ate ELDON W. SANFORD : 
occurred outside of the body by the enzymes derived from the 
cells of the crop’s wall. 
The thirty stomachs with their coeca were in general treated 
like the thirty crops. Their contents were pressed out through 
the open ends, and the coeca were punctured when it was impos- 
sible to remove their contents otherwise. The grinding, ex- 
traction of the enzyme, filtration, and division to three portions 
of 10 ec. was performed as described for the crops. Immediate 
titration of one portion showed an acidity corresponding to 0.8 
ec. of 1/20 normal alkali. The other two portions were left 
three days as before, oil being added to one. The portion with- 
out oil titrated against 1.0 ec. of alkali, showing an increase of 
0.7 ce. due to bacterial or other action. The portion to which 
10 ce. of oil had been added titrated against 7.2 ec. In this case, 
then, there was an increase in acidity of 6.2 ec. over the control. 
This increase must have been due to digestion and production of 
fatty acid, as just discussed for the crop. This is just what all 
investigators would anticipate, I think, for all have considered 
the stomach as an important organ for the preparation of food 
for the uses of the body. 
The above results show without question that fat is digested in 
the crop and stomach. They also afford us comparative values 
for the importance of the digestion in the two organs. The 
figures indicate that the crop is more important than the stomach 
in the proportion 10.7 to 6.2. I shall later show that more than 
half of the effect of the stomach with its coeca is caused by the 
coeca, so the results really indicate that the crop is between 
three and four times as potent in fat digestion as the stomach 
per se. All question of individual variation is obviated by the 
fact that thirty animals were used together in the experiment. 
The crop is therefore the chief organ of digestion of fats, Just as 
Petrunkevitch stated in 1900. 
In other experiments some extracts of enzyme were boiled. 
These were compared as to digestive power with unboiled ones. 
Such boiled preparations showed much less acidity in later stages 
of fat digestion than unboiled ones. The fact that the active 
agent of the digestion is destroyed by boiling is additional evi- 
dence of its enzymatic nature. 
