Bulletin No. 52. u. .s. Di^i'AR rMi':Nr oi- A(;kicui/riJRi':, OFFICE OF EXPERIMENT STATIONS. T X 551 ■B8 NUTRITION INVESTIGATIONS I'lTTSBlJRC, PA,. i,s.i.j-iS()0, Professor of Natural Soionco iu the Punnsylvaiiia College for Women, Pittsburg. WASHINGTON: GOVKKNMKNT riMNTIN(f OFFICE. 1 S !t 8 . Class TA O >■' Book'l^ p BULLETIN No. 52. -■"' u. .s. i)KPARrMi<:Nr oi- .\(;KicL;i;ruRi':, OFFICE OF EXPERIMENT STATIONS. 2^ -i NUTRITION INVIiSTIGATIONS I'lTTSBURG, l>A., iSg4-iSi)(i Professor of Natural Science in the Peunsylvaiiia College for Women, Pittsburg. WASniNGTON: CtOVKK?fMENT PUlNTINd OFFIOE. 1 S !) 8 . -^n\ '^ \ LIHTl-R OF TKAXSMITTAl. United .States Department of Agriculture, Office of KxPERniENT Btaiions, Wdsliiiujtoit, !>.<'., March ;';', 1n;)s. Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith a ie]K)it on investiya- tioiis of tlie food lial)itsof a number of families in I'ittsbmu, I'a., made in lSIt4-18'.t(J by Miss Isabel lievier, i)rolesS(Pi- of natural schmicc in the Pennsylvania College for Women at Pittsburg. The report includes six dietary studies, a study of the compositiou and cost of bread in Pitts- burg, and a bakery exjieriment. These investigations were made under the immeiliate supervision of Prof. W. (). Atwater, special agent in charge of nutrition investiga- tions, in accordance with instructions given by the Director of this Oil ice. In the prosecution of these investigations cordial cooperation and substantial aid were given by the authorities of the Pennsylvania ('ol- lege for Women. Special acknowledgments are also due the board of directors of Kiugsley Uouse, the college settlement of I'ittsbuig. The residents of Iviugsley House rendered valuable assistance in the selec- tion of the families whose dietaries were studied ; while two of the resi- dents, ]\riss L. P. Meloy and Miss K. U. Evans, gave much of their time to the i)ractical details of the work. The samples were prepared for analyses in the laboratory of the Pennsylvania College, where some of the analyses were also made. The major part of the analytical work was carried on in the laboratory of the special agent in charge of nutrition investigations at Middletown, Conn. Professor P.evier's report is respectfully submitted, with the recom- mendation that it be published as liulletin No. 't'J of this Ofhce. A. C True, JUrertiir. Hon. .Iames Wilson, /Secretary of AyrivnUiirc. 3 CONTENTS. Dietary stmlies 7 riirposc. :iinl pl;ni 7 Dietary Mtanilards 8 ( 'UaracttT and coiiijjosition of fooil iuaterial.4 uHed 9 l>efailH (if tlie diotary studies 12 Dietarj' study >if a lawyer's family (No. 4:>) 12 Dietary study ni' a mill workman's family (No. IL'S) 18 Dietary study of a mill workman's family (No. 1211) 22 Dietary study of a lioiler tender's family (\o. 18it) 27 Dietary study of a deeorator's family (No. 1!)0) :{1 Dietary study ol' a ulass blower's f.imily ( No. liH ) ',i'> General remarks on the dietary studies 40 Food accessories 42 Variations in the cost and composition of linad 13 Disi'ussion of results 4.5 Bakery experiment 16 Discussion of results 47 NUTRITION INVESTIGATIONS IN PITTSHnR(;, PA., i8(j4-i(S(j6. THE DIETARY STUDIES. The investigations liere reported iiiclnile studies of (1) six dietaries; (2) the composition and prices of baker's bread in Pittsburg; and (.!) tlie composition of bread and the changes which the materials undergo in baking. The dietaries studied were tliose of families of men in professional life, mechanics, and day laborers. The range in linancial condition was from comparative aftlucnco to actual poverty. The inquiries regarding bakers' bread included observatio!!s of the composition and selling ])rice of ten specimens as ordinarily sold in the city. The studies of Hour and bread included the com])ositiou and cost of the Hour and other materials used in baking, the composition of the bread, and the losses of materials during the process of fermenting and baking. PURPOSE AND PLAN. The ])urpose of the studies was to obtain information regarding the condition of living and especially concerning the hygienic and pecuni- ary economy of the food of people of dilferent classes, more particu- larly those of limited incomes. The data sought were (1) the income of the family; (2) the outlay for rent and I'ood ; and (.'>) the kind, qual- ity, and quantity of food materials coiisuuumI. From these data it is possible by comparison with recognized standards to judge whether the families studied were proi)erly nourished and whether they were wise in their selection and jmrchaseof food; also to iiointout, in many instances, where a dilferent selection would have furnished a more nutritious and less costly dietary. The plan liere tbllowed is the same as has been explained in accounts of previous investigations carried on under the direction of the United States Department of Agriculture. It may be briefly stated as fol- lows: From the sum of the different food materials on hand at the beginning of the study and those received during the experiment the amounts remaining at the end were subtracted. This gave the 7 8 ninoniit of eai'li material actually used. The amounts of the nutritive iiisii(^(lients were estimated from the auiount thus obtained and the comjiositiou of each material, as shown by actual analysis, or as assumed from the average of analyses of similar food mateiials. The animal and vegetable materials in the waste (bread crumbs, bits of meat, jirepared food of different sorts, et(^) were separated as accu- rately as possible and analyzed. This waste did not include the inedi- ble portion (i. e., refuse) of the food, such as bones, shells, skins, seeds, etc. The nutrients in the waste subtracted from tliose of the food gave the amounts of nutrients actually eaten. Account was icept of the meals taken by the dilferent members of the family and by visitors. A record was also kept of all beverages, condiments, etc., purchased. As a rule a woman re(iuires less food than a man, and the amount re([uired by children is still less, varying with the age. It is customary to assign certain factors which shall rei)resent the amount of nutrients re(juired by children of different ages, and by women, as(x)m|)ared with an adult man. The various factors which have been adopted are as follows : Factors nxed in calnilatinij iiieals continued in dietnnj nfiidies. One me:il of woman eqnivalent to 0.8 meal of man ali moderate muscular labor. One meal of boy 14 to 10 years of age, inclusive, equivab^it to 0.8 meal of man. One meal of girl II to 16 year.s of age, inclusive^ e(|niv.alent to 0.7 meal of man. One meal of child 10 to 13 years of age, inclusive, ecjuiv^ileut to 0.