Page images
PDF
EPUB

the corn, the germ, is floated off. The heavier material, being the germless corn, passes through other mills and is finally ground. This mass is passed over sieves which separate the fibrous material, bran, or shell of the corn, and the liquid portion passing through the sieve is allowed to flow over the inclined planes, designated as runs or tables, where the starch settles, the gluten and other impurities being carried away with the excess amount of water used. This starch is then dried and is the common cornstarch of commerce. There are various ways of drying it. The common way is to take the starch from the tables, break it up into smaller pieces, and put it through kilns at a comparatively low temperature, which varies, depending upon the time for drying, running from 90° up to 160° or 170° F.; in some cases they might go beyond that. The final drying may even be at 200° F. Other starch is air dried, the temperature in that case being just the atmospheric temperature and the time being materially increased. Starch as it comes from the kilns is the finished product; that is starch. It is not powdered starch.

In regard to cooked starch, it has a peculiar appearance under the microscope, and if starch is heated to a temperature above 160° F. in the presence of water these crystals or grains or granules are ruptured, and then you have a glutinous material, which is a cooked material. With the dry starch containing usually less than 25 per cent of moisture you can elevate the temperature to 212°, or even higher, and still not cook the product.

The process of making corn flour consists in taking corn and separating the bran by dry process, separating the germ by dry process, separating the gluten or flinty parts and grinding the remainder, which is the starch part. That is the common way of making corn flour. Corn flour is made by a purely dry process as against the starch made by wet process; that is the only difference between the two. That is, one is a dry mechanical process and the other is a wet mechanical process. My analysis of corn flour shows approximately 85 to 92 per cent of starch and 3 to 7 per cent of protein up to 1 per cent of fiber; up to 14 per cent of fat, based upon the dry substance in the corn flour.

You could not tell the difference between a low-grade cornstarch and a highgrade corn flour; you could not tell the difference by just looking at it, and it is very difficult to tell it in the laboratory.

When the cornstarch went up above the corn flour, the eastern manufacturers gave up our cornstarch and started using the corn flour, as they found that it worked nicely, and they are using it to-day. Personally I would let the price determine whether I would use cornstarch or corn flour.

If you take the highest purity of the corn flour manufactured by the dry process, you will have a small percentage of gluten; you can not take it all out. While if you take the lowest degree of cornstarch, there is a neutral zone which covers both products. When you get the best of the one, say the highest grade of starch and compare that with the lowest grade of corn flour, the difference is a great deal. But the process is absolutely the same and the commodities the same, except the one is the wet process and the other is the dry process, and that makes the only difference in the two commodities—one is the high grade and the other is the low grade.

I don't agree with Mr. Douglas that the cost of manufacture of corn flour is very much less than the manufacture of cornstarch. Nor do I think it would cost more to manufacture the dry product. I believe when you come to take the cost of manufacturing cornstarch and the cost of the manufacture of corn flour and compare them with the cost of the raw material, you have at least one very highly valuable product that you can separate by the wet process, if you give the benefit of that, and simply take your cornstarch in one case and corn flour in the other and give the cornstarch the benefit of the gluten feed and corn oil and separate and take that from the cost of the corn, you will find out that a hundred pounds of starch you manufacture does not cost you any more than the hundred pounds of corn flour you manufacture. One of the by-products is more valuable than the starch itself, and that is corn oil. Under the old process of making starch which required from 30 days to 6 or 8 weeks with some grades, it sold for 7 or 8 cents a pound, or about three or four times as much as the common starch. If you compare common starch with corn oil, you will find corn oil is worth very often two and one-half times as much. Corn oil is worth often as much as 73 cents a pound. Gluten, of course, if mixed with feed, is worth perhaps $25 a ton. Out of a bushel of corn you get approximately 3 per cent of its weight in corn oil by the wet process. It takes more machinery to do that and is more expensive than the corn flour by the dry process; but figuring in everything, I think there are bigger profits in the

cornstarch than in the corn flour business. Corn flour is not necessarily a by-product of the flour mill.

