November 21, 1918] 



NATURE 



227 



able as they are, are open to serious criticism in 



this respect. At the end of his tenure the holder 

 is left stranded. There must be some security 

 til lenure. No good work can he done under per- 

 petual anxiety for the future. To a very large 

 degree the need could be must effectively met by 

 liberal grants to universities and other teaching 

 institutions to enable them to increase their Staff 

 and the salaries paid on condition that at least 

 half time v.. is free for research. At the same 

 time, the teaching itself would greatly benefit and 

 class fees could be reduced to limits permitting 

 all capable of benefit to obtain it, while the per- 

 formance of some amount of teaching is of value 

 in preventing too narrow an outlook, of which 

 there is danger in the pursuit of what must, of 

 iir. essity, be a more or less limited objective. The 

 money must be at the disposal of the university, 

 since only their colleagues can possess satisfactory 

 knowledge of the capabilities of the staff. Of 

 course, inspection would be advisable and profit- 

 able. 



However this may be, there can be no doubt 

 of the urgent and vital necessity for the generous 

 provision in some way of permanent adequately 

 paid posts for men who wish to devote their lives 

 to research. We have every reason to be proud 

 of our achievements in pure and applied science, 

 but how much greater might they not have been 

 if the services of so many talented workers had 

 not been lost in the past? 



One aspect of the matter must be insisted upon. 

 The demands of those unacquainted with the 

 nature of scientific work suggest that they expect, 

 say, a cure for influenza to be discovered in a 

 week or two. It must be made clear that no 

 accurate scientific work can be done in haste. If 

 inaccurate, it is worse than useless, because it 

 misleads and often results in the loss of much 

 later work based on it. A great advantage of 

 work carried on without the limitation of a direct 

 practical object is that the most promising course 

 of investigation often reveals itself in the actual 

 progress of the work itself, so that the most valu- 

 able result may be quite different from the problem 

 originally attacked. 



At the present time there are special circum- 

 stances that require attention. The number of 

 men trained in scientific methods has not only 

 been reduced by death during the four years of 

 war, but the outlook for the future is serious on 

 account of the gap of four years in the training 

 of men who should have been available now. It 

 will be difficult or impossible for many of those 

 returning from military service to devote three or 

 four years to training at an age when it may be 

 necessary for them to be earning a livelihood. It 

 would seem to be a question for serious considera- 

 tion whether some provision in the nature of 

 scholarships should not be made to enable those 

 who desire it to continue their scientific training. 

 The funds necessary might with reason be 

 regarded as forming a part of the cost of the war 

 to be paid by the enemy. w M g Ay] |ss 



NO. 2560, VOL. I02] 



WAR-TIME BEEF PRODUCTION. 



/"\F the many changes imposed by the war upon 

 *•-' British agriculture, few have aroused 

 greater misgivings amongst practical men than 

 the restrictions imposed upon meat production by 

 the reduction of supplies of imported feeding- 

 stuffs. During the many years of abundant and 

 cheap supplies of these materials before the war 

 it became the normal practice of the cattle-feeder 

 to feed lavishly with the view of turning out the 

 fat beeves of prime quality which have always 

 been the special pride of the British farmer. The 

 economy of the practice was frequently called in 

 question, and results of experimental investiga- 

 tion were not wanting to supply evidence that the 

 standard of feeding which represented the upper 

 limit of economy was not very high. Recent con- 

 troversies, however, have revealed how little prac- 

 tice had been affected by the teachings of the 

 economist before the shrinkage of food supplies 

 occasioned by the war rendered so-called "high " 

 feeding physically impossible. 



Before the war a daily allowance of 8 lb. to 10 lb. 

 of "oilcake" per head was quite usual, so that 

 it is little wonder practical men were seriously 

 alarmed last winter when the fiat went forth that 

 the available supplies of feeding-stuffs would not 

 provide more than i lb. to 2 lb. for the purpose. 

 That such a drastic reduction in the food ration 

 must result in a great decrease in meat production 

 and the disappearance of all but inferior qualities 

 of beef was regarded in practical circles as self- 

 evident. Even the scientific adviser of the farmer, 

 though less pessimistic as to the magnitude of 



1 the effect, found himself very inadequately 

 equipped with data which would enable him to 

 assess the probable meat output on the restricted 



j diet. The matter being so obviously of great 

 economic importance, steps were at once taken 



I to secure trustworthy information, and during the 

 winter of 1917-18 experiments on a considerable 



I scale were carried out under the auspices of the 

 Boards of Agriculture for England and Scotland, 

 and the Irish Department of Agriculture. The 

 results of these experiments are now available in 

 a summary prepared by Prof. T. B. Wood, and 

 published in the August issue of the Journal of 

 the Board of Agriculture. The experiments were 



j carried out at two English, two Scottish, and three 

 Irish centres with groups of eight to twenty cattle 

 at each, a total head of ninety-five cattle being 

 included in the tests. At each centre the cattle 



! were given roots and straw ad lib., supplemented 

 with only \\ lb. per head per day of undecorticated 



I cotton-seed cake. 



With the lavish feeding of peace-time, cattle of 



! the type used would commonly increase in weight 



I at the rate of about 12 lb. to 20 lb. per week. In 



I these experiments the average weekly gains at the 

 different centres ranged from 6 lb. to 17 lb. per 

 week, five of the results falling within the narrow 

 range of 8 lb. to 10 lb. per week. The proportion 

 of dressed carcass to live weight was certainly not 