(1 meal of man. One meal of child (i to 9 years of age, inclusive, equivalent to 0.5 meal of man. One meal of child 2 to 5 year.s of age. inclusive, e{iuivaleiit to 0.4 meal of man. One meal of child under - years of age e(iui\aleut to 0.3 lueal of luan. Tlicse factors are based in ])art ujion ('-\]ierimental data, and in part upon arbitrary assumptions. Tliey are subject to revision when experi- mental evidence shall warrant more dclinitc conclusions. ISy the use of tlie.se I'actors the number of meals actually taken by each member of the family is calculated into the e(piivalent number ol' meals ibr an adult mail. In this way the total number of meals taken by the family is linally expressed in terms of meals ])er man, and by dividing this latter value by the numlier of meals taken per day (usually three) the erjuiva- lent number of days for one man is obtained. The total nutrients of the food eaten divided by this e(]uivalent number of days for one man gives the amounts of nutrients '-per man i)er day."' DIETARY STANDARDS. The results of the dietary studies are compared with the results of similar studies made elsewhere, and with the dietary standards for man under different conditions of muscular activity. These so-called dietary standards are for the most part based upon the ob,served facts of food consumiition. The standards' which are given beloware based upon the assumption that tiie body reipiires for its nourisliineiit enough protein to rejilace all the nitrogenous suljstanccs consumed in tlie body ' U. S. Dej.t. Agr., C)flic(< of Kxiierimeut .Stations Bui. 21, p. 200 et seq. ; 13ul. 40, p. 6. and euougli energy (fuel value) to supply the demand for lieat and for muscular and other work. All the nutrients yield energy, but protein alone can build tissue. Tlierefore a dietary standard is expressed iu its simplest form iu terms of protein and energy (fuel value). The proposed American standards, which are somewhat more Iil)eral than tliose given by European authorities, are as follows: •Sldiulardsfor daily dietaries (Alwaier). Protein . Fuel value. ()r>, Hiohb iinnlyses also rcjircscnt the coni- poaitiuii nl' Ihi' foods as purchased. Tabi.K 3. — Composition of wafer-free suhsianre of edibh' portion offmd materials. Kind of lood material. Refer- ence No. Nitrogen. Protein. Fat. C:irliohy- drateH*. Ash. ) ANIMAL POOD. Beef: Boiling piece, n<-'clc, free from bono.. 145 304 197 237 Per cent. 11.13 6.38 b.ll 12.67 Per cent. 08.2 39.4 31.3 77.0 Per cent. 28.3 58.0 67.6 19.0 Per cent. Per cent. 3.5 1 1 275 276 9.68 9.15 60.0 55.2 30.7 42.0 3 3 Do '> S 64.1 32. 6 36. 1 ILl 15. 5 13. 23.9 62.5 :f. 3 341 58 411 415 1029 1122 1505 9.91 9.79 12.87 60.7 01.1 82. 9 75.4 81.6 71.7 35.6 3 2 .1 2 r> Liver" .. . 4.1 Veal: 13.10 10.65 5.86 4 4 Lamb: Leg 1.9 12 Tahi.eS. — ComposUiun of wdler-frve suhstanie of edililc porlwn of food materials. — Cont'd. Kind of food material. Eefer- ence No. Nitrogen. Protein. rat. Carbohy- drates'. Ash. ANIMAL FOOD — continued. Pork : Lctin ro.l.st 2025 2137 Per cent. 4.11 11.02 I'ec cent. 26.8 71.9 Pt cent. 71.9 22.9 100. 96.2 96.9 95.6 30.9 21.1 2,5.2 J'er cent. Per cent. 1.3 L.ard . .' l!ul tlT 3.8 D(j 1. I .6 25.0 26.0 24.4 2 3.8 MiUt 38.3 47.2 44.5 5.8 Do 5.7 IJo 5.9 VKQETAllLE FOOD. 5014 .5026 .5311 5079 5.9 10. 3 15.9 17.3 1.4 1.7 1.4 7.9 92.0 87.3 82.2 73.1 7 .7 .5 5573 5574 14.1 15.1 .8 1.1 83.0 82.0 2.1 Uo 1.8 Avera"e . ... 14.6 1.0 82.5 1 9 1 100.0 100.0 77.8 liean.s, Lima, dried 6521 15.6 2.1 4.5 DETAILS OF THE DIETARY STUDIES. The (letiiils oltlic si.\ dietiiry studies lollow, witli .such coMiint'iits and suiigestioiis for iuiprovemeiit in each case as seenieil desirable or wanaiited. IlIETAUV STITIIV OF .\ L.WVYKU'S I'WMILV iNo. 4:'.). The lirst ol' the dietary studies licre reported was made in the winter of ISO") ill tlie family of a lawyer in comfortable circumstances. The family consisted of tlie aged graiidniother, the father and mother just past inidflle age, two married daughters with tin- husl)and of one of them, two daughters between 12 and 20 years of age, a- son about IS years old, and the maid servant, a wonuiii about 30. There were also numerous visitors. The father suffered from dysi)ei)sia, and as lie had a. special diet he was not included in the study; the son-in-law was engaged in business; the boy was attending school. Tl)c study lief;;in F('l)iiiai\v 25, ISSl.'i, ;uid cDDtinuod ;^0 days. Tin" huiiiImt ol" n)e:ils iakeii wa.s as followH: Menl.-(. Two men 155 iSLx woiiK.'!! (521) Dicals x 0.8 meal of man), ei|iii\'ale]it to 423 Girl 12 years old (!)0 meals x n.O meal of man), e(|nivalent to 54 Visitor.s, men KJ Visltor.s, women (41 meals x 0.8 meal ot'm.in), equivalent to 33 Visitor, child, equivalent to 1 Totiil niimlier of rai'als taken, efjuiNalent to ()'82 Kquivaleut to 1 man 227 days. 13 III the followiiij;' tables are recorded tlie kind and aniounl of the dilleieiit foods pmehased, wasted, and eaten, together with their eom- jjositioii aud cost: Tahlk 4. — I'Viud iiiiilerhilK diid lahle and lU01». I!lM-f: liib, no bone ' Round, ?io boiu*' KiMiip. no liono Sli.iiihbii.-lo.li Slo.rl Mt.ak ' 'reu.b'rl.iin sli-;ik rtriril :tnd Hiiioki-il Ividneya. eilildr jioi lion ' Totul . Clio[i8, no lioiu- (.'utlotM, no bono 1 LiviT.oilible portion' T.ilal . Lamb: (JliopK, no I .'. L.-.^, no bono I. . Koast. no bone . Stew 1 o(aI . Pork : RibH IJaoon Hani, no bone . Hiini •Saiianjie Lard Tiit,il . Fish, salmon Egj;a (la. 9 per cent sliell) . Hiitler' Cheese Milk' < 'ream Total animal tooil . VKliirrAllI.K Fui-ili. CereaLs ; Barley Biii-kwlieat Hour' Corn meal ' Flour, wheat llieo Uolleil oats' Biead. baker s ... Mararoiii I'lii- teili. III. 4 20.1 la. 8 17.6 17,2 17.6 15.5 Fat. ;15. 5 25. 11,2 11.5 27. :i «. 8 2.4 CarboliY- diMtes. 1(1.4 :i.3 (i. G 28.3 311. 1 Total .■..>st. *2. 3C 2 411 .58 .'.15 40 .44 .25 ,30 Tol,il food Ilia- I. -rial. Giams. 5. 3110 (i, 945 2, 265 . 3,7(50 1,8411 1,1G0 455 1,845 Tro- t.in. 875 1,45S 380 707 3B4 lli3 144 325 7.(58 I 23,510 1.(10 ' 2,095 . 'J5 ; 2, 200 . (iO 2, 095 6, 390 .93 1.00 1.11 14.1 9,2 15. 5 13. 3 12. 8 25 111 X 39 1 33 4 45 4 100 .55 .06 .19 .12 .24 .14 2, 200 3, 005 3, 200 1,200 ,605 4,416 401) 442 415 1,263 387 517 563 186 1,985 170 025 470 875 6, 605 280 16 97 63 112 Fal. raiiig. 1 881 Cai-bobv- .irat.s. Craiin: 361 580 421 212 300 31 44 3 218 73 138 623 904 91)6 229 509 105 214 157 397 ,505 13.6 14.9 26.0 3.0 2.5 8 1 10 6 89 5 34 2 3 7 18 5 2.3 4.0 4.5 9.3 14.4 7. 8 16. 9 9.5 11.7 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.3 .4 7.8 1.2 1.6 Sugars : Sufiar, ;^ranulate.l ' Sugar, brown Molasses (New Orleans) . Total . 77.6 811. 7 78.4 74,4 79. 71.7 52. 8 72. 9 98.6 95.0 68.0 1. 30 I 10, 030 1,215 10, 775 13,510 625 55, 725 18, 305 37. 43 I 150, 290 305 11, 111) 3, 940 41,0511 1, 521) 3, 090 5, 105 340 i. 29 1 66, 520 508 7, 917 164 1, 605 163 1,672 458 98 1,142 12, 1191 214 2, 062 3,386 14 563 824 366 1,1111 118 485 40 33, 831 4 283 ;(3 8, 966 59 3, 1)89 34 30, 541 6 1, 201 41 2,210 61 2, 695 5 248 18,825 . 4,425 I. 3,175 26, 425 18, .561 4, 204 2,159 • Analyzed in conueetiou with this dietary. 14 Taulk 1. — Food materials and table and kitchen wantes in dietary Ktiidy No. 43 — Cont'd. Composition. Total cost. Weight used. Kiiiil of louil null, ri^il. Pro- tein. Fat. Carbohy drates'. T.tal food ma- terial. Pro- tein. ^ J , Carbohy- ^'"'- 1 drates. VEUETABLE FOOD— continued. Vej^etahles : Per ct. 22.3 14.0 2.1 2.8 1.1 1.7 3.6 2.1 1. 8 Per ct. 1.8 1.9 .4 1.3 .3 .4 _ 2 . 1 .7 ]*er cent. 59.1 70.1 5.8 19. 3 2.7 9.9 9.8 18. 27.1 4 $0.26 .14 .18 .52 .04 .10 .70 1.60 .:i7 .47 Grains. :i, 035 1,275 1,930 1, 825 285 535 5, 175 35, S.W 3. 