EDITORIAL. 105 



or not the more abstract research in nutrition is entered upon, experi- 

 ments for the benefit of practical feeding should carry all the con- 

 viction which accuracy of plan and method and judgment in inter- 

 pretation can make possible. 



Some improvement is to be noted in the feeding experiments 

 of recent years, but it is doubtful whether an increasing pro- 

 portion of such experiments are made under more exact and better- 

 known conditions than formerly — ^whether the individual records are 

 taken, the feed subjected' to analysis, the limits of experimental error 

 considered, and other refinements observed. Indeed, there seems in a 

 considerable number of cases to be less regard for these factors than 

 formerly. 



Furthermore, there does not appear to be a very critical attitude 

 toward these feeding experiments by many of the men who make 

 and apply them — the animal husbandmen and animal feeders. The 

 experiments are rarel}^ weighed in the critical, discriminating man- 

 ner that characterizes scientific work in general in the attempt to 

 measure their true value and the advance which they mark. The 

 expectations are less exacting, and the standard of requirements 

 seems to change but little as time goes on. Apparently the need of 

 a broader special preparation along scientific lines for experimental 

 work in animal husbandry is not very generally felt, while the same 

 importance as formerly is attached to the practical aspects of the 

 subject, sometimes to the overshadowing of others. In other words, 

 it would appear that the standards and ideals, and to some extent the 

 preparation, for work in animal husbandry have not developed to 

 the extent that they have in some other branches of agriculture, and 

 that the setting off of the subject as a separate division and assign- 

 ment of the feeding studies to it has not been followed b}^ the gen- 

 eral strengthening of the experimental work that is clearly desirable. 



This is not said in any spirit of harsh criticism of the animal 

 husbandman, or lack of appreciation of the requirements placed upon 

 him. It is made rather as a comment on the condition and attitude 

 which is believed to impede the progress in animal feeding, and is 

 directed at the animal husbandman because he now has such an impor- 

 tant relation to this progress. Not that he will necessarily be the one 

 himself to conduct the research in a larger degree, but that as rep- 

 resenting the head of animal husbandry work he must furnish much 

 of the spirit and the encouragement and the defense for advanced 

 study, and that his ideals will inevitably influence the character of 

 the activities. If his attitude is not progressive and appreciative 

 of work and methods which aim beyond economic considerations, such 

 work will rarely flourish in his institution. 



As a leader of sentiment in his field his influence as well as his 

 actual direction of work is very broad. To him falls the application 



