ment by subsection 4, section 3944 of the Revisal. This was enacted in 1899, while the crop-pest act was enacted two years prior-1897. The Department pays all the expenses of the work, which is practically done by the Entomologist.

3. A uniform law to regulate the registration, sale, inspection and adulteration of concentrated commercial feeding stuffs. This act has been approved by all the departments of the Association of Commissioners of the Southern States. Its enactment will make a uniform law, subject to State authority, and not an interstate or national law. A copy is submitted with this.

4. A uniform law to regulate the registration, sale, inspection and adulteration of condimental, patented, proprietary, trade-mark, stock or poultry food or feeds, condition powders and stock medicines or remedies.

5. An act to amend the Pure Food Law and make it more effective. It is also asked that half the cost of the pure-food work be paid from the State Treasury. No revenue is received from it, but the cost is paid from receipts from other sources, and the farmers should not pay total expenses.

6. An act to make it a misdemeanor to interfere with any officer of the Department in the execution of his duties in accordance with the law or any regulations of the Department made in accordance with the law.

7. That the execution of the immigration law be permissive and not mandatory, and that the law be so amended that, the Department having expended $100, an equal amount be available from the general funds of the State Treasury, and so for each additional $100 paid by the Department. As the act now stands, the Department must expend $5,000 before the State pays anything. Such was not the intention of those who favored aid by the State.

Bills covering these matters will be prepared and submitted to the Legislature. Respectfully submitted, W. A. GRAHAM,

Commissioner.

REPORT OF STATE CHEMIST.

MAJOR W. A. GRAHAM,

Commissioner of Agriculture.

December 1, 1908.

DEAR SIR:-I beg to submit to you a report of the work of the Chemical Division of this Department for the past two years (December 1, 1906, to December 1, 1908).

The report will be made under the following heads:

1. Analytical Work.

2. Pure Food Work.

3. Concentrated Stock Feeds.

4. Test Farms.

5. Soil Work.

1. ANALYTICAL WORK.

The amount and kind of analytical work performed in the laboratory is shown in the following summary of analyses made in that time:

Rocks, Ores and Minerals identified and values reported...

322

The kinds of materials and number of samples which the Department has been called upon to examine or found it necessary to analyze in the prosecution of its various lines of work have grown from year to year. The bulk of this work has been done in connection with the inspection and supervision of the trade in fertilizers, human foods and stock feeds, though a considerable amount of work has been done for farmers and citizens generally in the examination of minerals and ores, health and mineral waters, marls, soils, etc. Investigations on the test farms, conducted with the view of improving the quality and yield of corn and cotton, of increasing the amount of oil in the cotton seed, of determining the fertilizing value of the different varieties of the cowpea and of the different parts of the pea, have necessitated quite a large amount of careful detail analytical work. The analyses of fertilizers, human foods and stock feeds have been published in the Bulletin from time to time, while the reports on such miscellaneous work as rocks and ores, waters, marls, etc., have been made direct to the parties interested on the completion of the analyses. The work on farm products is being used from time to time in publications giving the results of experiments on the test farms.

A large number of analyses of soils obtained in the preparation of soil maps of various counties have been made, and we plan to use these in connection with the preparation of a report on the soils and general agriculture of the several counties from time to time, including in these reports the soil maps of the counties.

In view of the wide distribution which has been made or will be made of the various results of analyses in the several lines of our work in the Bulletin, it is hardly necessary to go into detail regarding them in this report.

2. PURE FOOD WORK.

The Food Law forbids the manufacture or sale of adulterated or misbranded food or beverage, and charges the Department of Agriculture with its enforcement.

The food work, so far, has been more educational than otherwise, the object being to show the dealers the requirements of the law and to expose adulterated brands of food by publicity. When the grocerymen and the public know that a brand of food is adulterated, if the manufacturer does not very quickly correct the wrong, the product is driven from the market. When the fact that a brand of food is adulterated is reported by the Department its competitors seize the report and use it with the grocerymen to show them that the product is adulterated. As the manufacturers know this, and as competition is close, they dislike to see their adulterated goods exposed.

Inspections are made throughout the State and samples of all food and beverages are collected for analyses. For the past year special attention has been given to inspection. The inspector tries to see the manager of every business and give him what help he can that will aid him in complying with the requirements of the law. As there are about 9,000 dealers in food and beverages in the State, the inspection is no small task, especially as many of the dealers have to have the law and rulings explained to them.

During the past two years (1907-1908) 1,290 samples of food and beverages have been examined for adulteration, and the results of the examination, with the names and addresses of the manufacturers and local dealers, have been published in the Department Bulletins for December, 1907-1908.

A summary of the work is given below, showing in detail the products that have been examined and the per cent of adulteration found:

SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE EXAMINATION OF FOOD PRODUCTS FOR

1. Those which are deleterious to health and render food unfit for use, and 2. Those which tend to lower its quality or reduce its value.

As the proposition of food adulteration is so immense, and as it has been impossible, with the funds available for that purpose, to do justice to the whole subject, it has been thought best to give attention, first, to that class of adulteration that is detrimental or injurious to health. So, the greatest effort, so far, has been to prevent the use in food of chemical preservatives and poisonous coal-tar dyes. For that reason, more attention has been given to that class of food in which deleterious adulterants have been more largely used.

During the year 1906 a careful examination made of the meats sold in the State revealed the fact that 47.6 per cent of them were adulterated with chemical preservatives, such as boric acid, salicylic acid and sulphites, the use of which in foods is a violation of the State Food Law. The meat men of the State were at once informed that the use of chemical preservatives in food products was in violation of the law, and that they must not be used in North Carolina. They were also informed that these preservatives were not sold under their chemical names, but under trade or proprietary names, though they, without an exception, depend upon the well-known chemical antiseptics for their preserving power.

During the summer of 1907 another inspection was made of the meats, when 134 samples were examined and only 7.5 per cent were found to be adulterated. During this year (1908) another examination was made, and chemical preservatives were found in only one sample, and that was sold by a dealer who was not in the business the year before.

An examination of the rice sold in the State reveals the fact that practically all of it is coated with glucose and tale. The coating material is used in very minute quantity, and the manufacturers claim that the coating is to protect the rice against insects. It, however, very much improves the appearance of the rice, and is therefore deceptive and illegal, unless the fact is stated on the label.