Co.
Standard Oil Co.
Gulf Refining Co.
F. W. Dedges
Standard Oil Co.
Suwannee Filling Station
Hunter Motor Co.
Sherrill Terminal Co.
Sherrill Terminal Co.
Sinclair Oil Co.
Texas Oil Co
Standard Oil Co.
Sherrill Terminal Co.
Standard Oil Co.
Texas Oil Co
Standard Oil Co.
Texas Oil Co


TOWN


Liv Oa ea


Live Oak
Live Oak
Live Oak
Live Oak
Live Oak
Live Oak
Jasper
Jasper
Jasper
Jasper
Jasper
Jasper
Pensacola
Pensacola
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Pensacola
Tampa
Lakeland
Lakeland
Lakeland


REFINER


I Texas
I Texas
I Sinclair
Standard
I Standard
Gulf
Standard
Gulf
Gulf
Standard
Standard
Gulf
IPure
Pure
Sinclair
I Texas
SStandard
I Pure
1 Standard
Texas
Standard
Texas


I I I


~ ~ '










OFFICIAL GASOLINE ANALYSES FOR THE YEAR 1926


S3 .a I IR


& Ci DATE TAKEN I FROM WHOM TAKEN TOWN REFINER


rI JS fill Jj __ P
SI


Not NOT BELOW Not
Fla. Above Above
Standard 55 De- '225 De
rees C. I agrees C.1
!20 p. c.| 50 p. e. 90 p. c. 95 p. c.

4225 46 | 32 60 93 98 220 April 17, 1926 Texas Oil Co I Lakeland Texas
4226 43 30 59 93 97 221 April 17, 1926 Mexican Petroleum Corp. Lakeland Mexican
4227 49 30 59 92 97 220 April 17, 1926 Seaboard Oil Co. Lakeland Pure
4228 45 32 60 93 97 218 April 22, 1926 Texas Oil Co Monticello Texas
4229 47 26 56 93 97 220 April 22, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Monticello Standard
4230 49 26 56 93 97 218 April 22, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Monticello Standard
4232 46 29 59 92 97 216 April 22, 1926 Sinclair Oil Co. Monticello Sinclair
6-4233 34 32 60 93 97 220 April 30, 1926 Sherrill Terminal Co. Pensacola Pure
4234 47 26 57 93 97 219 April 26, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Mayo Standard
4235 48 27 57 93 97 219 April 27, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Cross City Standard
4236 48 26 57 93 98 220 April 28, 1926 W. J. Tate & Co. Trenton Standard
4237 47 26 57 93 97 219 April 28, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Trenton Standard
4238 45 32 60 93 97 219 April 30, 1926 Turpentine Co. So. of Madison Texas
6-4240 44 30 59 93 97 219 April 28, 1926 Mexican Petroleum Corp. Jacksonville Mexican
6-4241 47 26 56 93 97 220 April 28, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Jacksonville Standard
3-4242 34 34 60 93 97 220 May 7, 1926 Gulf Refining Co. Port Tampa Gulf
3-4243 35 34 60 92 | 97 220 May 7, 1926 Gulf Refining Co. Port Tampa Gulf
6-4244 37 32 60 93 9 97 216 May 7, 1926 Texas Oil Co Jacksonville Texas
6-4245 45 26 56 93 97 218 May 8, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Jacksonville Standard
6-4246 32 29 60 93 | 96 | 203 May 11, 1926 Texas Oil Co Tampa Texas
5-4247 I 39 30 50 92 97 220 May 14, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Tampa Standard
6-4248 40 29 52 93 96 I 214 May 13, 1926 | Seaboard Oil Co. Port Tampa Pure











OFFICIAL GASOLINE ANALYSES FOR THE YEAR 1926






Q Qo Qo dI DATE TAKEN FROM WHOM TAKEN TOWN REFINER


6a aj 4 w
-0 5[ P in ri, S, HQ
s.



Not NOT BELOW Not
Fla. Above Above
Standard 55 Dr- 22 De-
|greesC. C | greesC .
20p. c. 50 p. c. 90 p. c. 95p. c.

