§ Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture upon what 1700 ground the Board had refused its con sent to prosecutions of the vendors of the compound of sawdust known as "bastol" under Section 6 (c) of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1906; and on what ground in such a case it was deemed unnecessary to supply in the invoice percentages of oil and albuminoids, if, in accordance with Section 1 (2) of the above Act, the so-called feeding stuff contained even the smallest quantity of these constituents?
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman)The Board have not hitherto seen their way to sanction a prosecution of the vendors of this article, either for misdescription or for the addition of a worthless ingredient, inasmuch as no evidence has been adduced to show that the base of this article—namely, sawdust—which by a manufacturing process has undergone extensive chemical changes and been partially converted into sugar, is, as a matter of fact, worthless for feeding purposes. The oil and albuminoids, if any, in the article are of minute proportions, and no useful purpose would be served by insisting on invoices setting out such fact in this and similar cases.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTTs the right hon. Gentleman aware that, Dr. Voelcker and other leading agricultural chemists in this country are of opinion that this sawdust compound is wholly worthless for feeding purposes?