292 



Maine Agricultural Experiment Station. 1917. 



material if it could be properly handled would be valuable food 

 for animals and a very good substitute for beef scrap. Below 

 are given several analyses of waste materials from sardine fac- 

 tories, which have been recently received from parties interested 

 iv their value as food and fertilizer. 



Table Showing the Composition of Fish Wastes from Sardine 

 Factories as they zvere Received. 









-o 

























; 



a 



<! 



• in 









ti 



60 





a«d 









03 



O 



C3 0^ 



043 



^« 



03 



* 





^ 



\^, 



&HfM 



Ah^ 



fH 



< 



579 



So-called mush or chum as it comes 

 from packers tables 



70.88 



2.54 



1.69 



15.88 



7.99 . 



5.91 



580 



Rendered material from Sardine 

 faetorv 



10.46 



8.19 



5.75 



51.19 



20.91 



17.36 



581 



Chum from sardine factory, dried 

 and ground 



12.84 



7.46 



6.76 



46.63 



19.69 



19.d6 



582 



Herring pomace from sardine fac- 

 tory. Steamed and pressed 



48.02 



4.60 



2.37 



28.75 



9.09 



12.52 



583 



Pomace from head and trimmings 

 of alewives 



44,92 



4.50 



4.31 



28.13 



8.44 



15.67 



*Chiefly phosphate of lime. 



Table Shozving the Nutrients in the Fish Wastes from Sardine 

 Factories zvhen Air Dry. 









la 











oq 











a« 









XI 



l'^ 



+= 















^ 



< 



cm^ 



ft 



579 



So-called mush or chum as it comes 

 from packers tables 



12.02 



17.84 



43.93 



24.15 



580 



Rendered material from Sardine 

 factory 



10.46 



17.36 



51.19 



20.91 



581 



Chum from sardine factory, dried 

 and ground 



12.84 



19.36 



46.63 



19.36 



582 



Herring pomace from sardine fac- 

 tory. Steamed and pressed 



10.00 



21.60 



50.02 



14.70 



583 



Pomace from head and trimmings 

 of alewives 



10.00 



25.50 



46.80 



13.83 



The above samples show a great variation in composition 

 (in the first table) due, largely, to the variation in water content. 

 When reduced to an air dry condition carrying approximately 

 ten percent of water the variation in composition is not very 

 great. The water content of a meal should not be much above 

 10 percent to have good keeping qualities. These samples show 

 a large food value, but the oil content is too high to be safe to 

 fed except in small quantities. 