As far as edible products are concerned, anybody who uses corn meal or corn flour, as you say, gets a great deal better commodity from the standpoint of food value than if he buys cornstarch.

To a certain extent I am familiar with the cost of manufacturing cornstarch against corn flour. I have never manufactured corn flour myself personally. As a consulting expert I have. As a consulting expert I have recommended the manufacture of corn flour by the wet process, because I consider it cheaper than by the dry process. I know of one concern that is manufacturing to-day by the wet process. As a general rule the corn flour is not manufactured by the wet process because the millers are not advanced up to that point. I recommended it 8 or 10 years ago. One plant has followed my advice. The capacity for manufacturing corn flour and corn meal is very small and it takes very little capital to do it by the dry process. If you go into the wet process you have to have a large plant and much larger equipment is required.

The only difference between laundry starch, so-called, and edible starch is in the label. Specially prepared laundry starches may have added ingredients or may have gone through a chemical process. Confining myself to the common cornstarch, there is no difference. The Pearl starch used in the textile industry, if powdered, will be the edible starch. You take lump starch and powder it and it is the edible starch; there is absolutely no difference between the two.

R. L. McKellar being duly sworn testified as follows: * * * Prior to the building up of the cotton-mill industry in the South, the principal movement of the starch in carloads was for laundry purposes, but during the last 20 years the growth of the cotton-mill industry in the Southeast and the Carolinas has been almost phenomenal, which industry has created a large demand for starch for sizing, etc., and at the present time a majority of the movement is for cotton-mill purposes.

J. S. Brown, called in behalf of the defendant, and, being duly sworn, testified: * ** About the time of the last hearing I had a talk with W. H. Suffern, of Decatur, and later our freight agent asked him to write a letter giving, in his own way, the difference between starch and corn flour, and his letter of April 14, 1911, is here presented. Mr. Suffern has been engaged in the manufacture of corn products and reshipping of grain for something like 25 years, most of the time at Decatur. He is now a member of the firm of Suffern, Hunt & Co., which is at present manufacturing corn flour and shipping it, in a small way, to the South, principally to New Orleans and to Havana.

Mr. Suffern told me at the time that corn flour was a drug on the market probably seven or eight months in the year and the remainder of the time he had a trade for it largely in the South; that during the dull period it was used in mixing in with other feed; that when he had a surplus he would put a quantity of it in with the brewers' grits, but always found objection to it when the brewers discovered any great quantity of it in the grits; that he asked them why and they said it "balled " up their grits. I understood it was mixed with cattle feed, and I understand that is what the Quaker Oats Co. does with it now-use it in mixing their animal feed.

Benjamin H. O'Meara, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:

We make powdered starch, which is sold as corn flour, from flourine. We are making some now that is labeled that way on the label furnished us by the buyer for the Spanish-American 'market. We also have samples of powdered starch which is put up in New England, which is all labeled corn flour. It is absolutely powdered starch.

We manufacture the powdered starch which is sold for corn flour. Powdered starch is starch ground up. Corn flour is all starch that there is in the corn with a little gluten left in it. It is simply an impure starch to the extent of the gluten that is in it. Neither is there quite as much water extracted out of it as there is out of powdered starch. The American Cereal Co. manufacture corn flour. Also, the American Hominy Co. at Decatur. The corn flour produced by the American Cereal Co. is used to mix in with wheat flour and is used by baking powder men for a filler. It is used by confectioners and candy men and for food generally. Our so-called corn flour is used for all those purposes in addition to that for sizing yarn, both cotton and woolen. We experience competition in the sale of that in connection with the product called corn flour manufactured by the American Cereal Co. The price of corn flour

is just exactly the same as our stuff here, $1.20 per 100 pounds. We meet the competition right here for one place. We certainly meet it in foreign shipments. Take, for instance, the Illinois Central, their tariffs provide transit on corn flour at Decatur from all the State of Illinois practically, and also from Omaha and Council Bluffs to New Orleans, and some of this corn flour that we have sold is going to Havana. About one-half of our product is powdered starch. A great deal of it is used for eating purposes. I don't know the percentage, because we don't know the uses it is put to by the people to whom we seli. The better article is always affected by the poorer. Ours is pure starch. Theirs is impure starch. I don't know what percentage of the American Cereal Co.'s output is corn flour. My inquiries related to the product of the American Hominy Co. at Decatur, and I presume the American Cereal Co. manufactures a similar stuff and sell to similar people; but I don't know whether that is a fact. The American Hominy Co. is at Decatur and they manufacture corn flour. They do not manufacture pure starch.

