THIRTEENTH ANNUAL MEETING. 187 
I have said so much by way of introduction to the tables, that 
it may be hardly advisable to discuss their contents at much 
length. Nor will this be necessary for the figures themselves 
tell their own stories and very plainly. Only a glance is needed 
to show that fish as found in the markets generally contain more 
refuse bone, skin, etc., than meats, as is illustrated in Tables I,’ 
IT and III. With the larger proportions of both refuse and 
water, the proportions of nutrients, though variable, are usual- 
ly much less than meats. Thus a sample of flounder contained 
67 per cent. of refuse, 28 of water, and only 5 per cent. of nutri- 
tive substance, while the salmon averaged 23, the salt cod 22, 
and the salt mackerel 36 per cent. of nutrients. The nutrients 
in meats ranged from 30 per cent. in beef to 46 in mutton, and 
87% in very fat pork (bacon). The canned fish compare very 
favorably with the meats. It is worth noting, that the nutri- 
ents in fresh codfish, dressed, in oysters, edible portion, and in 
milk, all were nearly the same in amount—about 12% per cent., 
though differing in kind and proportions. 
Vegetable foods have generally less water and more nutri- 
ents than animal foods. Ordinary flour, meal, etc.,contain from 
85 to go per cent. or more of nutritive material. But the nutri- 
tive value is not proportional to the quantity of nutrients, be- 
cause the vegetable foods consist mostly of carbo-hydrates, 
starch, sugar, cellulose, etc., of inferior nutritive effect, and be- 
cause their protein is less digestible than that of animal foods. 
Potatoes contain a large amount of water, and extremely little 
protein or fats. 
There are two things concerning the composition of fish to 
be particularly noticed: 
1st. The chief difference between the flesh of fish and ordi- 
nary meats is, that the fish generally contains less fat and more 
water. The fat of meats is in the fish, to a considerable extent, 
replaced by water. On this account the flesh of fish has, gen- 
erally, a lower nutritive value, pound for pound, than ordinary 
meats. Fish, as we buy them, have the further disadvantage in 
comparison with meats, that they contain larger percentages of 
refuse bone, skin, entrails, etc., than meats. 
2nd. On the other hand, the flesh of most fish, the nutritive 
