E. T. Halnan 165 



issue. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to understand Murray's 

 objection to Wood and Yule's use of "maintenance starch equivalent," 

 especially since Murray himself admits that " much confusion of thought 

 must result if the term 'starch equivalent' be promiscuously applied 

 to essentially different things" and also clearly shows the impossibility 

 of comjiletely defining starch equivalent for nuiintenance by starch 

 equivalent for production alone. 



The term "starch equivalent" in the sense used by Kellner is a 

 scientifically incomplete term, since it does not express in itself all 

 it is intended to express, but may cover two essentially different things. 

 Its application, therefore, is contrary to scientific usage. Since too, 

 Kellner meant by "starch equivalent" "starch equivalent for produc- 

 tion," why not call it so? Whether the "production starch equivalent" 

 is determined directly, or whether it is calculated from digestible 

 jiutrients and "value" number, seems to be beside the point, and 

 immaterial to the discussion. Once it is realised that Kellner's use of 

 "starch equivalent" means "starch equivalent for production," the 

 most serious defect complained of in Kellner's system disappears, 

 since there will exist no longer any danger of the student or scientific 

 worker using the "starch equivalent for production" of a food to express 

 the "maintenance starch equivalent." 



That the distinction between the requirements for maintenance 

 and the requirements for fat production when expressed as "starch 

 equivalent" and "value" number in both cases is a rather subtle 

 one, is shown by the fact that Murray, while pointing out the fact 

 that Kellner himself erred, failed to realize at which end of the scale 

 Kellner erred, and thereby unknowingly dropped into the same trap 

 that Kellner prepared for himself. It is imfortunate that Murray's 

 authorities which he quotes should have favoured his point of view, 

 since a consideration of the original data on which they were based 

 would have shown him clearly that they were incorrect, and that 

 Wood and Yule's estimate of 6-35 lbs. starch equivalent for maintenance 

 per 1000 lbs. live weight of animal is a correct one. In other words, 

 when Kellner^ expressed the energy requirements of oxen at rest in 

 terms of "starch equivalent," he found that the maintenance rec^mre- 

 njents of the ox were satisfied when 6 lbs. starch per 1000 lbs. live 

 weight were given, and thus the "specious similarity" with Wood 

 and Yule's figures is explained. Later on when he came to collect his 

 data in the Appendix he evidently assumed the starch equivalent so 



' Kellner, Landw. Versuclis. Stat. 53, p. 12. 



