The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-03-18
LARD HEARING RESUMED.
Prof. Wiley Gives the Results OF His
Examinations.


WASHINGTON, March 1.-THE Senate
committee on agriculture resumed the
lard hearing today.
Prof. Wiley, chemist OF tho department
of agriculture, appeared and gave the COM
mittec the result OF his microscopic exam
nations OF the various samples Of lard sub
mitted to him. Taking up the samples Of
lard manufactured by Armour < Co. he
stated that the lard branded pure refined
family lard," contained cotton seed oil and
stearine. That branded 'kettle refined
lard was not aduterated. "Choicc re-
fined family lard," contained cotton seed
oil and stearine. A sample OF "choice
family lard purchased in ST. Louis
contained no cotton seed oil,
but some crystals OF stesrine were
apparent A sample OF the same brand
purchased In New Orleans gave distinct
traces Of cotton seed oil. A brand OF ''su-
pcrior compound lard" contained cotton
seed oil. All samples Of lard manufac-
tured by Fairbanks 4 Co. contained cotton
seed oil and beef stearinc except that
branded ''prime refined leaf lard" which
contained no stearine. Witness stated
that he had no reason 10 believe that any
Of the ingredients contained in the sam
pies were injurious 10 health.
Continuing his testimony as TO lard sam
Piles, he took up that manufactured by
Squire & Go. and stated that they con-
tanned neither cotton seed oil nor stearinc.
Cassard 4 Sons best refined lard" con-
tanned neither cotton seed oil nor stearine
but reacted under chemical tests unlike
pure lard. lie did not know what ingre-
dienis ii contained, rs his analysis had
been carried ON merely with view TO dis
cover whether cotton seed oil and stearine
were used, and the examinations were still
incomplete.
A sample Of lard manufactured by Whit
taker Sons, branded pure, unadulter-
ated, honest, refined lard, contained no
cotton seed oil, while sample manuiac-
tured by the same firm, branded "adul-
tentcd, refined lar1," contained cotton
seed oil. At the Laboratory he had rendered
the head, entrails and intcstines Of the
hog, and found them 10 make pure lard.
Mr.. Fox inquired whether the lard 10
rendered could DO distinguished from pure
lard.
The witness replied that they were Just
alike. Perhaps there was n difference Of
toioif buA npt ruiIltlcui W btot my uhtt
upon. Leaf lard had little less color, hut
scarcely enough 10 be distinguishablc. lie
had found nearly all the lards examined
20 be free OF water. One sample, how
ever, manufactured by Fowler X Bros, Of
Chicago, branded Choice Family Lard, !"
confined GIL percent. Of water. Another
ample OF Workman 4 Co.'S lard con-
tanned l7.i0 per cent. Of water. II was
banded anchor Lard" Tho chairman
suggested that the brand was Vry suit
able one. The witness suited thai sam
pie Of "Choice Family Lard" manufac-
tured by 9. 4. Tictjen, OF New York, con-
tanned $3.50 per cent. Of water.
Witness said he did not think there was
any way OF distinguishing dead hog grease
from pure lard. The way the hog died
had no effect upon the lard.
Senator Blair-Thcse lards made from
the intestincs are AZ good as any7
Prof. WI had Just rs soon eat COM
pound as pure lard,
Senator B.-Do you cat dead hog lard2
Prof. WI presume j do. II Is just
as good rs any other. would as soon cat
H.
The Chairman-Tt Is charged that tho
manufacturers Of lard take dead hogs and
throw them In, enirails and hair, while
grease Is rendered from them; would that
be nocuous7
Prof. WI think not. There Is moth
ing deleieiious In dccomposing animals.
Indeed, In some cases they are more In
nocuous.
Adiournol Tor two weeka