795 0, 045 Grains. 677 178 40 51 3 9 186 753 08 72 Grams. 55 24 8 24 1 2 11 30 27 12 Grains. 1,793 Heans. Lima, dried ' Calibage, e.liblo jiortion . . Corn, cauncd 894 112 352 8 Onions, edilde portion 53 507 Potatoes (29.9 per cent refuse) Sweet itotatoes (24.9 per 6,454 1.028 1.2 1 .2 242 Totiil 4.44 59,765 2, 037 200 1 11,443 .5 .8 2.0 Frnits, etc.: .6 .7 10.1 9.7 58.6 .35 1.20 .30 1,475 2,440 905 7 19 18 10 15 6 150 ()ran;;es, pulp 237 530 Total 1.85 1 S'Jii 44 31 917 li7. 5i;u 13.21 11). 221 1 , 274 86. .523 Total food 50.64 307,810 1 22. 183 i :;". Ill - .K9. 934 1, 509 2. 338 1 3. 639 10.2 15.8 24.6 14,795 ' Analyzed in conneclion w illi thi.s dietary. Tahi.k "i. — ll'eiiililx and pfraiitai/cs iif fond maliriaU and nnlritire inijirdiinfn jier innn per day in dietary study Xo. 43. "Weights. Co.st. Total food. KiikI ..It 1 in.-ihMJal. Food male- rial. Grams. ''A 5 47 60 3 245 81 Pro. tein. Fat. Carbo- urates. Food mate- rial. Pro- tein- Fat. Carbo- hy- drates. Cost. PER MAN PER T»AY. J'.6(^f, veal, ;in(l imitton Grains. 32 3 1 7 i 7 2 Grains. 31 35 Grains. Cents. Per ct. 12.8 3.5 .4 3.5 4.4 18^1 5.9 Per et. 33.1 2.6 . 7 . 7 7.5 2.1 Per ct. 19.7 22.6 .3 3.3 34.4 .6 5.9 9.6 Per et. ........ ■-2;9- Perct. 26.5 2 6 .8 Eii'^a 5 53 1 9 15 7.4 16.9 .4 Milk 11 4 9 4 9.9 Total animal lood. 602 117 263 21 53 36" 149 5" 15 16-5 48.8 53.9 96.4 3.8 73.9 217 110 50 4 21.6 8.6 19.4 1.6 36.3 .4 9.2 .2 2.9 .'e' .1 54.8 27.7 12.7 1.0 8.5 Su^iiire ami starches . . 5.2 9 1 8.8 3.6 Total vc-gotable 694 45 6 381 5.8 51.2 46.1 3.6 ' 96.2 26.1 Total food 1,356 98 155 396 22.3 100.0 100.0 100. 100.0 100.0 15 Tablk Ci. — Xnlrientfi and potential nu'r(jif in food purchastdy rijerfed, and ruftn pci- man per day in dieiart/ uttidif Xo. 43. Weiglits and fuel value. Cost. Pereentagea of total food. Kind of fund. Tro- tein. Fat. Carlto. "ly- drates. Fuel value. Pro- tein. Fat. Carbo- li.v- drate.s. Fuel v,Tlue. (.:o3t. PEll MAN TEH DAY. Food piirchiisfd ; (IraiiiK. 53 45 98 7 drams. 149 6 155 10 trrains. LI 381 396 16 Calorics 1 , OfiS 1,800 Cents. 16. 5 5.H Per r.t. 53. 9 46.1 Per it. 90.4 3.6 I'crrl. 3.8 96.2 I'er ct. 48.0 62, Perct Voget;ilde 26.1 Total Waste 3, 405 185 22.3 1 1.5 100. 6.8 lilt). 0.7 lim. 1110.11 4. 1 5. 5 100.0 6.8 Food actually eaten. . . 91 145 380 3,280 20.8 03.2 9.1. 3 96. 94.5 93. 2 ■Estimated. THsoiKnioH of results. — The aiiiouut of nutrients per man ])er day actually consumed by tliis family agree very closely with averages of the food consumption of professional and business men as found in other dietaiy studies in the United States. The average of nine dietary studies of families of professional men in (Joniiecticnt' shows rather more protein (!(t7 grams) and about the same fuel valiu' (3, 4.30 calories). The dietary of a teacher's family in Indiana- showed a daily consumption of lOd grams protein and a fuel value of i;,780 calories, while two dietaries of professional men in <_!hicago' showed 104 grams of i)roteiii and L',805 calories of energy. The tentative standard above (juoted for a man with light muscular labor calls for llli grams of protein and a fuel value of about 3,000 calories. The income of this family was such that economy of diet was not a necessity. Nevertheless in .some ways they lived tjuite economically. This was shown more particularly in their selection and purchase of vegetable tbod. Meat was eaten in (juite largo (iiiantities. Indeed, one-third of the total protein was furnished by beef, veal, and mutton. Of these meats 87 pounds were purchased at a cost of $13.50, or at an average of 15i cents a pound. As a rule the better cuts of meat were inirchased, l)ut not the highest-]iricetl cuts. Contrasted with this family may be cited the family in dietary No. 1-9 (see ]i. 2-), who expendeil but iJI.Ol! for 30.0 ixtunds of lieef, or an average of C.^ cents a ])oiind. A large variety of vegetable and cereal food products was used. The cereals naturally furnished the largest return of nutrients for a given expenditure. Wheat tiour, buckwheat flour, corn meal, and rolled oats were the most important articles among the cereals, and these four materials furnished collectively as much ])rotein as was con- tained ill the beef, veal, and mutton eaten, and at the same time yielded two and one-third times the energy furnished by these meats. ' Connecticut Storrs Sta. Rpt. 1896, p. 155. -IT. S. Dept. A^r.,Otlioe nf Kxpcriaiont .St;tti<>iis I!ul. H2, ]i. 14. ^Not yet publiiibed. 16 ill other woius, 87 pounds oi meat cost Al.l.HO and fiuiiislied 7,332 grams of protein with 9Jr,400 calories, wliile l-iOA jiounds of cereals cost but $:j.37 ami furnished 7,-'>77 grams of protein and 223,000 calories. This family baked their own bread, thereby effecting a considerable saving from a linaiieial standpoint. One hundred and four and three- quartei'S pounds of bread was made from 04 pounds of Hour. The cost of the tiour was $1.54 (2.4 cents a pound). In bakery experiments carried on in New Jersey' it was found tliat the shortening, yeast, and other ingredients used in making bread cost on an average 30 cents per dollar's worth of flour. In the study of the cost of bread in Pitts- burg (see p. 43) the cost of the ingredients other than tiour was 20 cents per dollar's worth of flour. Forty-live cents would probably be ample allowance for the cost of the slioitening and yeast used in this study. Ill New York City there are public ovens where bread is baked for 1 cent a loaf. Tlie actual cost of fuel would probably not be more than half this amount. The average weight of a loaf may be taken as not far from l',' pounds. Fifty cents for the cost of fuel needed to bake (14 pounds of bread is piobably a liberal allowance. Tiie total cost of the 104'* ])ounds of bread would tlius be about $2.0(1, or 2i cents a pound. Tliis family paid 4.0 cents a pound ior the small amount of baker's bread used. In dietary No. 120 stale bread was purchased for 2.J cents a pound, which was probably as cheap as homemade bread. Considerable (juautities of dried beans were used by tiiis family. Tiie legumes give not only a pleasing variety to the diet, but they are very important, and, in the case of the dried seeds, an economical source of protein. There are certain vegetable food materials which may be considered as stai)le articles in all households, whether of the poor or the well-to- do. Such are the cereal prodnc-ts — sugar, potatoes, and perhaps beans and peas, liesides these staple articles, a greater or less variety of other food materials is found, according to the habits of living and the circumstances of the fiuuily. Green vegetables, such as corn, cabbage, tomatoes, cucumbers, lettuce, etc.; and the fruits, apples, bananas, oranges, and the like, give relish and variety to the food, but do not add especially to the amount of nutrients.