Doctor Cobb, appearing before this committee at the same time, in speaking of this substance, said: [Hearings, No. 35, pages 2722, 2723.] Mr. COBB. There is no doubt it could be used as a substitute for those products that are used in making strawboard or boxes or cardboard of various kinds. The quality of it, however, to my mind, is rather superior to the ordinary strawboard. There is considerable strength to it. The CHAIRMAN. Very little tensile strength to it. Mr. COBB. There is just as much strength in it, Mr. Mann, as in any amount of stuff converted into cardboard boxes. You buy a suit of clothes, and you get it back in the boxes the stuff of which is not as good as that. I call your attention particularly to the effect of pressure on the stuff. This has not been bleached to the extent it might be, and there is a possibiliy of it replacing articles that are now made of celluloid. It has this property, which is rather striking, and I fancy there can be no doubt it is useful; for instance, you wet it and you can bend it, and it will hold the shape. BY-PRODUCTS. In investigating this matter, the committee is actuated both by a desire to find some suitable substitute for wood in the manufacture of paper, and, if possible, in the selection of that substitute, to aid, as far as possible, the agriculturist. Viewing this question both from the view point of the producer and the manufacturer, in the language of Doctor Cobb: [Hearings, No. 35, pages 2712, 2713.] Mr. COBB. We look at this in the Bureau of Plant Industry not only from a technological point of view, but also from a strictly agricultural point of view. Naturally, as these are technological problems, we have got to have information on both sides of the question, the manufacturers' point of view as well as the growers'. Still, our face is toward the producer most of the time; that is what we are supposed to exist for; and while we want to understand these problems from the manufacturing point of view, it is particularly for the benefit of the grower. Then we took into consideration the fact that maize was a plant from which there was the biggest tonnage of stuff that was not utilized to advantage-not going to waste, still not utilized to advantage; and combining those two, we determined to try out this process of separation, which was claimed to be successful, and to try it on corn first. It has been thoroughly demonstrated that cornstalks not only furnish an excellent paper-making material in large quantities and at the minimum of cost in its production, but at the same time by a process lately perfected by Mr. Sherwood, none of the food value of the corn is lost in the process of manufacture. [Hearings, No. 35, page 2714.] Mr. COBB. If cornstalks were poisonous, like cotton stalks, we would not expect to get anything of value, unless it was a drug. Of course we knew the fodder value of cornstalks, and we also knew that one of the principal drawbacks to the use of cornstalks as fodder is that the animal has to manage such a bulk of nondigestible matter to get the nutriment that its value is much reduced; in fact, many farmers do not use it at all and allow it to rot in the fields. As the paper-mill processes permit the application of high temperature under great pressure, it was extremely reasonable to suppose that they might extract a maximum amount of this matter that could be used as stock food. [Hearings, No. 35, page 2716.] The CHAIRMAN. He must have been mistaken about that, then. Mr. COBB. Of course I do not know what he said, but at any rate these are the facts. There is no question about the food value of this material. It has been demonstrated that the materials which the corn takes from the soil and all the food value of the stalk asphaltum are saved to the farmer in the form of a by-product-a valuable stock feed. Mr. Sutermeister, an expert chemist, and gentleman of long practical experience in the manufacture of paper, says of this by-product: [Hearings, No. 35, page 2682.] Mr. SUTERMEISTER. We can take the cornstalk after it is packed into the digester, and extract with water, under pressure, and get out an extracted material which can be used after evaporation as a cattle fodder. That is, we evaporate the extract which we obtain to a semiliquid state and mix it with some ground feed, and we get nearly all of the value of the food which is in the cornstalk. The CHAIRMAN. What does that dry matter consist of, chemically? Mr. SUTERMEISTER. It is in large proportion glucose-sugars. There is about 14 to 15 per cent ash, about 40 per cent glucose, and there is 3 or 4 per cent of other sugars. There is about 9 per cent of proteid matter. Of this proteid and nitrogenous matter, Doctor Cobb says: [Hearings, No. 35, page 2717.] Mr. COBB. There is the nitrogenous matter; that is valuable food, far more valuable than the saccharine matter. This same substance extracted from the sugar cane has long been used and from practical experience has proven a most excellent feed. Doctor Cobb, in speaking of the practical utility of this extract, says: [Hearings, No. 35, pages 2717, 2718.] Mr. COBB. In Hawaii they have a very similar product as a result of sugar boiling, and that is one of the principal ingredients in the rations for the mules, which are the only animals they use on the plantations as draft animals. They use this waste molasses, which closely resembles this, with the cane tops, as a ration for