— 12 



It must not be forgotten that while in all foods there is a certain por- 

 tion which is not digestible, there is, in addition to this, in the food- 

 materials as they are found in the market, notably in the animal foods, 

 considerable refuse or waste material, which varies froni about 5 per 

 Cent in some of the meats to as high as 50 per cent, and consists of 

 bones, skin, etc. 



In the vegetable foods this refuse does not amount to so much, and in 

 the cereal part of our diet, practically nothing. In potatoes and cab- 

 bage there is about 15 per cent of refuse; in squash, 50 per cent; in 

 turnips, 25 per cent; in apples and grapes, about 25 per cent. Table II 

 shows the proportion of waste material in some of our ordinary foods 

 as we buy them. 



TABLE II. 



COMPOSITION OF DiFFEEENT FOOD-MaTEKIALS. 



(Atwater) 



Refuse. 



(Bones, 



SheU, 



Skin, 



etc.) 



Edible Portion. 



Water. 



Nutrients. 



Total. 



Protein. 



Fat. 



Garbo- I Mineral 

 hydratesi Malters. 



151 



o c s 



a: 3 .— ' 



, r'a 



Beef— Rib 



Sirloin 



Yeal — Shoulder 



Mutton— Leg 



Loin 



Pork— Fresh, Shoulder 



Ham 



Chicken 



Turkey .. 



Eng (in Shell)... 



Fish— Codfish 



Salmon 



Halibut 



Mackerei 



Flounder 



Oj'sters (in shell) 



Lobsters 



21.0 

 19.5 

 17.9 

 18.1 

 15.8 

 14.6 

 11.4 

 38.2 

 32.4 

 13.7 

 29.9 

 35.3 

 17.7 

 44.8 

 66.8 

 82.3 

 62.1 



38.0 

 48.3 

 56.7 

 50.6 

 41.5 

 43.0 

 36.8 

 44.6 

 44.7 

 63.1 

 58.5 

 40.6 

 61.9 

 40.4 

 27.2 

 15.4 

 31.0 



40.8 

 32.2 

 25.4 

 31.3 

 42.7 

 42.4 

 51.8 

 17.2 

 22.9 

 23.2 

 11.6 

 24.1 

 20.4 

 15.0 

 6.0 

 2.3 

 6.9 



12.2 

 15.0 

 16.6 

 15.2 

 12.6 

 13.6 

 14.8 

 15.1 

 16.1 

 12.1 

 10.6 

 14.3 

 15.1 

 10.0 

 5.2 

 LI 

 5.5 



27.9 



16.4 



7.9 



15.6 



29.5 



28.0 



34.6 



12 



5.9 



10.2 



.2 



8.8 



4.4 



4.3 



.3 



.2 



'.7 



.6 

 .1 



The abovc table shows groat variations in tlie refuse of the different 

 foods represented. In beef the waste is about 20 per cent, very little 

 morc than one lialf that of turkey, and not far from five eighths the 

 amount givcn for chicken. This is important in more ways than one, 

 because while the pricc of chicken is oftcn higher than that oi beef, there 

 is more nourishment in the beef, owing to its larger contents of fat, and 

 also, as just stated, because the waste or refuse in beef is only about one 

 half that of chicken. Thesame can ho said of turkey. Mutton eontains 

 less Avaste material than l)eef, and ])()rk sliows a lower pert'entage in this 

 respect than mutton. 



Of the meats mentioned in the tal)le, the protiMU contents do not show 

 as wide differences as do the fats; the ränge for the ])r()tein beiug from 

 12 to 1(), while that of the fat varies all the way from 20.5 per cent in 

 mutton (loin) to 1.2 in chicken. Hcncc, we see that chicken would l)e 

 ex('ell('nt for jtersons wishing a nitrogenous aniinal-food associated with 

 the minimum fat. 