^ For example, a pound of flour will furnisli 0.11 pound of protein and 1,650 calories of energy, a pound of dried beans furnishes 0.22 pound of protein and 1,500 calories, while a pound of cabbage furnishes 0.02 pound of protein and ' U. S. Dept. Agr., Office of Experiment Stations Bui. 35. •^Sneb foods are undoubtedly of value for the acids and mineral salts which they contain. There are many theories which rest on such an assumption, and references to tlie value of fruit acids and salts are numerous, particularly in popular articles. The ronsensus of opinion of leading physiologists seems to lie that few definite state- ments can 1)0 made on this subject, since the number of cx))erinients bearing upon it is comparatively limited. 17 about 150 calories of eiier.uy, ami a pound of oranges funiislics 0.01 Ijouud of pioteiu auil 100 calories of energy. lu Table 7 are given the proi)ortioas of digestible nutrients and fuel values iu 15 of the more important food materials used by this family. The actual cost per pound of these foods is also shown. It is probable that the nearest whole number represents, as a rule, the price charged: Table 7. — Cost pvr jioiind and amoiiiils and fuel value of the (Hiiestihh: niilrienta in I jionud (tnd in 10 cents' worth of the more imiiortant food materials used in dietary study No. 43. Kiuil of l''KuI nlii- ti-iiiil. Actual cost per poiiud. Nutrients and energy in 1 pound. Pro- tein. Beef: Kil.s Koimil Shoulder clod Veal, eliops Lamb, roast Ks,:s Butter Milk AV'Iieat tlour Rolled oats Bread, baker's. . . . Sugar, granulated IJeans, dne00 Equivalent to 1 man 167 days. 19 In the followiiij;- tables are recordeil the kiiul uiid iiiiionnt of tlie dif- ferent foods imrehased, wasted, and eateu, toyetliei' with their comjiosi- tiou and cost : TaBLK 8.— Food iiiiih rials und tnlili and kilrlifii iriiilis in dietari/ study Xo. US. Couipositioii. Kind ol food material. Weight used. Total It,, Carbohy cost. ,. ^»"" I Pro- "™'- I i'tiriai':'-, «™. no bone lionud, no bone litdogna sausage.. Suet Total . I'ork : Steak I'ijia" teet. no bone. . Ham. smoked, no inii Hani, boiled, no boni^ iJacon Ileaibcbeese Lard CarIiob.\- drates. $1,110 I. 05 7,8111 8, 30.1 1,4^5 140 firains. (iraiiin. I.tvi2 6S(i 1 7.6 l.llij 17, 7U0 3.0.15 n.7 10.1 IS. 5 18.2 9.2 18.6 Total . 36.11 14.8 39. 1 37.(1 61.8 24.0 100. u 2.480 3. 03,". 1.4. II 3, 070 1.900 81(1 3,440 290 4.811 217 72:1 180 151 8113 440 547 1.400 1,211 194 3,440 4. 34 17, 095 8, 203 Herring, .smoked, ni Salinon, canned . . . . 30.4 20. 7 15,8 111 s .20 .30 1.460 ,531 855 I 177 231 92 Total , Eggs, witlioiit shell . Butler I. Cheese, whole milk . Cheese, Lilnbnrger, . Milk I Total animal tood. VEGETABLE FOOD. Cereals: Barley . . , Flour Oatmeal . llice Bread . . . . Cake I'ie .50 2.315 14.9 1.0 20.0 23. 3.2 10.6 86.9 34.2 I 29.4 2.0 5 8 . 99 2, 735 3.08 ' 5.480 .10 470 . 12 I 270 1,20 ' 19,305 13.34 05,370 70S 323 407 I 2911 55 I 4,702 122 161 62 , 80 618 ' 502 10.452 9.3 11,3 15,6 1.0 1 1, I ' 7.3 77.6 .03 74,6 .20 08, ,D5 79. .05 ,54,3 3,30 63, 4 .4!! 1 39. 5 ,45 255 2, 555 455 455 44, 305 : 2, 565 2,585 24 289 71 36 4, 084 180 121 28 33 ■i 11 1 1.119 198 1. 900 310 359 24, 107 1,020 1,021 Total . Sugars: Sugar, eotl'eei. 5Iolas-es 53,205 I 4,805 95 4 08.0 1.07 . 15 8,210 1, 755 29, 52' 7, ,'*33 1, 193 Total . Vegetaitles: Beans Catsup Onions '....\y.'.'.'..'.'.J l'otatisci(ssii>ii of results. — As regards surroiiiKlings and income the family studied in this dietary may he talceii as fairly representative of a large class of very poor foreign laborers in Pittshnrg. The family was undernonrished. Even as compared with the amounts of nutrients ordinarily retjuired by persons of sedentary habits their diet was. ^cant. To bring it up to the tentative standard for a man with muscular work would have reipiired 5(1 per cent more ]U()tein and 40 ]ier cent more energy; to bring it up to the tentative standard lor a man without muscular work would liave re(|uired l-'O ]ier cent more ]irotein and the same pro])ortioiial increase of energy. A considerable amount of tliritt was shown, but more skill in mar- keting would have obtained more nutrients for the same outlay of money. Hound steak was ]inrcliased in considerable quantities at the low price of 9 cents a pound. The meat thus obtained liad very littli' waste and contained a laige inoportion er cent of tlie jirotein and .">(» per cent of the fuel value. The cost was Sit ])er cent of the whole, not including the accessories. Boiled ham, canned salmon, eggs, butter, cheese, milk, ])arsley, and Jam were more or less e.xiiensive. 'J'hese eight materials furnished 18 per cent (jf the protein and 2.'! i)erceiit of the fuel value. The cost was .32 percent of the whole. Fish is a valuable source of in'otfin. but as it contains but little fat its fuel value is small. The canned salmon used by this family was not economical, the smoked herring was very 2-2 ecoiiuuiical. The lieniiij.;' is one ni tlie few oily tislie.s, and consequently its fuel value is greater than that of most lish. it also contains a large amount of protein. The food which furnished the least nutriment in proportion to its cost was the boiled ham. Although under ordinary circamstanees its use would be Justitiable, the means of this tamily were so limited that it ■was a more costly food than they could aflord. This ham was carried in the dinner pail for lunch, and was imrchased daily at a cost of l'.> cents i>er ])Ound. Butter, also, formed a liea\y item of expense, one- seventh of the total cost of the food being for this one article. Tweuty- five and a half cents a pound may not be high for creamery butter such as this family purchased, but they would have obtaiiu'd much more actual food if they had spent but half as much for butter and bought more flour, bread, beans, or potatoes. Of course, some butter is desir- able not only for the fat it contains, but also for the relish it gives the food and for the sake of variety in food materials. The point to be emphasized is, that iu ca.ses where the income is so small that bare subsistence is a difticult i)roblem, some more economical food material might be substituted for a i)ortioii of the butter. The cost per pound, the digestible nutrients as calculated by the factors given on p. 1 7, and the fuel value of the difl'erent food materials are shown iu the following table: T.vHLK 11. — Cost per pound ami mnouiils ami fui'I raliie of tiic (liijeslilde iintrictitK in 1 poHiid and in Ki cents' irortli of the more important food materials used iu dietari/ studi/ Xo. US. Actual ! Nutrients and eneriiy in 1 ponud Kind «'f I'lunl ma- cost t.Tiul. per ^ p pouud ' Nntrieiita nm\ eiierjjty in 10 cents' worth. tein. T^„f ; Carbohy. ■^•^^" dratea. Beef: Stuw meat Kuiind Bologna sau- sage Pork : Hant. btnled . Head cheese . Fish, li e r r i u g. sTiiidieil Eg^H Butter Milk Flunr Oatmeal Breatl Sugar, cotiV-o Bfau-s Potatoes Cents, I PoumL Poiftid. i'oMjirf. U. U7;{ 5.0 8.0 0.176 .202 9.4 .170 18.8 .-i. 5 .178 .183 5.9 14.2 2.") ."> .3:19 .126 .010 3. 6 5.0 3.4 5.0 .1.8 1.1 .031 .096 .133 j .073 .359 .233 .145 .089 .843 .025 .010 .064 .178 .013 .016 0.058 .730 .669 .532 .934 .561 .130 Fuel value. Pro- tein. 635 885 845 325 1 245 (illl 3 575 270 580 760 135 775 442 265 Pound. 0. 15 .14 .01) .33 .09 .03 .13 Fat. Carbohy- Fuel Urates. , \'alue. 0.21 2.03 1.33 1.50 1.61 .97 1-18 Pound. 0.35 .23 .57 .09 fa' Ties. 1. 270 995 982 1, 555 2.105 410 1,400 970 4. 385 3. 