the mules. They also use it on the cattle ranches in Hawaii. Doctor Galloway has made a similar statement before the Agricultural Committee: [Hearings, pages 81-82.] pulp fit for the feeding of stock? Mr. Cook. Is the by-product of the Mr. GALLOWAY. The by-product is. The by-product is practically the same as is now being sold extensively in the South as feed for cattle and mules. We import considerable quantities of these molasses from the Cuban sugar factories at the present time. Louisiana planters are using large quantities of it, and other planters in the country are coming more and more to use it. In fact, there are a number of these foreign feed products in the market, the body of which are made here from the products of our sugarhouses and our cane mills. Mr. GILHAMS. Then, in the manufacture of paper pulp from cornstalks you do not destroy any of the feeding qualities that are in the stalks; those are all saved? Mr. GALLOWAY. When the animal chews the stalk he practically extracts the by-products. Mr. GILHAMs. The feeding qualities are all saved? Mr. GALLOWAY. They are all saved. Mr. George R. Sherwood, of Oak Park, Ill., has made a very careful and exhaustive analysis of this substance. [Hearings, No. 35, page 2721.] OAK PARK, ILL., June 22, 1908. Mr. C. J. BRAND, Agricultural Department, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. BRAND: I inclose herein a sample of food extract from cornstalks. In practice it will be evaporated to about the consistency of molasses, then mixed with ground forage (absorbent), and should be sold to the trade on its food value. I wish to Please note, particularly, that a new industry opens up on this food extract, to wit (after refining), for beer, bread making, for table sirup, etc. call especial attention to this product. This sample is 2 years old. Yours, very truly, GEO. R. SHERWOOD. The cornstalks, and cornstalks alone, so far as the experiments of the department have gone, are the only substance from which such a by-product can be obtained. This feature will strongly incline those interested as vitally in agriculture, as in the manufacture of paper, to thoroughly test and develop as far as possible this nascent industry. If, however, any such products were not obtainable and the cornstalks, like the cotton stalks, were poisonous or of no value except for the paper fiber they contained, IT WOULD STILL BE THE BEST POSSIBLE SUBSTITUTE FOR WOOD. Doctor Galloway makes this exceedingly plain in his statement before the Agricultural Committee. [Hearings, page 82.] Mr. POLLARD. In the event that no utilization can be made of the by-product in making paper from cornstalks, then would the cost of the manufacture of the paper be so great that it would be prohibitive? Hon. A. O. STANLEY, @ WASHINGTON, D. C., February 16, 1909. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. SIR: In the report on your bill (H. R. 24328) providing substitute for wood in the manufacture of paper pulp, you have reproduced a copy of a letter from myself to Mr. C. J. Brand, giving an analysis of food extract taken from cornstalks. By some clerical error this analysis is not correctly stated in the bulletin issued by the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee. The food extract, in fact, contains a much greater quantity of glucose than this analysis quoted by you indicates. There is, in fact, 45.8 of glucose instead of 9.2 indicated in this statement. This additional quantity of glucose adds immensely to the food value of this product. Yours, truly, GEO. R. SHERWOOD, Mr. GALLOWAY. I do not think so. I think, on the contrary, that it would still be feasible and practicable, but I do not see any reason why the by-product should not come into extensive use, especially if these factories are established in the corn region where we have the animals and the cornstalks to take care of the interests in that way; for instance, if you had such a factory at or near Kansas City or any of those places out there where cornstalks are easily available, or in the smaller places. It is more than probable that this by-product would prove of sufficient value to pay for the raw material at the factory door, according to the statement of Doctor Galloway: [Hearings, page 7980.] Mr. GALLOWAY. The chief point of interest in connection with this work is the fact that a by-product is secured in the manufacture of paper from cornstalks which practically pays the expense of the manufacturing process up to the time the material is taken out of the digester; that is, a material that ought to sell for about 2 cents a pound. It is a molasses product which will undoubtedly have considerable food value for stock. We are now having tests made by the Bureau of Chemistry to determine its value. The idea is to utilize material of this kind and to be in a position to turn the molasses product, the by-product, back to the farmers at a reasonable rate. From the figures at hand it would appear that about 40 or 50 per cent of paper pulp can be secured from cornstalks, and through the process we are discussing the manufacturer can afford to pay about $5 per ton for the raw stalks. Doctor Cobb, appearing before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, makes practically the same statement. [Bulletin No. 35, pages 2724, 2725.] Mr. COBB. I have gone into it several times and have had others go into it, and must say have come to a different conclusion from