4-41249 40 30 69 92 06 216 May 15, 1926 Seaboard Oil Co. Jacksonville Pure
S12563 36 32 60 93 S7 218 May 15, 1926 Mexican Petroleum Corp. I Jacksonville Mexican
I 1bl b6 36 59 92 97 220 May 17, 1926 Gulf Refining Co. I Jacksonville Gulf
f..4252 34 32 60 93 97 219 May 17, 1926 Mexican Petiroleum Corp. Tampa IMexican
( 4253 40 25 55 93 96 217 May 20, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Tampa Standard
(-4254 40 26 56 93 97 218 May 20, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Tampa Standard
6-4255 44 25 58 !3 o7 217 May 19, 1926 Peninsular State Oil Co. Tampa Sun
5-4256 40 28 53 93 `7 212 May 23, 1926 Sherrill Terminal Co. Pensacola Pure
12 4257 40 28 53 93 96 214 May 29, 1926 Sherrill Terminal Co. Pensacola IPure
4258 36 34 59 93 98 218 June 4, 1926 Gulf Refining Co. Jacksonville Gulf
4259 38 30 59 93 "7 219 June 4, 1926 Mexican Petroleum Corp. Jacksonville Mexican
1260 32 33 60 97 97 206 June 6, 1926 Texas Oil Co Jacksonville Texas
4261 36 6 60 93 7 218 May 26, 1926 H. T. Wilkes Perry Gulf
4262 30 32 60 97 97 203 May 26, 1926 R. H. Evans Filling Station Perry Texas
4263 41 34 59 i 91 97 21! May 26, 1926 J. A. Vickery Perry Sinclair
1264 36 36 60 3C '7 218 May 26, 1926 Grimes Garage Perry Gulf
265 46 27 56 93 [ 7 221 May 26. 1926 Standard Oil Co. Perry Standard
A26 31 33 60 97 7 204 May 26, 1926 Texas Oil Co Perry Texas
4267 45 26 56 3 !7 220 May 29, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Punta Gorda Standard
4268 I 46 26 56 [3 97 220 May 28, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Punta Gorda Standard
4269 F 36 33 56 93 97 216 May 28, 1926 Texas Oil Co Punta Gorda Texas
4270 I 36 | 36 60 1 I 97 219 May 28, 1926 Gulf Refining Co. Punta Gorda Gulf










OFFICIAL GASOLINE ANALYSES FOR THE YEAR 1926





So C b DATE TAKEN FROM WHOM TAKEN TOWN REFINER






Fla. s Above I Above
rCr C1.

2 p 50p. 9 .



6-4274 z 0 32 60 97 97 202 June 12, 1926 Texas Oil Co. Tampa Texas
Not NOT BELOW Not
l6a. Above Above
Stad6rd 6 65 De- 93 9_ 225 De-
grees C.9 greesC.
120 p. c.- 50 p. 90 p. c. 95 p. c.

64271 36 30 59 93 97 216 May 23, 1926 SGulf Refining Co. Punta c orda PGu
12-42782 42 33 59 60 92 96 217 June 518, 1926 Mexicair Refiningum Co. Jacksonville Sinclair
6-4273 46 26 56 93 96 219 June 6, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Jacksonville Standard



4-4280 46 25 57 94 96 215 June 24, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Jacksonville Standard
6-4274 3 32 60 97 97 202 June 12, 1926 Texas Oil Co. Tamps Texas
6-4275 43 30 59 92 96 220 June 9, 1926 SSeaboard Oinl Co. Tampa Pure
6-4276 46 26 56 93 96 221 June 7, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Tampa Standard
6-4277 40 30 55 92 96 219 June 19, 1926 Sherrill terminal Co. Pensacola Pure
12-4278 43 30 60 93 96 217 June 18, 1926 Mexican Petroleum Corp. Jacksonville Mexican
65-4279 44 27 57 92 96 219 June 19, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Tampa Standard
6-4280 46 2 567 94 96 215 June 24, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Jacksonville Standard
3-4281 36 29 57 91 6 202 June 262, 1926 STexas Oil Co. Jacksonville Texas
6-4282 43 29 55 92 97 215 June 262, 1926 Sherrill Terminal Co. Pensacola Pure
6-428390 43 36 59 3 97 217 July 1, 1926 Gulf Refining Co. Jacksonville Gulf
6-4284 44 26 56 93 98 220 July 5, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Tampa Standard
6-4285 439 34 58 9 98 216 July 624, 1926 Gulf RefiningMexican Petroleum Corp. Jacksonville Mexican
5-4286 33 263 63 f693 9 204 July 6, 1926 PTexas Oil Co. Tampa Texas
6-4287 46 26 56 C3 97 219 July 12, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Tampa Standard
5-4288 46 1 23 1 52 I 92 1!6 219 July 22, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Port Tampa Standard
6-4289 39 I 25 I 50 | P1 5 | 211 July 22, 1926 Sherrill Terminal Co. Pensacola Pure
6-4290 36 36 66 i5 16 202 July 23, 1926 Texas Oil Co. Jacksonville Texas
6-4291 39 34 54 90 97 220 July 24, 1926 Gulf Refining Co. | Jacksonville Gulf
8-4292 40 26 56 93 97 211 July 29, 1926 Peninsular State Oil Co. | Miami Beach j Sun










OFFICIAL GASOLINE ANALYSES FOR TIE YEAR 1926

d rd









Not NOT BELOW Not
& DATE TAKEN I FROM WHOM TAKEN TOWN REFINER







Fla. Above Above
Standard 55 De- I 1225 De-
grees C. grees C.
gree 20p. c. 0p. 90 p. c. 95 p. c.