520 3,34(1 3,010 2,495 2, 420 IIIETAKY STUDY OF A :\1ILL WORKMAN S FAMILY (No. 120). This dietary study was made with an Knglish family in very poor circumstances. The family consisted of the father and mother, a mar- ried daughter and her husband, three younger daughters, one son, and an infant. The father. 43 years of age, was a thin, delicate man, with 23 an aiii)ari'nt tendency toward cDnsuiniition. Severo colds rrequently prevented hiui from worlciiij;-. and during tlie studv he lost eight days oil this account. He was a lilacksniitli by trade; his usual wages were 81.i'"» per day. The mother and tlie married daughter, 18 years ohl, were strong ami healthy, as was also the soninlaw. The latter was 27 years old and earned $1.25 per day in an iron mill. The daughters, aged 13 and 7 years, respectively, and the ID-year-old boy were all weak and sickly. The two youngest children, a girl 4 years old, and an infant aged 7 months, were strong and robust. The family paid $0 a month in advance for rent of three rooms. The stiiily bei;:!!! .laniiary '_'4, ItSfMi, and oontiniii'il ill days. The uninber of meals taken was as follows : lleala. Two men 17:> Two women (17a meats X e.S meal of man i, equivalent to ISIl Two ehildren, 10 and 13 years old ilTI meals x O.limeal of man i. einiivaleiit to in I t'liild, 7 years old (87 meals X 0.5 meal of manl. equivalent to 11 C'bild, 4 years ol. I .'!'. Klii.l i)f t.i,p,l inatcTial. Composition. Pro- tein. Carboliv- cost, ilrates'. Wei;;Lit used. Total food ma- terial. Carholiy d rates. ANIMAL FOOIl. Rc.'f; Clmck Roiiiul, no bone ' . . . Kiimp ' Fore .shank Liver ' Lel)ern urst - Loin, no lione ' Ham. .smoked, no bone Han), boiled Bacon Piys' feet Kidnev ' Sausitjie Lard, iiiireuilered , Tola! . Oysters I'.ntlerine. . , Cheese .Milk ' Total animal food. 15.7 •21.0 22.4 h'.3 18,8 12,2 Pir cl. 10,2 10, 3:!, 3 7,3 3,9 211,2 $0,41) Oratns. I (!i 3,100 1 3, 820 2, 30(1 1,705 l 1,S00 1,035 (Diis. tlrtnnK. 4!lli 322 K02 Oil 515 700 217 120 .13',] 120 1.92 . 13,880 I 2, ia,-i 15. ,^ 42. 3 15 5 30.1 18,2 37,0 9.2 01,8 10. 1) 3 17 2 ;>. J 12,8 45. 4 1 1 04, 1,05 1,15 235 5 670 325 215 1 715 1 200 340 1 530 1,4,50 870 60 44 17 6,1 .5 20,0 2, 1,4 SO, 1 34 2 3,0 2, 3 5,3 , 10 I. 45 .80 8.59 70 209 1* 100 2, 1(17 3, 000 2,217 120 13.1 159 00 154 l,4:i8 2. 85i; 32 20 8. 103 8 3,300 030 442 3 17 JK3 428 43 781 0,314 14,752 1,022 Aiialvzi-il 111 iiiiei tiiin with tliis ihetarv. :!.HH) 1 . fiGU 14, 743 -From I'ureimi analyses. 24 Table 12. — Foud materiah and tahleand kitchen inisles in diilary filndij Xo. 1^0 — Cont'd. Composition. Tiital cost. Weight used. Kind of fiiod material. Pro- tein. Fat. Carboliy- d rates. Total food ma- terial. Pro- tein. rat. Carboliy- drates. ■\-EGETABLE FOOD. CiTt-als : Per ct. U.3 Per ct. 1.1 Per ct. 74.6 66.8 52.6 63.4 39.5 57.3 100.0 $0.44 .02 2.45 .20 .38 .20 1.30 Grams. 9.810 2«5 40. 755 2, 600 3, 720 2. 660 10, 455 Grams. 1.108 48 4,535 186 175 256 Grams. 108 21 327 215 353 138 GramR. 7,318 16.9 : 7.2 100 Bread ' 9.7 7.0 4.7 9.6 .7 8.1 9.5 5.2 24, 503 Ci.ke 1. &H" 1,469 liolls . 1.524 10,455 ' »• Tot.il - 76,345 I 6. 308 I 1, 162 Vepftaldes: Bf^aiia J'.c.ins. Lima Cabbage (16 i)er cent ]-ef- nse) Carrots (21.8 per cent ref- use) Celery Onions Parsnips (25 per cent ref- use) Potatoes (34.6 per cent ref- use) "Water cress* Ruta bagaa (23 per cent refuse) 22.3 15.9 1.1 1.4 1.5 2.1 3.8 1.8 1.8 59.1 67.1 9.2 3.0 8.9 38.0 8.9 .06 .15 .05 .05 .12 .66 .05 580 1,330 670 200 3,445 21.215 115 129 212 11 24 97 18 7 3 52 3 Vi 11 4 446 5 21 1 28 5 343 892 266 62 6 306 3,818 10 Total - Fruit, III'. : Api)lt'8 Apiile jelly ' \ 1. 39 34, 980 990 101 1 5, 993 .4 .4 1 12.4 1.1 1 77.1 .10 1,715 . 05 365 7 4 7 I 212 281 Total Tot:il vegetable food- Total food 2,080 /\icfssories: Tia Cottee Salt Jlu.ftard. Teast.... 6.53 113,405 108,555 15.1: .71 . 15 .OS .18 .02 865 270 1,510 440 7,309 13,623 Total Total cost of food and accessories .Vnimal ' A"ei;et:ible (bread crumbs)' , 6.9 6.4 41.3 4.2 1.14 16.26 1,270 16, 022 53, 722 54. 744 31.3 ;. 505 715 233 30 224 1 Analvzed in connection ivitb this dietary. ■' Composition assumed, as there are no analyses of sucli materials. 25 Tari.K 13. — JVei'/hts and percentages of food nutteriaJs find nifritire itif/r: d ents j>er nttnt per day in dietary study Xo. i,'.'>. "SVuights. Pt-rconLiires of total ioorl. Kind of food niateii:il. Fond mate- rial. PER MAN PER DAT. ! I Grams. Beef.vp.al. nnd mutton.] ftO Pork, lard, etc H6 Fisli.eto 3 JJntter Cheese 11 Wilk Fat. C'arbo- Cost. Food liy- I I mate- drates. i 1 rial. Pro- ' Carlio- f'oat. Fat. liv- dratea. 14 10 12 47 rams. Cents. 1 i 1 •20 4 3 3 5 Per ct. I 7Vi rt. \ Prr ct I'fr rl. I'erct. 8.2 IS, 3 13.2 0.3 J2. 7 12.0 ! 21.11 51,1 . 3 , .2 1 2.3 .1 21,11 1.1 3,8 4 ,1 8 R 3,1 2 8 14 25.3 .6 9, G 3.3 5-3 Total animal tooil Cerf^nls Siifrars ami starchi'.s , Vi'gi'table.s Fruits Total vegetable food 379 00 201 12 30 30 Total loiirl . 1,0 5li, 8 212 GO 39.1 0,2 46.3 7.3 07.2 19, 1 In, 9 , 24 4 8.6 20 8 1,2 7.3 . 1 . .0 2 10 309 3.8 07,3 53.7 7.9 98,1 43.-2 315 8.7 100. 100.0 100. 100. 100.0 Taulk 11. — Xuirieiifs and poieniiaJ enerifij in fn >d pnrcliafied. rrjrt fed. and i atm pt r man per day in dietary stndy So. 120. ■Weij;bts and fuel value. Percentages of total food Kind of fond. Pro- tein. Carlio- Fat. liy. dr;ite8. FiiPl value. Cost, p Carlw- ,, . Cents. I'erct. Prr ri. P. r ct . I'fr ct. J'erct. PER MAN PER DAY. Food purchased: drams. drains. Gravis. Valorit'-<. Vegetable 42 1 7I 3011' l,5l).") 3.8! 5;t.7 7.9 HH. 1 61.0 4!!. 2 Total lieveraues. roiuli Wa*te: 2 20 1 1 rl c. Ve<:etahle 1 1 10 3 .1 .5 .3 Total 1 Food nrtiially vateii: 30 Ve-etable 41 7 308 1,4!I3 1 .'">3.4 7.8 97.0 fiil.7| Total , ])ixciisision of resiiltn. — This fjiiiiily liad tlit^ siiinllest iiifoiiio of any reported, and, as shown by tlie icsnlts of tlie investiuatlon. were tlic most ]ioorly noniishcd. ]n many ways tlicy were ouoiiomicaL and obtained more for the same amount of money than has often been fonnd to be tlie case with families in similar circnmstances. AVlien they conld get together enongh money to buy a sack of tlonr they baked their own bread; otherwise they bought iiaker's stale bread in small i|iiantities. Instead of butter they ustd butteiine, at IG.S cents a iioiind, , and 4 years of age, were healthy and apparently well nourished. A girl of 2 seeujed rather delicate, but the youngest child, a girl of •'! months, was very rol)nst. During the hard times the husband had been out <>[' work and had contracted some debts. The i)ayment of these debts was taking all the spare money at the time the stinly was made. The family paid >=G a, month rent for three rooms, but were looking forward tn the time when they could move into a tenenuMit of four rooms at a vent of s'.i. Tlie stnily l)eg,iu .Iniui.ary 12, IS'IT, aud ooutiuiu'il s il;iys. The uuiiiber of meals taken was as fullows: ilrals. Jlau 2 1 ■\Voiiiaii (24 meals x 0.8 meal of man), iMjuivaleiit to I'J Two children, 6 and S years old (18 meals X 0.5 jiieal of man ), equiva- lent to 24 Two children. 