what you have. [Exhibiting map to committee.] Take in this area, the densest portion of the corn belt; that map shows the distribution of our corn. I believe, from the estimates I have made, that almost anywhere in that region a mill located at a good railway center and not having any discrimination against it could pay in the neighborhood of $5 a ton for stalks, and that where certain kinds of corn are grown, which are very largely grown, Mr. Hartley tells me, that the farmers could part with it at $5 a ton, and would do so, if not all of them, a sufficient number, in a 75-mile radius, to run a small mill. Roughly, that is my present opinion, and you can see I have given you the data on which it is based. You see how incomplete it is. We have really only analyzed a single corn, and we had to start this under unfavorable conditions as to season of the year. On a conservative estimate there is a pound and a half to a pound and three-fourths of stalk (dry stalk) to the pound of shell corn (dry). In the corn belt, an acre of land will produce from 40 to 60 bushels of corn. At 50 bushels of corn to the acre, you would have more than 2 tons of stalks to the acre. These stalks at $5 a ton will produce to the farmer $10 a ton in addition to the profit upon his corn. Over ordinarily good roads 2 tons of cornstalks can be hauled at a load. This price will insure an abundance of cornstalks to any mill located in the corn belt at a fair profit to the farmer for delivering the same. A further investigation of this interesting question has been prevented and practical test of the commercial value of the cornstalk rendered impossible from the fact that the paper mills of the country are not supplied with the proper apparatus or the skilled chemists necessary to a thorough test of this plant or a practical demonstration of its possibility as a substitute for wood. It is necessary therefore that the Government should erect a small plant in the corn belt where excellent transportation facilities are available, and where the stalks can be brought to the factory door at a minimum of cost in order that a thorough demonstration of the commercial value of this plant may be secured by skilled experts interested alike in obtaining some valuable material for the manufacture of paper other than wood, and in the betterment of the condition of the farmer. In the language of Doctor Cobb: [Hearings, No. 35, page 2716.] Mr. COBB. That brings me back to the agricultural point of view. The rest of it, as returned in the analysis, is saline or mineral matter. From an agricultural point of view it is very undesirable to send off from a farm any matter that would be of manurial value, and it seems to us, looking at this process as carefully as we can, we come repeatedly to the conclusion, no matter from what point we begin to reason, that if a paper factory could be started in the corn belt at a center where plenty of maize was available, by a system of barter which would be a favorable sort of trade, under proper regulations, the farmer could get back from the paper mill this stock-food material to use; that would be valuable to him again as manure, after feeding to his stock, of course. That is, he is depriving his farm only of cellulose matter that does not cost him anything. He gets that from the air free of cost. He does not have te pay a cent for it. All of these mineral matters contained in this stock food, such as potash, and so forth, he has to pay for if they are not present on his farm. Supposing he gets that back from a paper mill and uses it, he does not lose it. From an agricultural point of view it is good practice. [Hearings, No. 35, page 2723.] The CHAIRMAN. Have you any samples that were produced here? Mr. SIMS. These are not paper. Mr. COBB. No; they do not claim to be. We have no machine here. That is one fault which I found with the Forest Service outfit at the very beginning. I said, "You have gone just not far enough. You have put in a small pulp mill, but there you have stopped short; you should have put in a small paper mill to go with it." Doctor Galloway concurs in this opinion of the practicability of erecting such a mill and gives an estimate of its probable cost: [Hearings, page 80.] Mr. GALOWAY. In this work here in Washington we put everything in together, and the statements that have been made, reducing the thing to a practical point, are something like this, that at an expenditure of about $20,000 a factory could be established anywhere in the great corn belt of the country which would necessarily have to draw on cornstalk material for a radius of about 5 miles; that is, there would be sufficient material in that radius to run the factory for the year through, but at the present price of paper pulp such a manufactory ought to pay good dividends. It is apparent that this demonstration of the availability of cornstalks as a paper-making material must be made by the Government and that it can not and will not be done by the paper mills until the forests have been exhausted and these concerns are forced by necessity to find a substitute. These large concerns will not be inclined to change the locations of their plants or to alter their machinery until forced to do so by lack of available material or from the effect of competition. In addition to that, the paper mills are not supplied with skilled chemists or experienced scientists capable of making a thorough and |