344 Proceedings of Royal Society of Edinburgh. [sess. 
This statement of waste cannot be taken as more than an 
indication of the average amount of food purchased which 
is not consumed. In the different studies very different 
food -materials were used, and from a study of only one 
Table X. 
Waste per man per day. 
Proteiil, 
grammes. 
Fat, 
grammes. 
Carbo- 
hydrate, 
grammes. 
Fuel Value 
(Calories). 
Cost 
(approxi- 
mately), 
pence. 
A. 
Animal . 
3'31 
7*41 
o-o 
61-46 
0-3 
Vegetable 
3-27 
0-18 
13-33 
69-73 
o-oi 
Total . 
6*58 
7-59 
13-33 
131-19 
0-31 
B. 
Animal . 
4*21 
9-07 
o-o 
101-61 
0 76 
Vegetable 
0-3 
0*02 
2-01 
9 65 
o-o 
Total . 
4-51 
9-09 
2-01 
111-26 
0-76 
C. 
Animal . 
576 
11-97 
0-02 
134-61 
0-9 
Vegetable 
3 33 
0-36 
21-56 
105-39 
o-i 
Total . 
9-09 
12 33 
21-58 
240 00 
1-0 
D. 
Animal . 
7*4 8 
17-52 
0-37 
195-11 
0 7 
Vegetable 
575 
0-72 
32-64 
164 08 
0-5 
Total . 
13*23 
18-24 
33-01 
359-19 
1-2 
E. 
Animal . 
3-13 
73 
o-o 
80-72 
1 0-3 
Vegetable 
9-16 
1-08 
50-68 
255-38 
0-4 
Total . 
12 29 
8-38 
50-68 
336 10 
07 
week accidental differences are emphasised. Bearing in mind 
the difference between “refuse” and “waste,” as previously 
defined by Atwater, one sees that increased consumption of 
certain articles of food tends to increased waste. An example is 
the increased fat waste associated with a large consumption of 
ham and bacon, while eggs have practically no waste. Becognising 
