684 
Journal of Agricultural Research 
Vol. V, No. is 
Although -care was taken to insure as uniform sampling as possible, 
the differences between duplicates varied from o per cent to 4.70 per 
cent—i. e., the figures for veal sample 11 were 77.05 and 77.05 per cent; 
for beef sample 8, 69 and 73.70 per cent. In every case the average of 
the dulpicates is given in the table. The average of the 44 differences 
(there were 44 duplicates) was 0.92 per cent. Although theoretically 
simple, the determination of water in such material as meat is practically 
very difficult. 1 The results for beef and for veal are strictly comparable 
in so far as both sets were obtained under the same conditions, but they 
are not exact in the absolute sense. Had the samples been heated for 
more than 12 hours in the hot-water oven, the “moisture content” would 
have been higher, partly because more water would be driven off, and 
partly because other substances would volatilize, decompositions would 
begin, etc. Apparently, under the conditions of the determinations, 
errors which result from heating meat over ioo° C. for long periods of 
time were obviated (Davis and Emmett, 1914). 
The figures in Table VI for beef are similar to those obtained by other 
workers. Richardson and Scherubel (1908, p. 1527, 1552) found an 
average of 76.35 per cent of moisture in beef which had been dried to 
constant weight at ioo° to 105° C. Grindley and Emmett (1905, p. 659) 
found 75.46 per cent of moisture in beef dried in a hot-water oven for 
a length of time not stated. 
Obviously, the claim that immature veal (“bob veal”) is more watery 
than beef finds little support in the data obtained, because the difference 
between the averages, about 3 per cent, is physiologically of no impor¬ 
tance. 
COMPARATIVE DIGESTIBILITY OF MATURE BEEF AND IMMATURE VEAL IN 
VITRO 
In the following comparative measurements of the speed of pro¬ 
teolysis of beef and veal, an attempt was made to ascertain whether 
immature veal is more resistant to pepsin and trypsin than beef, as some¬ 
times stated. Three separate methods were used, each of which has its 
advantages, disadvantages, and errors. In the first method the undi¬ 
gested meat was filtered at the end of the digestion period, dried, and 
weighed. In the second, nitrogen was estimated in portions of the 
digestive fluid from time to time, thereby giving an indication of the 
rate at which nitrogenous substances were going into solution. In the 
third, the rate of formation of amino nitrogen was estimated in portions 
of the digestive fluid, indicating the rate at which the amino-nitrogen 
groups interlocked in the polypeptids present were opened or separated 
by' the trypsin and alkali. 2 
1 For a discussion of the errors entering into this determination, see Benedict and Manning (1905). 
2 For discussions of the earlier work on artificial digestion, see Grindley, Mojonnier, and Porter (1907, 
p. 61), and Berg (1909). 