6-4293 46 27 56 93 97 219 July 31, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Jacksonville Standard
6-4294 40 23 50 0 95 222 August 4, 1926 Sinclair Oil Co. Jacksonville Sinclair
4295 40 27 51 93 96 210 August 6, 1926 Sherrill Terminal Co. Pensacola Pure
5-4296 39 27 52 93 96 210 August 6, 1926 Sherrill Terminal Co. Pensacola Pure
4297 40 23 51 90 96 220 Aug. 11, 1926 J. S. King Tallahassee Sinclair
4298 36 37 67 95 97 203 Aug. 11, 1926 R. H. Bradford Tallahassee Texas
4299 45 26 55 92 96 218 Aug. 11, 1926 H. E. Palmer Tallahassee Standard
4300 38 33 54 91 96 217 Aug. 11, 1926 J. H. Tryon Tallahassee Gulf
4301 36 36 60 93 97 217 Aug. 11, :926 Service Garage Tallahassee Gulf
4302 35 29 58 92 97 202 Aug. 11, 1926 Drive-It Yourself Service Tallahassee Texas
4303 42 26 54 92 95 220 Aug. 14, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Port Tampa Standard
5-4304 45 28 52 90 97 221 Aug. 23, 1526 Sinclair Oil Co. Jacksonville Sinclair
4-4305 43 28 55 91 97 222 Aug. 26, .926 Gulf Refining Co. I Jacksonville Gulf
4-4306 37 31 55 93 97 215 Aug. 25, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Port Tampa Standard
4-4307 39 32 61 93 95 202 Aug. 31, 1926 Texas Oil Co. Jacksonville Texas
8-4308 47 23 55 91 97 220 Sept. 3, 1926 Peninsular State Oil Co. Miami Beach !Sun
6-4309 40 26 52 92 96 214 Sept. 4, 1926 Sherrill Terminal Co. Pensacola Pure
4310 42 26 52 93 97 212 Sept. 4, 1926 Sherrill Terminal Co. I Pensacola Pure
4311 42 26 52 93 96 -212 Sept. 4, 1926 Sherrill Terminal Co. I Pensacola Pure
4312 41 25 52 92 96 212 Sept. 4, '926 Sherrill Terminal Co. Pensacola Pure
.4313 41 34 58 91 96 222 Sept. 12, 1926 Gulf Refining Co. Miami Beach Miami
6-4314 42 30 57 94 97 213 Sept. 13, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Jacksonville Standard











OFFICIAL GASOLINE ANALYSES FOR THE YEAR 1926





&t Be 8o .o DATE TAKEN FROM WHOM TAKEN TOWN REFINER

Sgo r

0 fP4M PLM P* M P. I 0


Not NOT BELOW Not
Fla. Above Above
Standard 55 De- 225 De-
|grees C" grees C.'
greesC. 20 p. c. 50 p. c. 90 p. c. 95 p. c trees CI

2-4815 44 I 32 64 95 97 211 Sept. 17, 1926 I Mexican Petroleum Corp. I Jacksonville I Mexican
6-4316 40 30 57 91 96 221 Sept. 16, 1926 I Gulf Refining Co. Jacksonville Gulf
4-4317 40 26 51 93 97 219 Sept. 19, 1926 Sherrill Terminal Co. Pensacola Pure
4-4318 43 25 51 93 97 220 Sept. 19, 1926 Sherrill Terminal Co. Pensacola Pure
5-4319 89 34 64 94 96 210 Sept. 25, 1926 Texas Oil Co. Jacksonville Texas
6-4320 41 28 52 90 96 225 Sept. 26, 1926 Sinclair Oil Co. Jacksonville Sinclair
8-4821 41 30 60 95 97 206 Sept. 27, 1926 Texas Co. Miami Beach Texas
6-4322 43 26 54 93 97 1 218 Sept. 28, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Port Tampa Standard
6-4323 44 26 56 94 97 217 Sept. 29, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Port Tampa Standard
8-4324 42 26 52 93 97 217 Oct. 3, 1926 Sherrill Terminal Co. Pensacola I Pure
5-4325 47 29 58 93 97 221 Oct. 2, 1926 Gulf Refining Co. Jacksonville I Gulf
3-4326 39 32 61 93 97 221 Oct. 2, 1926 Gulf Refining Co. Jacksonville I Gulf
6-4327 44 29 58 94 97 215 Oct. 6, 1926 Standard Oil Co. I Jacksonville IStandard
6-4328 43 31 63 95 98 212 Oct. 7, 1926 Mexican Petroleum Corp. I Jacksonville Mexican
6-4829 39 30 60 95 96 203 Oct. 7, 1926 Texas Oil Co. Miami Beach ITexas
4-4330 43 27 58 93 98 217 Oct. 16, 1926 Standard Oil Co. I Port Tampa Standard
6-4331 40 22 50 90 96 219 Oct. 16, 1926 Peninsular State Oil Co. I Jacksonville I Peninsular
6-4332 35 33 55 90 96 218 Oct. 13, 1926 Sinclair Oil Co. I Jacksonville I Sinclair
5-4333 37 34 64 94 95 201 Oct. 14, 1926 Texas Oil Co. I Jacksonville I Texas
4-4334 41 29 55 93 96 210 Oct. 16, 1926 Sherrill Terminal Co. I Pensacola Pure
4-4335 44 28 55 94 97 210 Oct. 15, 1926 Sherrill Terminal Co. I Pensacola Pure
6-4336 38 23 52 J 91 i 97 219 Oct. 15, 1926 I Peninsular State Oil Co. Tampa Peninsular