2 and 1 ye.irs old ( Is meals X 0.4 meal of m.an), eqaiv.i- lent to 1!) Infant, e(|nivaleiit to 7 Total nnniber of meals taken, eqnivalcnt to Eiiiiivalent to 1 man 31 days. 93 In the following table are recorded the kind and amount of the dif- ferent foods purchased, wasted, and eaten, together with their comjio- sition aud cost : Table Hi. — Food iiialoials and Inhh and kitclieyi iiastes hi dittuiij aludji Xo. lS:j. CoiupositioD. Kiiiil III' fouil iiiat'Tial. Pro teiii. U.ef: A.N'IMAL FiHID. Fore sliauk (1.; reru?ie) Steak, shoulder 7Vr rr. 19. r. 10. .■) Fat. />.'/■ cl. Per ct. 11.6 ' 11.3 Weight used. Total Carbohy. ' cost, drates' Tcit.al Veal chT'ps (10. .1 |ieT rent ref. use) $n. 45 .4(1 Total food ma. terial. Orams. 2, (iSS l,5;i5 Pro- tein . Grail's. .Wll 20f, 4, 190 580 816 in Cf rains. 3(18 173 481 60 Curliohy. drates. Tabi.f. 16. — Food mater'mU ami Inhleand litrheii tvasten in dietanj sliidy Xo. ISO — Cont'd. Coniposit on. Total cost. AVeight used. Kind nf fiKul nuTterial. Pro- tein. Fat. Carlioby. drate.s'. Total food ma- terial. Pro- tein. Fat. Carlioliy- dratea. ANIMAL FOOD— foiitimied. PurU ; Ham (31.6 per cent refnao). Steak (7.9 per cent refuse). Lard Per ct. 15.5 :3.4 Per ct. 39.1 41.8 100.0 Per ct. $0.71 .23 .16 Grams. 3,105 1, 005 720 Grams. 481 135 Grams. 1,214 420 720 Grams. Total 1 1.10 4,830 616 2,354 I Siintish ' 6.8 15.0 7.5 11.0 82.4 4.0 .15 .10 .74 .90 795 215 1,675 13.090 54 32 "432 60 24 1,380 524 E^g-^ (31.9 per cent ret'iise) ^- .. ililk 3.3 5.0 654 4.09 25, 375 2,063 4.883 VEGETABLE FOI.r> Cereals : Flour 11.4 16.6 7.8 9.4 6.9 9.8 4.2 1, 1 7 ** .i 1.2 8.7 9 5 10 5 75.1 66.9 79.2 .■•,3 02- 73 3 40.8 .67 .23 .20 . 27 !lO .01 . 10 1 1, 2110 2, 070 960 3,985 425 240 495 1,277 343 75 375 29 23 21 123 149 4 48 37 23 52 8 411 1 385 760 2,112 261 176 Pies 202 Total 1.61 .47 19,375 3,885 2,143 436 13.310 100.0 3,885 Tegetaliles; 6.9 1.7 2,2 3.1 .4 .1 19.0 10.2 18.8 .10 .02 .32 920 270 12,835 63 5 282 29 1 13 ISO Onions (5 per cent refuse) . Potatoes (20.6 per cent 27 2.413 Total j .44 .05 .25 14, 025 170 1,190 350 2 14 43 2, 620 Pruit, etc.: Lemons (58.3 per cent 1. 1.2 .9 .1 8.3 58 5 1 1 14 Apple butter' 096 .30 1,360 38. fifi 16 2 710 food . . . =---==--= Total voi'ctaltli 2.82 4, 57-J 481 20, 52,5 1 Total t'nofl 1 6.91 64, 02U 21. 179 Aecpssoriea: .09 .04 .01 .02 .14 .63 85 85 13 845 225 665 1 1 Tea 1 . . .. Total 1 .93 1, 820 jod and Total cost of r 7.84 19.3 20.2 11.3 6.2 15 25 "Waste: 3 5 2 2 \«-alclin]i'» 40 8 4 Uread 9,4 1 1.2 ,53.0 . 15 1 1 8 Total waste 55 9 5 8 1 1 1 ■Composition assumed. ^ Tins large jiercentafje of refuse mnst have iucluileil more or less waste as nvr-ll. Tnasnmcli. liow «vt-r, aa tbc total weight of cgi;B used is very .small, the figures for the amount of refuse are given as reported. 29 Table 17. — We'ujhU nml jicrceii'afies of l\>iid matfrUih ((nil iKdritU-c iiKjndicxts jur man per (lay in clictticy st((d(/ Xo. 1S9. Kiiid of foinl niateri.il. Fciod niillr- ri;il. Percentages of total f'uud. Pro- tein. Ciirbo- Cd.st. Food Fat. I li,\ - juale- drales. I fial. PER .M.\.\ PEH DAY. Beef, veal, and nuittou Pio'k. lard, etc . Fisb. etc Ek2s Butter Milk Grams, (iratns. Giams. Grams. CeJifs Prr ct. 154 3(1 17 I 150 21) 76 Pro- tein. Carho- Cost. Fat. h.v- dra'tes. Perct. Perct. Pcrct.l'erct. 1 45 17 7.5 20.3 7.5 13.5 1.2 1.2 .3 • "^ ( 2. G 20.5 9,4 ; 10. 1 43 9 1.1 .4 ' 25.8 9.S I 3.1 15.9 15.9 T.i 10.7 13.0 Total animal food 819 ~625" 125 452 44 07 09 li 158 21 13 2 39.0 45.1 91.1 3.1 59.2 Cereals U i 85 23 30.3 6.0 22.0 2.1 46.9 7. 7 .3 8.1 "'s 62.8 18.4 12.4 3,3 23. 3 6 8 Sii>:ar,s ami starches .. Vc>^etaOles ... 6 4 4 3 Total ve^'etable food 1 240 80 15 602 9 1 CO. 4 54. 9 100.0 S.9 100. 90. 9 40.8 Total food 2 065 147 173 683 22 3 100.0 lotuT 100.0 Taulk 18. — Xuti it uts HH(1 pott ntiitl tntrtfif in foot^ pun:h(tst(i^ itjatnl. and talfii prr tnan pi-r day in diefici/ stiidi/ Xo. ISO. "SVeigbts and fuel value. Percentai;e8 of total food. Kind of food. Pro- tein. Fat. Carbo- y,,^, Cost.,, p^„. dX. ! ^'•'""''- ! *""■ Carbo- , -p.,, , i rat. by- .^ ' ' Cost. drates. 1 ^ """'• 1 PER M.\N PER D.^Y. Food piirebased: Aniloal Gramg. 67 80 Gramt. 1 Gratn 8. Calories Cts. , Per ct. i Per ct. , Per ct. Per ct. Perct. Vejietable 15 ' 662 3. 180 9. 1 54. 9 8. 9 96. 9 63. 6 1 40. 8 Total 147 173 1 683 5. 010 22. 3 , 100. Beverages, condi- 3.0 1 ' 1 .2 .1 1 1 .1 ■ .3 i ' Food actually eaten : .\iiiiual .". 67 80 158 15 21 1,830 ' 44.9 6C2 3.180 1 1 .54.9 91 3 1 t 36 3 58 9 Vegetable 8. 9 96. 9 1 63. i 40. 8 Total . . 147 173 , 683 5,010 j | 99 8 95.9 100.0 99.9 99.7 ' Tbe quantity of waste was so anial] as to amount to practically notbini; jier man per day. Biscu.s.sion (if ye.suUx. — The family previously .studied idietary Xo. 129) wa.s uiuleruourislied. Tlii.s family went to the other e.xtreme, .since, ou the assaiuptioii that their food reiiuireiiieiit.s were the average of pefiple in like circumstances, they cuiisumed more than the dietary standards show to be necessary. None of the family was at very active labor, and it is probable that 110 or 11-") grams of protein, with a fuel value of .'ijOOO to 3,300 calories, would have amply supplied their wants and needs. It would seem that the daily amount of protein con- sumed (147 grams) was not far from 3(t jier cent in excess of what was res Pork : Ham Steak Butter Milk Flour Eolled o.-its Rice Brencl Pastry Beans, baked Potatoes Ajiple butter Actual Nutrients and energy in 1 pound O'.St I per Nutrients and energy iu 10 cents' worth. pound. Cents. 7.6 11,8 16.3 I 10.1 j 9.5 20.0 3.1 ll\ 9.4 3.1 9.4 ! 4.0 .0 9.5 Pro- tein. Fat. Finmd \ I'ound. 0. 189 i 0.110 . 189 I . 109 . 160 . 083 .147 .120 .032 .097 .141 .066 .080 .0.13 . 0.".5 .013 .009 .367 .372 . 800 .039 .010 .065 .004 .011 .087 .028 Carboli}"- drales*. Povnd. .001 050 .736 .6.'J5 .776 .519 .542 .186 .141 .573 Fuel value. CalorifK. 815 810 650 1, 825 1. 790 3,315 320 1,590 1,755 1, 585 1,160 1,475 565 285 1,085 Pro- tein. Fat. Carbohy- drates'. Povnd. Poviid. Founds. 0.25 0.14 .16 .09 .10 .05 .14 .37 .39 1 .13 .40 .10 .13 0.16 .36 .04 2.73 .28 .13 1.31 .07 .83 .26 .03 1.67 .06 .09 .58 .11 .06 .38 . U 1.57 .01 .60 Fuel value. Calories. 1,075 C90 395 1,810 1,885 1,690 1.025 5,890 3,510 1.685 3.740 1. 570 1.155 3, IHU 1, 1411 Beef shank, flour, oatme.il, and bread were the cheapest sources of protein and (with the exception of the beef shank) of energy also. Ten per cent of the total expenditure was for butter, although the price per ])ound was not very high. If less butter had been eaten, the cost of the food would ha\ebeen diminished and the excessive fuel value of the diet would have been lowered. A pecuniary saving was not unde- sirable since, although the circumstances of this family were much better than those of Nos. 1-8 and 1-9, they found it difficult to "make both ends meet." The total income was about .