THE UTILIZATION OF ENERGY. 491 
PERCENTAGE UTILIZATION OF METABOLIZABLE ENERGY. 
Real 
Utilization Apparent 
as Computed Utilization. 
by Kellner. 
By RuMINANTS. - 
Concentrated Feeding-stuffs : 
Starch, Kthn’s experiments .............. 49.0 50.0 
« ~ Kellner’s expts., moderate rations .. 58.9 58.4 
“ ‘ ~ heavy rations...... 58.9 61.5 
Oil, Sample I], OXG...... eee eee 59.4 69.4 
Wheat gluten, Kellner’s experiments....... 45.2* 40.3 
Conglutin, Kern . 1.1.0... 0... cece ee eee f 67.7* 
Flesh-meal, Kern........... 000s seve eens 65.0* 
Coarse Fodders : , 
Meadow hay........ ccs cce bene een eeeeees 41.5 P 1.4 
Oat straws. ccssace atoms oats Lo Sade eee 37.6 36.1 
Whéat straw 06. .echeccbda Ge cee ow see aes 17.8 17.4 
Extracted straw ....... 0.6 cee eee eee eee 63.1 63.0 
By Swine. 
Ricey. deenc dev cske aaaulens cee aetaes 78.0 
Barley). 6.8 ss ae 8 owas adele one ose see = 70.9 
Mixed grain........ 00.0 cece cece ree eee 68.5 
* Of protein. 
The Expenditure of Energy in Digestion, Assimilation, and 
Tissue Building.—As was shown in the introductory paragraphs on 
p. 466, the recorded data do not permit us to distinguish between the 
energy expended in the digestion, resorption, and assimilation of 
the various feeding-stuffs experimented upon and the energy which 
we have reason to believe is required for the conversion of the assim- 
ilated material into tissue. Accordingly these two factors have 
been grouped together in the foregoing summaries of results. Some 
interesting facts are revealed, however, by a comparison of the 
total expenditure of energy for these two purposes in the several 
cases. Kellner’s results, as the latest and apparently most accurate 
and representative, have been made the chief basis of the compari- 
son, the figures being those computed by the writer and therefore 
showing the aggregate net effect upon the balance of energy, that is, 
the “apparent” utilization. 
Coarse Fopprrs.—A comparison of the coarse fodders with 
each other brings out the interesting fact that while the percentage 
of the gross energy recovered in the gain varied from 5.5 to 47.6, 