OFFICIAL GASOLINE ANALYSES FOR THE YEAR 1926

Cdi d c I



S *9 o DATE TAKEN I FROM WHOM TAKEN TOWN REFINER



b I I
S





Not NOT BELOW Not I
trees C. I agrees C.
120p. c 50 p. c. 90 p. 95 p. c.

6-4387 32 84 60 91 96 221 Oct. 19, 1926 Gulf Refining Co. Port Tampa Gulf
5-4838 45 27 61 95 98 218 Oct. 20, 1926 Mexican Petroleum Corp. I Hookers' Pt. Mexican
5-4889 44 28 59 95 98 217 Oct. 25, 1926 Mexican Pertoleum Corp. Jacksonville Mexican
8-4840 40 29 59 94 98 218 Oct. 26, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Jacksonville Standard
6-4841 50 22 51 94 98 218 Oct. 28, 1926 Seaboard Oil Co. Port Tampa
6-4342 82 34 62 95 95 200 Nov. 1, 1926 Texas Oil Co. Jacksonville Texas
6-4343 85 28 55 92 97 218 Oct. 28, 1926 Sinclair Oil Co. Jacksonville Sinclair
3-4344 40 27 54 92 97 221 Nov. 9, 1926 Sherrill Terminal Co. Pensacola Pure
3-4345 42 27 56 92 97 218 Nov. 9, 1926 Sherrill Terminal Co. Pensacola Pure
4-4346 50 23 57 93 98 218 Nov. 13, 1926 Mexican Petroleum Corp. Jacksonville Mexican
6-4347 42 28 56 93 97 219 Nov. 15, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Jacksonville Standard
2-4848 38 29 55 93 97 218 Nov. 21, 1926 Sherrill Terminal Co. Pensacola Pure
2-4849 38 29 55 93 97 218 Nov. 21, 1926 Sherrill Terminal Co. Pensacola Pure
2-4350 38 28 53 92 97 219 Nov. 21, 1926 Sherrill Terminal Co. I Pensacola IPure
5-4351 56 28 63 95 98 218 Dec. 1, 1926 Mexican Pertoleum Corp. I Hooker's Pt. Mexican
4-4852 36 34 64 96 96 200 Dec. 2, 1926 Texas Oil Co. Miami Beach Texas
4-4858 37 31 62 95 96 204 Dec. 2, 1926 Texas Oil Co. Miami Beach Texas
4-4354 50 24 62 94 98 220 Dec. 2, 1926 Peninsular State Oil Co. Miami Beach Standard
6-4355 34 29 55 92 97 218 Dec. 2, 1926 Seaboard Oil Co. Port Tampa Pure
6-4356 34 35 68 95 96 203 Dec. 3, 1926 Texas Oil Co. Estuary, Tampa Texas
4-4357 7 29 55 92 97 215 Dec. 4, 1926 Gulf Refining Co. Port Tampa Gulf
2-4358 37 28 55 92 97 218 Dec. 4, 1926 Gulf Refining Co. Port Tampa I Gulf











OFFICIAL GASOLINE ANALYSES FOR THE YEAR 1926





SS g a | DATE TAKEN FROM WHOM TAKEN TOWN REFINER

I 61 o 1DA





Not NOT BELOW Not
Fla. Above I Above I
Standard 55 De- _225 De-
grees C. agrees C.
20 p. c. 50 c.90 p. c. 95 p. c.