^42 a month. The expenditures were >'0 for rent and ••?29 for food and beverages, leaving but -SI per month for other expenses. It is perhai)s unwairanted to draw the dednctiou that this fiimily were habitually supplied with an excess of nutrients, for it is doubtful if their ordinary living habits are accurately portrayed in the dietary study. The time covered by the investigation was very short. It was planned to continue it for one month, as was done iu the majority of the dietary studies. At the end of eight days the mother refused to per- mit the continuance of the investigation. The excuse given was that the neighbors were convinced that it was a scheme to see how much it 31 actually cost for a man to live, in order that his wages might be reiluced, ami so in order to keep on good terms with her ueighbors she must discontinue the study. It was thought, however, by those hav- ing charge of the study that the (amily had eaten rather more tbau usual to make a good showing, and that they could not afford to keep it up. Perhaps both reasons inlluenced the decision to discontinue the study. While the data thus obtained are not as satisfactory ami reliable as iu the other studies here reported, they are still of considerable inter- est. It is evident that the woman understood how to purchase food advantageously and showed good management in the kitchen, other- wise the amount of nutrients could never have been purchased for the price paid. llIETAUY STfDV (IF A riEC0UAT(.)I; S FA^IILY (No. Ura|. This dietary study was made in a Swiss family iu (|uite comfortable circumstances. The family consisted of the father, mother, and three children. The father, a healthy man 4i years of age, was a house deco- rator and in business for himself. Ilis incorae was estimated to be 8S4 a month. They paid >>1'3 a month rent for a four-room house with gar- ret, cellar, and laundry. Everything about the place was very neatly kept. The mother, a rather frail woman of 30 years, was an Austrian by birth, but came to this country when a child. She was a good manager, and had at one time, wheu her husband was out of work for o\er a year, supported the family by doing washing. The children — a girl of 15, and two boys, aged 12 and '2, respectively — were all iu good health. The study licgau Janu.Try 14, 1S!I7. aud continued 30 days. The number (if meals taken was as follows : Mials. Man '58 Woman (90 meals X 0.8 meal of man ), e(iuivaleut to 7:.' Girl, 15 years old (89 meals X 0.7 meal of man), e(iuivalent to li.' Boy, 12 years old (90 meals x 0.6 meal of man ), ei|uivaleiit to ."il Child, 2 years old (90 meals X 0. 1 meal of maul. ei]nivalerit to 3ii Visitors, womeu (."i meals X O.S meal of man), ecjuivalent to -I Visitor, man 1 Total nnmber of meals taken, e(iiiivalenr to 2S7 E(iuivalent to 1 man 9(i days. The tables which follow give in detail the amount and composition of the food purchased, wasted, ami eaten, together with its cost. ' Dinners were taken at ii restaurant. 32 Tai!I>e 20. — Food mattr'uih and iahle and kitchen wastes in dietary stndtj Xo. 190. Composition. Kiml (if Inud iiiateri.Tl. Pro- -p . Carboby (Irates. Total cost. Weight used. Total food ma- terial. .4XIMAL FOOD. Beef: Chuck (4.8 perceut refuse) Neck Kib (44.9 per cent refuse) Steak, shoulder (8.3 pel- cent refuse) Steak, jiorterliuuse Shauk ( 10.3 per cent ref- use) Liver puddiug ' Per cf. Per ct. Per ct. 19.0 13.9 17.0 16.1 18.2 19.8 20.9 12.0 11.9 20.6 9.8 20.3 11.5 5.0 $0. 63 .12 .50 .10 1.05 .86 .07 Gramx. 2,875 «55 1.760 425 2,990 4,705 465 Total 3. 33 Veal : Clnips(13.7pereent reJuse), 19.4 ' ]0. 4 '. f'utlet (2.8 (ler ceut refuse) :;o. 8 9.9 . Kib roast (9 2 per ceut ref. I use) ' 20. 2 i 6.2 Sliaiik(1.2iierceutrefuse) I 19.9' 4.0 . SlioiiUler (4.8 per ceut i-ef- use) 20.1 8 2 . Total . 13. 875 540 465 1,520 1,095 Pro- tein. Fat. Grams. Grams. 546 362 91 78 299 468 08 42 544 607 932 541 96 24 Carboliy- drates- 2,576 105 97 307 218 2, 122 56 40 94 50 4, 430 1 Lanil Cliops, shoulder (15 per cent refuse) Chojis. ribs (14.6 perceut refuse) Total . .30 Pork liai-.in 8.9 Cho)is. lat (11.8 jier ceut refuse) ' 12. 2 Cln>ps(11.0i)ercentrefuse) 16. 7 Ilaui (12.4 jier cent refuse)' 15.5 Shank (23.1 )ier cent refuse)' 15.5 Shoulder, smoked (5.5 per cent refuse) 15.8 Steak 11.7 Sa)i8age 12.7 Laid 02.5 45.0 31.3 39. 1 29.4 32.5 36. 44.2 100.0 .10 .18 .35 1.05 .42 .15 .10 .52 .44 790 270 138 48 1,060 235 70 365 635 1.320 3,775 2, 600 1.250 365 2,245 2,060 77 220 585 403 198 43 285 228 286 413 1,476 764 406 131 992 2,060 25 Total . Oysters Kii^s (11.5 per ceut ref])se) liutler Milk 6.0 15.0 1.3 11.0 82.4 4.0 3.3 '5.0 1.60 2.15 Total auin)al food. VEGET.4BLE FOOD. Cerei)ls: liarley Corn uieal Flour, wheat Kice Bread Bread, rye Cake Crackers, oyster — 12.84 9.3 9.3 11.4 7.8 9.4 , 9. !) 0.9 10. 1 1.0 2.4 1.1 .4 1.2 .0 8.7 10.6 77.6 74.9 75.1 79.2 53.0 .54.5 02.0 71.6 .03 .05 1.14 .05 .28 .04 .10 .03 14,615 595 1,875 2,995 32, 590 36 281 6,756 72. 035 6, 887 , 13, 487 285 940 19, 480 255 3,955 710 580 200 Total . Sugar- Vetretables : Beans, dried Beets (6.4 Jjer cent refuse) Cabbage (12.8 per cent ref3.se) Corn, canned 22.4 1.5 1.9 2.8 .^.9. 1 9.8 .08 I .10 1. 3 19. 3 Composition assumed. .21 .30 26, 405 1, 245 1.375 3,090 5,895 1,770 26 87 2, 221 ""•io 372 ] 70 1 40 20 23 214 1 48 4: 50 21 2, 856 25 19 8 206 .. 2,468 1, 304 I 1, 629 1.680 221 704 14, 63l> 202 2.097 387 360 143 304 I 18.744 1,245 308 46 112 50 18 23 812 303 336 341 33 'lABLE 20.— Food materials uitil lallc uiul kitchen wastes in dietarij study \o. 190— ContW. Composition. Kiud of looil luiiKTial. Pro- tein. VEGETABLE FOOD— continued. Vegelaliles— Continued. Oniuna {11 per cent ref- use) I'eus. canned Pieklo.s Potatoes (15.5 per cent refuse) Potatoes, sweet (25.6 per cent rel'use) Soup greens Turuips ('27.8 per cent refuse) Turnips, Sweilisb (31.4 pi'r cent refuae) Catsup Cliili sauce ' Sauerkraut Fat. Per ct. 0.4 Carbohy- drates. Fruits, etc.; Apples (li.J per cent ret- use) Bananas (19.(i per cent refuse) Oranges (lO.S per cent ref- use) Lenums (37.4 percent ref use) Peaclies, canned Plum butter ' Total vc{;cI:i1pI Tolal food ■ food. 1.8 ■I.- 1.3 \.f> 1.0 .6 1.2 Accessories : Cort'ee ... Tea Pepper .. Salt Vinegar Total . Vcr ct. 111. -i 9.8 3.4 18.8 37.4 0.3 8.1 8.1 12.3 3.4 3.8 Total cost. Weight used. Total food ma- terial. $0. 03 .0!) .04 15.2 22.0 9.7 8,3 7.5 Qyams. 200 605 705 21, 625 4, 1.55 15 920 1,985 3110 965 1,335 44, 1190 WAJ^TE. Beef: Chuck Kib (triuuiiinss) . Shank Liver i>udding'.. Veal: Shank Pork : Chops Ham Tot;il auinial waste , Potatoes Total ivaste. 19.0 12.6 11.8 25.0 19,8 11.5 20.9 5.0 19.9 4.6 16.7 31.3 15.5 39.1 .60 Pro- tein. Fat. naitiuii assumtitl. 34 Table 21. — ITcinhts and percentages of food malcriah and nntritive ingredients per man per daij in dietary study JVb. 190. Weights. Percentages of total food. Kiud of food material. Food ma- terial. Pro- tein. Grams. 38 19 1 3 if Fat. Grams. 29 70 Carbo- liy- drates. Cost. Food ma- terial. Pro- tein. Fat. Carbo- hy- drates. Cost. PBK MAN PER DAY. Grams. 203 152 B 19 31 340 Grams. Cents. Per ct. 10.9 8.3 .3 1.1 1.7 18.4 Per ct. 32.9 16.6 .3 2.5 "'i'.i' Per ct. 19.4 47.8 Per ct. '""6."i' Perct. 26.7 17.6 ri.sh ftc R 2 26 13 1.5 3.6 17.5 9.2 4.6 8.5 Milk 17 1 10.9 Total animal 750 72 140 17 13.3 40.7 62.0 95.4 4.7 67.8 (.'ereals 275 13 469 3J6 30 4 195 U 78 "e.3 14.9 25! 5 18.2 25.7 2.6 52.9 3.5 21.1 17.8 9.5 .4 12 2 Q 10.6 1.7 1.0 1.0 11.7 1 66 10.6 Total vegetable food 1,003 44 7 352 6.3 59.3 38.0 100.0 4.6 100.0 96.3 32.2 Total food 1,843 116 147 369 19.