36 BULLETIN OF THE BUSSEY INSTITUTION. 
this matter ; but it is plain that in estimating his mean for the item 
“cellulose” he has admitted some determinations which, as I shall 
show further on, are not comparable with the cellulose determinations 
in the other parts of his table. His-estimate of albuminoids may pos- 
sibly be a little too high. He has evidently included one or two of 
the determinations which I have thought best to disregard for the 
reasons above stated. 
It is plain, from all that has been saidg that bran, as found in com- 
merce, is a fodder of tolerably constant composition, as well as of 
high nutritive value. 
In the following table the composition of bran is contrasted with 
that of oats, barley, maize, brewers’ grains, and hay ; also with that 
of the common whiteweed, or ox-eye daisy, as determined in this 
laboratory. The analyses of oats, barley, brewers’ grains, and hay 
are copied from Wolff’s table in Professor Johnson’s ‘ How Crops 
Grow,” p. 385 ; that of maize is the mean of several analyses of the 
yellow corn of New England, made at the New Haven Laboratory by 
Professor Atwater (see ‘ American Journal of Science,” 1869, 48, 352). 
i F e8 
M “i 8 : 2 24 
¢ |4o) 20) Sed eee 
ym go a=! B.A 3 aS on 
3 &> as = FS 33 
E <8 F £8 3 E "a 
So 2 ER ee A 3 
< < or a} 
American shorts. 11.65 | 4.28 |11.75 | 64.42 8.29 | 84.07 | 4 24 
European bran . . 13.24 | 4.10 | 13.44 | 60.22 9.00 | 82.66 | 3.62 
American middlings ‘ 12.25 | 2.20 | 10.86 | 69.67 | 5.02 | 85.56 | 2.94 
and ship-stuff 
RDB rec! ipa) ne Mah om 14.30.| 3.00 | 12.00 | 60.90 | 10.30 | 82.70 | 6.00 
Barley 2! fiw hers 14.30 | 2.60 9.50 | 66.60 7.00 | 83.10 | 2.50 
Maize ..%, + 6 + 9.30 | 1.41 9.67.) TET 2.46 | 89.29 | 5.04 
Brewers’ grains. . 76.60 | 1.20 4.90 | 11.10 6.20 | 22.20 | 1.60 
ST ey Oe 14.30 | 6.20 8.20 | 41.30 | 30.00 | 79.50 | 2.00 
Dried whiteweed, cut 
at the time of 
10.87 | 6.44 | 7.00 | 44.69 | 31.00 | 82.69 | 2.42 
flowering . 
Several chemists who have investigated bran with the view of esti- 
mating its value as human food have argued, with some degree of 
truth, that the proportion of cellulose as above given tends to convey 
a false impression, by implying that there is a larger amount of starch, 
dextrin, or sugar in bran than can be found by direct analysis. In 