5-4359 35 33 61 94 95 201 Dec. 4, 1926 Texas Oil Co. Jacksonville Texas
6-4360 76 30 59 94 98 215 Dec. 7, 1926 Mexican Petroleum Corp. Hooker's Pt. Mexican
4-4361 40 29 59 93 97 218 Dec. 5, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Jacksonville Standard
5-4362 47 25 51 90 97 225 Dec. 9, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Port Tampa Standard
4-4363 37 28 53 92 96 218 Dec. 12, 1926 Sherrill Terminal Co. Pensacola Pure
6-4364 39 30 61 94 97 218 Dec. 13, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Port Tampa Standard
5-4365 31 30 55 92 96 215 Dec. 10, 1926 Sinclair Oil Co. Jacksonville Sinclair
6-4366 44 25 55 95 98 213 Dec. 14, 1926 Mexican Petroleum Corp. Jacksonville Mexican
5-4367 32 32 60 91 96 220 Dec. 11, 1926 Gulf Refining Co. Jacksonville Gulf
4368 46 31 62 95 98 215 Dec. 16, 1926 J. C. Easterlin Live Oak Pan. Am.
4369 37 28 63 91 97 220 Dec. 16, 1926 R. 0. Brattain Live Oak Sinclair
4370 37 32 63 96 97 201 Dec. 16, 1926 W. L. Tedder Live Oak Texas
4371 42 26 54 94 98 220 Dec. 16, 1926 Standard Oil Fill. Sta. No. 3 Live Oak Standard
4372 40 29 58 94 98 217 Dec. 16, 1926 Standard Oil Fill. Sta. No. 2 Live Oak Standard
4373 44 34 62 93 97 219 Dec. 16, 1926 Suwannee Service Station Live Oak Gulf
6-4374 31 36 62 94 95 201 Dec. 18, 1926 Texas Oil Co. Estuary, Tampa Texas
4-4375 24 36 56 92 96 219 Dec. 22, 1926 Sherrill Terminal Co. Pensacola Pure
6-4376 32 31 56 92 96 216 Dec. 26, 1926 Sinclair Oil Co. Jacksonville Sinclair
4-4377 37 26 55 91 97 218 Dec. 31, 1926 Sherrill Terminal Co. Pensacola Pure

NOTE.-The samples from Lab. No. 4311 to 4377 satisfactorily passed the corrosion test. The samples starting with Lab. No. 4304 were
analyzed by N. Berryman, Assistant Chemist.












R. E. ROSE, State Chemist.


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-DIVISION OF CHEMISTRY
Oil Section
Special Gasoline Analyses for the year 1926
Samples Sent In by Citizens Under Act Approved June 4, 1919.


N. BERRYMAN, Asst. Chemist.
N. B. DAVIS, Asst. Chemist


a aa a
No. 0 S DATE TAKEN Name of Mfr. and Place Taken

r v. r r a



Not I Not
Above 20 p. c. 50 p. c. 90 p. c. 95 p. c. Above
55 225


223 1 March 27, 1926


Gulf Refining Co., Tampa



















R. E. ROSE State Ch t


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-DIVISION OF CHEMISTRY
Oil Section
Official Kerosene Analyses for the Year 1926
Samples Taken by State Inspectors Under Act Approved June 4, 1919.
N. BERRYMAN, Asst. Chemist.
NT D T tS AA ^n -- .*


Lab. COLOR DATE TAKEN FROM WHOM TAKEN NAME OF MANUFACTURER AND
No. ZO
P4. PLACE TAKEN


Not
Below
100 De- Not Not
agrees F. Above Darker
625 De- than
Plus 16
Tag agrees F. Saybolt
Closed
Tester

2-1398 136 560 O. K. Jan. 1, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Standard Oil Co., Jacksonville
5-1399 128 560 0. K. Jan. 4, 1926 Gulf Refining Co. Gulf Refining Co., Port Tampa
1400 126 563 0. K. Jan. 4, 1926 Hamline Oil Co. Mexican Pertoleum Corp., Ocala
1401 129 540 0. K. Jan. 4, 1926 Texas Oil Co. Texas Oil Co., Ocala
1402 136 572 Jan. 4, 1926 L. R. Rainey Texas Oil Co., Monticello
1403 133 569 Jan. 2, 1926 Cash Garage Texas Co., Madison
1404 123 569 Jan. 2, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Standard Oil Co., Madison
1405 135 570 Jan. 2, 1926 Texas Oil Co. Texas Oil Co., Madison
1406 125 551 Jan. 4, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Standard Oil Co., Monticello
1407 137 556 Jan. 4, 1926 Texas Oil Co. Texas Oil Co., Monticello
1408 133 564 Jan. 4, 1926 J. M. Johnson Texas Oil Co., Monticello
2-1409 I 137 580 Jan. 5, 1926 Texas Oil Co. Texas Oil Co., Tampa
2-1410 135 515 0. K. Jan. 16, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Standard Oil Co., Tampa
1411 153 544 0. K. Jan. 19, 1926 Sherrill Terminal Co. Pure Oil Co., Pensacola
1412 157 516 0. K. Jan. 18, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Standard Oil Co., Jacksonville
1413 159 I 542 O. K. Jan. 24, 1926 Seaboard Oil Co. Pure Oil Co., Tampa
2-1414 132 576 O. K. Jan. 29, 1926 Sherrill Terminal Co. Pure Oil Co., Pensacola
1415 146 [ 570 0. K. Feb. 3, 1926 Marianna Oil Co. Sinclair Oil Co., Marianna
1416 150 543 0. K. Feb. 3, 1926 Sherrill Oil Co. ......................................... Marianna
2-1417 j 127 561 0. K. Jan. 30, 1926 Standard Oil Co. j Standard Oil Co., Jacksonville










