determination of the surface area of cattle 
AND SWINE 1 
By Albert G. Hogan and Charles I. Skouby, 2 Laboratory of Animal Husbandry * 
College of Agriculture , University of Missouri 
HISTORICAL 
The modern conception of nutrition may very properly be ascribed to 
the classic investigations of Lavoisier (< 5 ). 3 He recognized that the pro¬ 
duction of animal heat is an oxidation process, and conducted experiments 
to demonstrate his views. 4 It was many years before it became estab¬ 
lished that the oxidative processes alone could entirely account for all 
the heat produced by the animal body. In the meantime, however, 
rough comparisons were made of the heat produced by different indi¬ 
viduals, and it soon became apparent that the amount of heat produced 
under comparable conditions was not proportional to the weights of the 
subjects investigated. 
It is sufficient for the present to say that as yet no entirely satisfactory 
method has been devised for the comparison of heat production of ani¬ 
mals of different sizes, but in 1848 Bergmann (j) 5 made a suggestion that 
has found wide application. He expressed the belief that the relatively 
high heat production of small animals per unit weight is due to their 
relatively greater surface area. This view was given strong support by 
the classic researches of Regnault and Reiset ( 10 ). Their studies were 
concerned largely with the respiratory exchange, as manifested by various 
species under diverse conditions. They believed that the chem¬ 
ical changes within the body are so complicated that it would be impos¬ 
sible to calculate the resulting heat production (10, p. 513). As a result 
of the observations of these collaborators, however, it was established 
that the oxygen consumption of animals is not proportional to their 
weights, and that the smaller the animal the higher the oxygen consump¬ 
tion per unit weight (jo, p. 473). The sparrow, for example, in unit 
time consumes nearly 10 times as much oxygen per kilogram live weight 
as a fowl. Obviously, the heat production per kilogram would have a 
similar ratio. Their explanation was that the smaller animals have a 
relatively greater surface area. While their reasoning on that point is 
faulty, at least in part, their statement of the facts is substantially correct. 
Apparently, no actual measurements of the surface area of living beings 
were made until 1879, when Meeh (8) published such measurements on 
man and suggested that the surface area of any individual could be cal¬ 
culated by the use of a formula. His formula is based on the mathemati¬ 
cal relation that exists between the surfaces and volumes of similar 
1 Accepted for publication May a, 1933. Published with the permission of the Director of the Missouri 
Agricultural Experiment Station. 
3 The data for this paper were taken from the thesis of Charles I. Skouby, presented at the University 
of Missouri in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of master of arts. 
9 Reference is made by number (italic) to “Literature cited,” pp. 429-430. 
4 Cited by Lusk (7, p. 33). 
* Cited by Benedict (2). 
Journal of Agricultural Research, 
Washington, D. C. 
agh 
(419) 
Vol. XXV, No. t9 
Sept. 8,1923 
Key No. M0.-6 
