namely, 117.5 g. Therefore, inclusions of up to 2$ percent protein 

 from PFS in place of equal amounts of CL, as the sole source of protein, 

 and at a total level of dietary protein of 9 percent, does not adversely 

 affect the nutritive value of the protein for growing rats. It is 

 interesting to note that the males grew better than the females when 

 fed the diet containing 9 percent CL protein, which would be expected, 

 but grew similarly when fed the diet containing 2.25 percent PFS and 

 6.75 percent CL protein, which would not be expected, since the mean 

 gains of the two groups were not statistically significantly different. 

 This observation might indicate that the males and females differ in 

 their ability to utilize the PFS protein in this combination with CL 

 protein. 



The mean weights at 10 weeks of the group of rats fed the 

 diets containing 6.75 percent PFS and 2.25 percent CL protein (15.3 g.) 

 and li.50 percent CL protein alone (23.8 g.) also were not statistically 

 significantly different (p -> 0.05). All of the mean weights of the 

 groups of rats fed the other diets were statistically significantly 

 different (p =<0.01) for the 10-week period. The coefficients of 

 variation generally were smaller than usual for this type of a feeding 

 study (9 - 12 percent). 



Although the group of rats fed the diet containing 9 percent 

 PFS protein alone died, the different groups of rats grew increasingly 

 better when they were fed diets in which 2.25, U.50, and 6.75 percent 

 of this PFS protein was replaced by equal amounts of CL protein. This 

 increased growth was apparently directly correlated with the stepwise 

 higher levels of CL protein in relation to PFS protein in the diet. 

 However, the rats fed diets containing these increasing levels of CL 

 protein alone in the diet did not grow as well as rats fed these same 

 diets containing, in addition, the decreasing levels of PFS protein 

 to make a total of 9 percent protein. This added growth with PFS 

 protein indicates that the PFS protein certainly was being utilized. 



An increase of 31 g. in mean gain was obtained when the group 

 of rats was fed the diet containing 6.75 percent PFS and 2.25 percent 

 CL protein over that obtained for the group fed the diet containing 

 2.25 percent protein from CL alone. This increased growth cannot be 

 the result of the added PFS protein or the low level of CL protein, 

 since rats fed diets containing these levels alone did not gain weight. 

 Apparently, the 2.25-percent level of CL protein was ample to balance 

 the 6.75 percent PFS protein. 



An increase of 73 g. in mean gain was obtained when the group 

 of rats was fed the diet containing Iu50 percent PFS and 1|.50 percent 

 CL protein over that obtained from the group fed the diet containing 

 L..50 percent CL protein alone. This greater growth of rats fed a diet 

 containing an even lower level of PFS protein suggests that the PFS 



- h - 