One or two railroads on shipments east have accepted our pulverized starch as corn flour. It would be pretty hard for a station agent to say that a certain package contained powdered starch if he was told it was corn flour. Packages of starch are on the markets labeled as corn flour. I could not state why one is called corn flour and one cornstarch. They are both used for human food. I have answered several times that our starch was pure, but the corn flour is impure starch. That doesn't mean that it is an impure article. It is mixed with gluten, which is not impure. The gluten is left in.

I will briefly call your attention to a few things. First, on page 10 of this testimony, Mr. Douglas, who is president of the company, states in regard to the manufacture:

We buy shelled corn. It runs through a cleaner and is taken from cars and put into bins for storage, and from the storage bins is taken to what is known as the acid-water steep, which is a solution of sulphurous acid in ordinary water. I don't remember the temperature of the water, but it is quite warm. Referring again to page 20, to the testimony of Dr. Edward Gudeman, he states:

I am a chemical engineer and technical expert. I have at different times examined into the elements that are found in corn. Roughly speaking, a kernel of corn consists of the shell, or bran; the germ, or oil-bearing part; the gluten; and the starch, the latter element predominating. Figuring in dry corn, the percentage of starch, as compared with the other elements, will vary from, say, 72 to 85. I designed the plant of Douglas & Co. at Cedar Rapids, and am familiar with it. I helped install it. The sulphurous-acid process is used, which is a wet process.

Mr. RAINEY. Are those the parts that you marked?

Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir; but I want to read two or three of them. Mr. RAINEY. We could get along faster if you would just let those be copied in.

Mr. SNYDER. I could not do that very well, because my argument is based so much upon these matters; and if I did not read them it would seem as if I had made statements and observations not based on actual sworn testimony of their own officers and of their own chemist.

Mr. RAINEY. You can put that in your statement and the committee can read that in the record. If you can get along without reading that, I wish you would.

Mr. LANNEN. We do not dispute that testimony at all, Mr. Chairman. There is no dispute about that. It has already been testified in this record that that is the way cornstarch is made.

in.

Mr. SNYDER. There are some facts here that we really should put

Mr. LIND. The chairman stated you could put them in briefly.

Mr. SNYDER. Again, on page 24, in the cross-examination of Mr. Gudeman, the matter of the acidity is taken up and discussed more particularly:

In making cornstarch, the corn, irrespective of the kind, whether it is white, yellow, or other color, is soaked in tanks containing a very mild solution of sulphurous acid.

In making starch in this way there is introduced into the material sulphurous acid into the tank. Now, as far as we know, this is largely taken off with the water in the by-product, but there is still left this sulphurous acid material in which the corn is supposed to soak for 24 to 72 hours. It has an opportunity to come in contact with, absorb, and take up sulphurous acid. At other plants, undoubtedly other acids are used. Not all are using sulphuric acid. Some use hydrochloric acid.

Mr. LANNEN. Nobody is using sulphuric acid.

Mr. SNYDER. The testimony is right here in this record.

Mr. LANNEN. You read sulphurous acid.

Mr. SNYDER. I said sulphurous acid.

Mr. LANNEN. It is not sulphuric acid at all, is it?

Mr. SNYDER. Sulphurous acid is a combination of water and sulphur-dioxide gas; the sulphur is burned; it is run into tanks and combined with water.

Mr. LANNEN. It is not sulphuric acid?

Mr. SNYDER. Sulphurous acid is what I said.

Mr. LANNEN. You said sulphuric acid.

Mr. SNYDER. I stand corrected if that is the correction. In making sulphurous acid you also make some sulphuric acid. Sulphurous acid in some degree passes over to sulphuric acid.