OFFICIAL KEROSENE ANALYSES FOR THE YEAR 1926


Lab. q COLOR DATE TAKEN FROM WHOM TAKEN NAME OF MANUFACTURER AND
No. zo DATE TAKEN PLACE TAKEN


Not
Below
100 De- Not Not
agrees F. Above Saybolt
625 De- than
Tag grees F. Plus 16
Ta Darker
Closed
Tester
2-1418 143 546 O. K. Feb. 9, 1926 Sherrill Terminal Co. l ure Oil Co., Pensacola
1419 127 561 0. K. Feb. 8, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Standard Oil Co., Tampa
2-1420 131 576 0. K. Feb. 7, 1926 Gulf Refining Co. Gulf Refining Co., Tampa
2-1421 186 555 0. K. Feb. 6, 1926 Texas Oil Co. Texa I Oil Co., Jacksonville
2-1422 140 576 0. K. Feb. 9. 1926 Gulf Refining Co. Gulf Refining Co.. Jacksonville
2-1423 129 557 0. K. Feb. 11, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Standard Oil Co., Tampa
2-1424 181 580 0. K. Feb. 14, 1926 Gulf Refining Co. Gulf Refining Co., Tampa
2-1425 125 662 O. K. Feb. 12, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Standard Oil Co., Jacksonville
2-1426 149 540 0. K. Feb. 14, 1926 Mexican Pet. Co. Mexican Petroleum Co., Jacksonville
2-1427 135 561 0. K. Feb. 16, 1926 Texas Oil Co. Texas Oil Co., Jacksonville
2-1428 126 570 O. K. Feb. 18, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Standard Oil Co., Jacksonville
1429 134 559 O. K. Feb. 17, 1926 Gulf Refining Co. Gulf Refining Co., Lake City
1430 | 140 580 0. K. Feb. 17, 1926 Pan. Am. Oil Co.. Lake City
2-1431 110 541 0. K. Feb. 20, 1926 Mexican Petroleum Co. Mexican Petroleum Co., Tampa
2-1432 184 569 O. K. Feb. 20, 1926 Texas Oil Co. Texas Oil Co., Tampa
2-1433 110 540 0. K. Feb. 20, 1926 Seaboard Oil Co. Pure Oil Co., Jacksonville
2-1434 130 569 O. K. Feb. 23, 1926 Gulf Refining Co. Gulf Refining Co., Jacksonville
2-1435 133 550 K. Feb. 23, 1926 Texas Oil Co. Texas Oil Co., Jacksonville
2-1436 140 580 0. K. Feb. 26, 1926 Sinclair Oil Co. "inclair Oil Co., Jacksonville
2-1437 134 569 O. K. Mar. 1, 1926 Texas Oil Co. Texas Oil Co., Tampa
2-1488 128 571 0. K. Mar. 2, 1926 Standard Oil Co. S andard Oil Co., Tampa
2-1489 143 581 0. K. Mar. 9, 1926 Seaboard Oil Co. Pure Oil Co, Tampa
2-1440 184 569 0. K. Mar. 14, 1926 Gulf Refining Co. Gulf Refining Co., Jacksonville
2-1441 121 560 0. K. Mar. 22, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Standard Oil Co., Tampa
2-1442 136 579 0. K. Mar. 23, 1926 Gulf Refining Co. Gulf Refining Co., Tampa
4-1443 150 560 0. K. Mar. 23. 1926 Mexican Petroleum Corp. Mexican Petroleum Corp., Jacksonville
1444 123 554 0. K. Mar. 24, 1926 Seaboard Oil Co. Pure Oil Co., Jacksonville












