THE OREGON SPORTSMAN 



cent, in weight during the elapsed time. Four such pairs of 

 groups are tabulated. 



Amt. and condition 



beef liver fed daily No. fish 



1. 10 grams raw 1800 



2. 10 grams cooked.. .1800 



3. 20 grams raw 2000 



4. 20 grams cooked.. .2000 



Date of 

 weighing 



Mar. 1 



Apr. 2 



Mar. 1 



Apr. 2 



Av. wt. of 

 twenty inds. 

 .465 grams 

 .525 " 

 .465 " 

 .590 " 



Gain in 

 weight 



13% 



27% 



5. 30 grams raw. 



2000 



6. 30 grams cooked.. .2000 



7. 40 grams raw 345 



Mar. 



1 



.500 grams 





Apr. 



2 



.625 " 



25% 



Mar. 



1 



.500 " 





Apr. 



2 

 1 



.875 " 

 .535 grams 



75% 



Mar. 





Apr. 



2 



.555 " 



4% 



Mar. 



1 



.535 " 





Apr. 



2 



.795 " 



48.6% 



8. 40 grams cooked. . . 345 



5 

 19 



1.13 

 1.35 

 1.96 

 1.13 

 1.48 

 2.36 



fframs 



73.5% 



108.85% 



Apr. 5 



Apr. 19 



May 19 



Apr. 



Apr. 



May 19 



It will be seen that in each case, the fishes fed on cooked 

 liver gained weight faster than the others. Excluding from 

 consideration Nos. 5 and 6, on account of the abnormally small 

 gain of the fishes fed on raw liver, the fishes fed on cooked liver 

 gained in weight from 1.48 (Nos. 7 and 8) times to twice (Nos. 

 1 and 2), and three times (Nos. 3 and 4), as much as the others 

 in the same time. Including Nos. 5 and 6, the results would be 

 still more strikingly in favor of cooked liver as a food. 



To find the efficiency of the food per unit of cost, it is 

 necessary to take into account certain losses that take place in 

 the process of grinding, and cooking, and in the elimination of 

 tough, connective tissue unsuitable for food. In ten weighings, 

 the raw liver lost, in preparation, an average of 33 per cent, of 

 its original weight. Similarly, the cooked liver lost 43 per cent. 



Pagfe eight 



