174 Muiiitciiance Rations and Starch l-Jiiiiirali uIk 



Empliu.si.s lias been laid on this last point, since it is diliicult to see 

 how a formula such as Murray gives is going to appeal to a farmer 

 who has already rejected Kellner's starch equivalent system on account 

 of its complexity of application. The formula may be more scientifically 

 accurate, and Murray should be given the credit he deserves in evolving 

 a formula which satisfies alike the maintenance requirements of two 

 such widely different animals as a young growing pig of 50 lbs. weight 

 and an adult ox of 1800 lbs. ; but at the same time it is felt that with 

 regard to oxen the simpler mathematical relatifiii giv(>ii by Wood and 

 Yule is more within the region of practical politics, and its use is thereby 

 justified. There is much that is valuable and stimulating in Murray's 

 paper, and the fresh aspect he brings to bear on the science of animal 

 nutrition gives one much food for thought. Much of the criticism he 

 brings to bear on the starch equivalent system, however, loses greatly 

 in value when the paper of Wood and Yule is taken into consideration, 

 since these authors show how numy of the faults adherent to the Kcllner 

 system may be rectified. The beauty of the Kellncr system lies in 

 the fact that it gives the comparative values, and not the absolute 

 values, of feeding stuffs for fattening purposes, and much careful 

 thought should be devoted to consideration of its values and defects 

 before deciding to substitute for a simple quantitative number mathe- 

 matical formulae of varying complexity, which, though they may be 

 scientifically more accurate, are not likely to arouse much enthusiasm 

 among the farming community. The farmer desires to know, not 

 how much fat or milk or work a food will produce, but rather which of 

 several foods is more economical for any purpose he has in view. And 

 it has yet to be proved that the starch ei|uivalcnt system is incapable 

 of giving him the right interpretation with regard to this point. 



{Received May lllh, 1915.) 