OFFICIAL KEROSENE ANALYSES FOR THE YEAR 1926


Lab. 2C L NAME OF MANUFACTURER AND
No. E COLOR DATE TAKEN FROM WHOM TAKEN LACETAKEN


Not
Below
100 De- Not Darker
,De *ANFe D rker
agrees F. Above Than
625 De- Plus 16
Tag agrees F. Saybolt
Closed
Tester
2-1445 127 563 0. K. Mar. 26, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Standard Oil Co., Jacksonville
4-1446 146 I 580 0. K. April 5, 1926 Mexican Petroleum Corp. Mexican Petroleum Corp., Tampa
2-1448 129 563 0. K. April 2, 1926 Gulf Refining Co. Gulf Refining Co., Jacksonville
2-1449 127 540 0. K. April 9, 1926 Seaboard Oil Co. Pure Oil Co., Tampa
1450 127 564 0. K. April 9, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Standard Oil Co., Live Oak
1451 134 574 0. K. April 9, 1926 Texas Oil Co. Texas Oil Co., Live Oak
1452 124 5 47 O. K. April 13, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Standard Oil Co., Jasper
1453 134 580 0. K. April 13, 1926 Gulf Refining Co. Gulf Refining Co., Jasper
1454 127 563 April 17, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Standard Oil Co., Jacksonville
1455 131 570 April 18, 1926 Texas Oil Co. Texas Oil Co., Jacksonville
2-1456 124 561 April 22, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Standard Oil Co., Tampa
1457 124 568 April 27, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Standard Oil Co., Cross City
1458 126 569 April 26, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Standard Oil Co., Mayo
1459 137 564 April 22, 1926 Texas Oil Co. Texas Oil Co., Monticello
1460 4 126 571 April 22, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Standard Oil Co., Monticello
1461 [ 141 559 May 7, 1926 Texas Oil Co. Texas Oil Co., Jacksonville
2-1462 127 556 May 14, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Standard Oil Co., Tampa
2-1463 132 569 May 13, 1926 Seaboard Oil Co. Pure Oil Co., Port Tampa
1464 133 547 May 15, 1926 Seaboard Oil Co. Pure Oil Co., Jacksonville
1465 126 571 May 20, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Standard Oil Co., Tampa
4-1566 137 569 May 29, 1926 Sherrill Terminal Co. Pure Oil Co., Pensacola
2-1567 134 572 June 4, 1926 Gulf Refining Co. Gulf Refining Co., Jacksonville
2-1568 143 500 0. K. July 22, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Standard Oil Co., Port Tampa
1569 137 540 July 24, 1926 Gulf Refining Co. Gulf Refining Co., Jacksonville
1570 148S 563 Aug. 11, 1926 J. S. King Sinclair Refining Co., Tallahassee
1571 135 65 Aug. 11, 1926 R. H. Bradford Texas Oil Co., Tallahassee
1572 | 147 549 Plus 25 Aug. 25, 1926 Gulf Refining Co. Gulf Refining Co., Jacksonville










OFFICIAL KEROSENE ANALYSES FOR THE YEAR 1926



Lab. NAME OF MANUFACTURER AND
No. P. COLOR DATE TAKEN FROM WHOM TAKEN PLACE TAKEN


Not
Below Not
100 De- Not Darker
agrees F. Above Than
625 De- Plus 16
Tag agrees F. Saybolt
Closed
Tester
2-1573 143 541 Plus 25 Aug. 31, 1926 standard Oil Co. Standard Oil Co., Port Tampa
1-1574 154 540 Plus 25 Sept. 12, 1926 Sherrill Terminal Co. Pure Oil Co., Pensacola
2-1575 150 554 Plus 26 Sept. 26, 1926 Sinclair Oil Co. Sinclair Oil Co., Jacksonville
2-1576 123 508 Plus 25 Oct. 16, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Standard Oil Co., Miami Beach
1577 149 560 Plus 25 Oct. 14, 1926 Sinclair Oil Co. Sinclair Oil Co., Jacksonville
1578 155 524 Plus 25 Oct. 16, 1926 Texas Oil Co. Texas Oil Co., Jacksonville
2-1579 136 524 Plus 25 Oct. 20, 1926 Gulf Refining Co. Gulf Refining Co., Port Tampa
3-1580 115 544 Plus 25 Oct. 23, 1926 Mexican Petroleum Co. Mexican Petroleum Corp., Hooker's Pt.
2-1581 161 550 Plus 25 Oct. 28, 1926 Seaboard Oil Co. Pure Oil Co., Port Tampa
2-1582 154 568 Plus 25 Oct. 28, 1926 Sinclair Oil Co. Sinclair Oil Co., Jacksonville
2-1583 134 548 Plus 25 Nov. 9, 1926 Sherrill Terminal Co. Pure Oil Co., Pensacola
2-1584 138 550 Plus 25 Dec. 2, 1926 Seaboard Oil Co. Pure Oil Co., Port Tampa
2-1585 149 640 Plus 25 Dec. 4, 1926 Gulf Refining Co. Gulf Refining Co., Port Tampa
1586 160 I 640 | Plus 25 Dec. 4, 1926 Texas Oil Co. Texas Oil Co., Jacksonville
2-1587 125 510 I Plus 25 Dec. 5, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Standard Oil Co., Jacksonville
1588 180 610 Plus 25 Dec. 9, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Standard Oil Co., Port Tampa
2-1589 123 504 Plus 25 Dec. 13, 1926 Standard Oil Co. Standard Oil Co., Port Tamna
1590 145 560 Plus 25 Dec. 10, 1926 Sinclair Oil Co. Sinclair Oil Co., Jacksonville
2-1591 138 534 IPlus 25 Dec. 11, 1926 Gulf Refining Co. Gulf Refining Co., Jacksonville
1592 139 532 Plus 25 Dec. 16, 1926 J. C. Easterlin Pan American Pet. Co., Live Oak
1593 141 550 Plus 25 Dec. 16, 1926 R. 0. Brittain Sinclair Oil Co., Live Oak
2-1594 1556 30 Plus 25 Dec. 18, 1926 Texas Oil Co. Texas Oil Co., Estuary Tampa
2-1595 114 662 Plus 25 Dec. 26, 1926 Sinclair Oil Co. Sinclair Oil Co., Jacksonville


