Manyold-Fidi) {the Refuse of Bect-root Distilleries). 101 
3. Man<j()lds contain much less crude fibre dian the pulp, 
with an e(jual jjropoition of water. 
The average amount of crude fibre in the two mangolds dried 
at 212° Fahr. is 18'y2 ; the mean of fibre determinations in the 
two specimens of pulp, 49 "09. We have thus a difference of 30 
per cent, of crude fibre in favour of the pulp. Minor differences 
which will be observed in the composition of the pulp and the 
root itself may be left unnoticed, for they are less striking in 
themselves and immaterial in a consideration of the comparative 
feeding value of the two substances. 
A careful consideration of the differences just pointed out in 
the composition of pulp and roots will enable us to decide with 
no great difficulty : — 
1. That, weight for weight, pulp similar to that analysed by 
me cannot possibly have the same feeding value as good mangold- 
wurzels. 
2. That such pulp, howevei-, is a refuse material which pos- 
sesses high feeding properties. 
To prove that the pulp examined by me is not equal in nutri- 
tive value to the good mangolds, I need only state that the latter 
were found to contain nearly 3^ per cent, more dry matter than 
the pulp. In materials containing so much water as exists in 
mangolds or pulp, this difference alone is sufficient to settle the 
question, whether a ton of pulp is as nutritious as a ton of man- 
golds. The average percentage of dry matter in the two man- 
golds examined by me is 12"05. A ton of mangolds therefore 
contains 270 lbs. of dry substance in round numbers. On the 
other hand, the mean of the water determinations in the two 
specimens of pulp is 91"31, which leaves 8*G9 of solid matter in 
100 parts of pulp. A ton of pulp accordingly contains 194-| lbs. 
of solid matter. In 1 ton of mangolds there were thus 76^ lbs. 
more of solid feeding-matter, or more than one-third more feeding- 
matter, than in 1 ton of pulp. Unless therefore the dry matters 
which compose the pulp are greatly superior in feeding pro- 
perties, mangolds must have a decided advantage over the pulp 
which I analysed. 
It is not difficult to prove that this is not the case. I have 
just pointed out that mangolds contain 2|- times as much 
sugar, gum, and soluble pectinous compounds. In the per- 
fectly dry root we have 38 per cent, more of these substances 
than in the pulp. The latter indeed hardly contains any sugar ; 
and I question much whether the soluble non-nitrogenised sub- 
stances in the pulp have the same practical feeding value as 
the sugar and other soluble non-nitrogenised substances in the 
root itself. However, leaving the question as to the comparative 
value of the soluble non-nitrogenised matters of the pulp and of 