Mr. RAINEY. I shall enforce the rule against interruptions until you are through.

Mr. SNYDER. I wish to speak now in regard to the classification of starches, on page 16 of the record I have just read from:

I stated that all starch is edible. The starch that goes into the laundries is edible, but they don't eat it. Laundry starch is not eaten, but I say it can be eaten. You would pulverize it in your own house if you wanted to and then it is nothing but ordinary cornstarch in the form it is in the package. The starch which is used primarily for laundry purposes and recognized as a laundry article is exactly the same as what we eat in the powdered form, excepting it is simply in the lump form. Corn flour contains about 6 per cent gluten, and other than the inclusion of gluten I don't think there is any difference between corn flour and starch. I don't think you could tell the difference between corn flour and starch. There is no difference between corn flours I have seen and the starch we make.

Mr. RAINEY. Is that a part of the case that you are going to put into the record?

Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAINEY. You don't want it in the record twice, do you?

Mr. SNYDER. I wish to refer to it.

Mr. RAINEY. You don't want it printed twice in the record?

Mr. SNYDER. No, sir; just take it from the book there.

Corn flour and cornstarch are the same in the trade. Just for our own use here, I would refer to page 21 of the record, in which it is stated:

In some parts of the United States starch has been and is to-day being sold under the name of corn flour.

[blocks in formation]

Again, on page 22 of the record, it is stated in connection with pearl starch that it is very commonly used as a filler and as a diluent in many substances.

Again, on page 31, it is mentioned that

You could not tell the difference between a low-grade cornstarch and a highgrade corn flour; you could not tell the difference by just looking at it, and it is very difficult to tell it in the laboratory.

Just briefly, on page 36, and we find here and on page 37 that the cost of making cornstarch is, when you give proper credit to all of those by-products, no greater than the making of corn flour in the little mill.

Again, on page 22, it is stated that the corn flour has been used as an adulterant of flour. I presume it is meant by flour, wheat flour. It is not qualified, but no one can take any other meaning when the cornstarch and corn flour are each mentioned by the name of flour.

We all heard the testimony of the gentleman from the Department of Agriculture, Dr. Howard, that it was impossible to tell within 5 or 10 per cent or more when a sample was submitted to a chemist as to the amount of cornstarch or corn flour that was present, meaning this, that if a mixer was to put up a mixture of 80 per cent or, say, 90 per cent of wheat flour and 10 per cent of cornstarch and label it as such the analyst would not be able to tell whether he had 5 per cent or 20 per cent of starch present in the mixture. The accuracy of that labeling could not be checked up, neither could they tell whether it was cornstarch or corn flour. Therefore I claim that it is the most dishonest competition that the wheat-flour industry could possibly have.

Further than that, it leaves the way open for the prosecution of an honest mixer, in case that some one would feel that they wanted to go after him, because it would be a very easy matter to get one to sample his goods that he had put together, say a mixture of 20 per cent honest corn flour, if he used such a thing, and I doubt whether in an 80 per cent wheat flour and a 20 per cent corn flour mixture, the analyst might report 30 per cent corn flour and take him in and fine him and everything else, and there is no protection in this law for the honest dealer whatever, if an official in some way gets the idea that is not put up right; and, further than that, if any one of these cases is ever taken into court you will find that the provision for labeling is impossible to execute or to carry into effect. Practically, gentlemen, the labeling is a dead letter. It is uncontrolled competition, and it is competition that we don't want to meet.

In the manufacturing of this starch it is well enough to know what it is steeped in-a vat of sulphurous acid-for 36 to 72 hours. That is a nice thing for a food product, isn't it? Steeping right in sulphurous acid!

Let us see how sulphurous acid is ranked, and what is said about it. Dr. Wiley, whom we heard yesterday afternoon, in speaking about the sulfids-that is, the product of sulphurous acid-whenever united with minerals, and also in speaking of the sulphur-dioxide content, has this to say in his book entitled" Foods and Their Adulterations," on page 333, in speaking of the action of sulphuric acid on food materials, in this case applies:

« PreviousContinue »