NOTE: The samples starting with Lab. No. 1672 were analyzed by N. Berryman, Assistant Chemist.
















R. E. ROSE, State Chemist.


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-DIVISION OF CHEMISTRY
Oil Section
Special Keorsene Analyses for the Year 1926
Samples Sent In by Citizens Under Act Approved June 4, 1919


N. BERRYMAN, Asst. Chemist.
T R DlAVTI Asst fl.mirt


Lab.
No. 3 0 COLOR DATE TAKEN SENT IN BY AND PLACE TAKEN



Not
Below Not
100 De- Not Darker
grees F. Above than
625 De- Plus 16
Tag agrees F. Saylbolt
Closed
Tester

55 156 542 Plus 25 Sept. 16, 1926 Sherrill Terminal Co., Pensacola











GASOLINE STATIONS
Before publishing this report we had hoped to obtain
for use herein a list of all the gasoline filling stations lo-
cated in the State, but owing to the period of time which
the Inspectors were required to devote to the Inspection of
citrus fruit, as well as illness of one of the Inspectors, it
has not been possible to obtain a list of all such stations.
and in view of the fact that what information we have been
able to collect on this subject is so incomplete it was deemed
best not to publish it.
According to the best information obtainable there
was located in the State on December 31st. approximately
18,000 pumps.
During the year Inspectors of the Inspection Divis-
ion condemned 277 pumps found upon examination to be
inaccurate in excess of 8 ounces to a measurement of five
gallons.
It is needless to say that any kind of mechanical de-
vice will get out of adjustment at times, and on numerous
occasions pumps found to be inaccurate gave a larger quan-
tity than that charged for instead of less. We have, there-
fore, met with splendid co-operation not only from the
Operators, but from the Oil Companies who own and furn-
ish these pumps.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF CITRUS LAW
During the year 1925, there was employed during the
inspection season a total of 110 inspectors at a cost of
$64,476.90, which was in excess of $27,430.32, above the
total sum received from the inspection tax of 11/2 cents
per box on the total number boxes of oranges and grape-
fruit shipped during the season.
During the inspection season of 1926, there was em-
ployed a total of 172 inspectors at a cost of $106,353.88,
or $70,940.47 in excess of the total sum collected from










the 11 cent inspection tax.. It will be noted that the deficit
for the season just closed was much larger than that of
the previous year. This was duae to two reasons.
First, a large number of the packing houses did not
open for business during the inspection season of 1925, and
second a much more rigid inspection was required and main-
tained during the past season, which required a larger
number of inspectors to render service at practically ev-
ery packing house located in the State, numbering 359 in
all, according to the number of registration certificates is-
sued.
According to our records there was condemned and
destroyed, during last season 7,184 boxes of oranges and
16,575 boxes of grapefruit, which failed to pass the re-
quired Standards of maturity.
It is needless to say that the application of this law,
has resulted in untold goods for the betterment and con-
servation of the Citrus industry, and it is gratifying to
make mention of the fact that We have met with favorable
encouragement and co-operation from both the growers
and shipeprs alike in our attempt to efficiently and satid-
factorily enforce the law to the best interest of all con-
cerned. To extend the inspection season from November
25th, to Dcember 15th, will make for a much greater serv-
ice than has been accomplished in the past.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs