50 



Journal of Agricultural Research 



Vol. XIII, No. t 



meter as recorded in Table IV by the body weight as computed by 

 Moulton's formula (p. 47). 



Maintenance =ii73±iiiX(o.ii86X 403 . 73) =5918 ± 560 Calories. 



This result is substantially identical with that computed by the senior 



author {2, p. 28g) from 23 of these same experiments in proportion to the 



two-thirds power of the live weight — viz, 5,906 Calories. No sufficient 



data seem to be available on which to base a similar computation for 



fattened animals. 



RESULTS ON MAN 



Numerous determinations of the basal katabolism of man have been 

 reported, and it appears of some interest to compare their results with 

 our data for cattle. We have not attempted to collate all the recorded 



experiments on man, 

 but have taken as 

 representative those 

 reported by Benedict, 

 Emmes, Roth, and 

 Smith (9) and by 

 Means (14), including 

 98 obser^^ation on 

 men and 75 on women. 

 These determinations 

 were made in short 

 periods in the post- 

 resorptive condition 

 and in a state of as 

 complete muscular 

 rest as practicable. 

 The majority of them 

 r. ,. c .^ c J- . -u .- ( *u u 1 1 ^ K 1- were determinations 



Fig. 4. — Graph of the frequency distribution of the basal katabolism 



of cattle per square meter of body surface lying 24 hours. of the pulmonary rCS- 



piration made with 

 the Benedict respiration apparatus in periods of lo to 20 minutes, although 

 some were made with the bed calorimeter and extended over 2 to 3 hours. 

 They therefore show substantially the basal katabolism in the narrower 

 sense mentioned at the beginning of this article. 



The graphs accompanying Benedict's discussion {8) of the results 

 reported in the paper first cited present much the same picture as do our 

 results on cattle as shown in figures 1,2, and 3, failing to indicate any 

 close relation of basal katabolism to weight or body surface. This con- 

 clusion is confirmed by a statistical study of the data, including those 

 reported by Means, which yields the results of Table VI. The correlation 

 coefficients are distinctly lower than those obtained with cattle, but, like 

 them, they fail to show any greater correlation with the body surface as 

 computed by the Meeh formula than with the body weight. 