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 Tahle 22. — \i(triints and potenlial energy in food jynrchased, rejected, and eaten per man per day in dietary study Xo. 100. Weights and fuel value. Cost. Percentages of total food. Kind of food. Pro- tein. Fat. Carbo- hy- drates. Fuel value. Pro- tein. Fat. Carbo- liy- drates. Fuel value. Cost. PER MAN I'EK DAV. Food ])iircliasi'd: Animal Grams. 72 44 Grams. 140 7 Grams. 17 352 Calories 1,665 1,690 CenU. 13.3 6.3 Per ct. 62.0 38.0 Per ct. 95.4 4.6 Per ct. 4.7 95.3 Per ct. 49.8 50.2 Perct 67.8 Vegetable 32.2 116 147 369 3,355 19.6 100. 100. 100.0 100.0 100.0 Beverages, condi- .5 ■Wast« : 4 3 i' 45 5 3.1 .1 2.3 .3 1.3 .2 3 3 Total 4 3 1 50 3.2 2.3 .3 1.5 3 3 Food actually eaten : 68 44 137 7 17 351 1,620 1,685 58. 9 37.9 98.1 4.0 4.7 il5.0 48.5 50.0 04.5 32.2 Vegetable Total 112 144 368 3,305 96.8 97.7 99.7 98.5 96.7 I)i.scitssi. 154. 35 w.is \cry ie;isoiial)le. .Skill \v;i.s sliown in tlit^ clioirc :iu(l |iuri-li;is(' of l(i(»l iiiiiterials. Tli(r variety of iiical.s was lar^c, iiichidinL; seven dil- lereiit cuts of beef, li\t' 5bnu!dt'r, smoked (14.1 31.3 39.1 32.5 41.8 68.0 44.2 100.0 .97 .18 .20 .53 .76 .52 .26 4, 030 410 1,070 2, 820 3.120 2, 335 1.275 073 64 169 378 306 297 1,261 160 348 1.179 2, 122 1, 032 1, 275 Shank (10.8 per cent ref- Baeon {2.1 percentrefuse) Sausage 1.1 26 Total . 3.42 15,060 1,887 7,377 26 Poultry : Chicken (21 per cent refuse) 19.2 22.2 13.9 HI. 3 15.3 .3 21.2 3.0 1.00 2,935 63 5 449 Fish: .09 .19 .30 440 565 1,095 98 77 112 1 118 33 Whitetisb .68 2,090 287 152 E^li« (1-17 per cent refuae) 15.0 11.0 82.4 4.0 4.0 1.38 3.16 1.30 .20 3, 005 0,675 23, 865 2, 520 599 ' '788' 83 439 5,501 955 101 Milk 3.3 4.3 5.0 5.0 1,193 126 1 18.97 93, 085 10, 294 21, 652 1,374 'Composition aaauuied. 37 Table 24.— i-'tjorf materials and table and kitchen wastes in dietary stud;} Xo. 201— Cont'd, Kind *>t' t«i«i1>. CiTHiils ; Cviu iiio.al Flour Fliiiif, i»re]i:iniil Oata, rolled lln^aU ('akfM, droj) Crackers, soda. Sii;;ars and starches: Sut;ar ri.rn.starcli Tntal V(',i;elablos : ^ I5e,ans, Lima, dried Corn, fanned Ccloiy(17.'J per cent rcl'iise) Oiiioiis (10.1 per cent ret- use) Totatoes ('JO per cent ref- use) Potatoes, sweet (17.0 per cent rel'nse) Tomatoes, canned Turnips. Swedish (18 per cent refuse) Catsup Pickles Sauerkraut VefXetable soup Total . Fruit : Apjdes IJananas Fi^s Lemi)n IVaehes, dried ' Jelly and. jam ' Ai)ple ami tomato buttor. Total Total v.-jx.-tahh> tood. Total food Accessories: I'aUin;; powder . Collee Nutnie*; Pepper Salt Pro- Fat. I'errt. Vrr ct. 0.3 2.4 11.4 1.1 in. 1 1.0 10. B 7.2 7.8 .4 9.4 1.2 7.6 14.7 SI. 8 9.5 Carbohy- drates. Total cost. Weiirht used. Per ct. 74.!) 75. 1 74.0 CO. II 79.2 53.0 00.3 73.3 18. 1 2. S 1.3 1.8 1.1 j 1.3 1.5 .6 1.7 2.9 1.5 1.3 .1 .3 .7 4.3 .7 2.9 1.1 1.2 100.0 93.8 65.9 19.3 3. K 10.2 18. S 27.4 3.8 8. 1 12.3 3.4 3.8 11.4 13. 2 74.2 5.8 63.3 77.2 58.5 $0. 08 2.23 .05 .10 .11 .78 .07 .07 2.05 .01 .21 .33 . 10 .57 .10 .20 .20 Total food ma. terial. Grains, 1,375 39, 300 1,220 880 555 9, 525 240 440 Pro. tein. drams. 128 4, 480 123 146 43 896 18 43 53, 535 I 5, 877 18,345 40 1,.300 025 325 2, 255 34,350 2,995 3,835 4,335 2,710 425 2. 780 3, 855 3.28 I 59,790 .73 .10 .15 .01 .09 .17 .46 18,780 780 010 00 1,785 2,355 235 18 4 38 750 54 42 56 41 3 47 112 trams. 33 432 12 114 35 42 Carboliy- d rates. flritm.i. 103 20,512 903 589 440 5,049 145 323 37, 064 18, 345 37 18,382 857 121 230 0, 4.58 821 U(! 351 333 14 106 19 Total . Total .list .il fonil and acco.s.sories WASTE. lippf: CInick,fat RniHid. fal Shoulder RuTup. t.it Corned Total . 18.0 18.9 19.3 14.9 15.3 18.8 22.3 11.3 36.3 23.3 1.71 [ 24,595 10. 64 j 156, 305 29.'5r| 249,390 100 555 15 45 2, 005 3,380 325 15 40 15 141 7,424 :;, 141 103 453 3 U2 1,378 1,378 5, 598 70, 512 ' Coiijposition as.sumed. 38 Tai!I,e 24. — FoodmaUridls iiiul iahhavd kUchciiwasles in dietary si Kill/ Xo. IDl — Cout'il. Composition. Total cost. Weight used. Kind of food material. Pro- tein. Fat. Carbohy- drates. Total food ma- terial. Pro- tein. Fat. Carbohy- drates. AVASTE— continutnl. r.n k : Per ct. 16.7 I'er ct. 31. a 41.8 68.11 Per ct. $0. 01 Oraina. 25 Grams. Grams. Ornms. Sllank i:t-4 25 3 10 2 i 17 9.8 .01 25 .02 75 9 35 19.2 22.1 15.3 6.5 .01 .03 25 100 5 22 4 6 Plnh- Whitefish .15 620 110 125 _ Vegetables : 2.2 i.a .1 .2 18.8 8.1 .03 900 270 20 4 1 1 IGO 22 .03 1,170 24 2 191 .18 1,790 134 [ 157 191 Tahlk 25. — Wfi(j}ils mid }>ercentaff4 s of food maierials and imtriiire in(/redieiits per man per dai/ in dittari/ atudi/ So. 191. Weights. Cost. Cents. Percentages of total food. Kimi of tdiid material. Food mate- rial. Pro- tein. Fat. Carbo- hy- drates. Food mate- rial. Pro. tein. Fat. Carbo hy- dr.ites. Cost. I'ER M.\N I'EIi 1>AV. Beef.veal, and mutton . Grams. 193 XI 10 11 21 36 13 129 Grams. 33 10 3 3 4 Grams. 36 40 i 30 1 5 Grajns. Per ct. 14.4 l>. 1.2 .8 1.6 u 9.6 Per ct. 34. 3 10.7 3.2 1.6 3.4 '.h 4.4 Per ct. 29.6 32,7 2.0 .7 1.9 24. 3 .4 4.2 Per ct. 0.2 1.7 Perct. 26. 9 11.6 Poultry ' .. . 3.4 Fish etc 1 9 4.7 10.7 Cheese, sme-a rca.se Milk . .- 1 6 .7 4.4 'I'otal animal 500 288 .S5 32 117 7 111.2 37.3 53.1 95.8 1.9 1 64.3 199 99 51 ' 30 1 21.5 7.4 24.0 9.8 33.2 3.2 51.6 1 11.8 25. 6 7. 13.1 11.1 7. 8 5. 8 Vei;etables 321 132 7 1 1 7.9 .8 .6 .4 840 40 ' 1' Total vegetable 5 379 5.7 62.7 41.9 4. 2 n«. 1 35. 7 Total food 1,340 95 122 386 ]li.9 100.0 100.0 100. 100. 100.0 39 Tablk 26. — yiilriinln anil potculial tneriiii in foud jnirrhased, rejactcd, and eaten perman per daij in dietarij stndy No. 191. We y;ht3 and fuel value. Cost, Pert-eutagea of total food. KimI ofloixl. Pro- tein. J?.1t. Carbo- l.y- drates. Fuel value. Pro- tein. Carbo- Fat. by- 1 dratea. Fuel value. Coat. I-KR MAN I'ER DAY. Food pnrehaatMl : Animal Vet!; cents) was very moderate for the kind and variety of the foods puichascd, while the beverages, condiments, etc., cost but one-half cent per man per day. All the foods were i)urchased in (piantity, thns effecting a considerable saving. Tiie most expensive meat used was Hank stealc ;\t \T>h cents a iioiind. Beef chuck at !•.(> cents and beef rump at S.4 cents were cheap. As usual, flour was the cheapest .source of both luotcin and energy, and l)read the ne.xt cheai)est, although the latter furnished but two thirds the amount of i)roteiu and one-half the energy for the same expendi- ture. Eggs, as is quite frequently the case, furnished a com])araitively small amount of i)rotein and a very small amount of energy for the money expended. 40 The co.'^t per pound and the amounts and fuel value of the digestible nutrients in 1 pound and in 10 cents' worth of tifteen of the more important of the foods used are shown in the following table: Tahle 27. — Cost per pound and amonnis and /nil lahic of the dhiestihlc nnlr'unts in 1 pound and in 10 cell's' worth of the more important food malerials nstd in dietary study Xo. 191. Kind of fond m.i- Actual ro.-^t I>i.r pound. Nntrienti and energy in 1 ponnd. Nutrients and energy in 10 cents' wortli.' tfiiiil. Pro tein. Pound. 0.180 .157 .187 .149 .149 .118 . 149 .126 ".032 .098 .080 - Fat. Carbohy- drates. Fuel value. Pro- tein. Fat. Carboliy- drates! Fuel value. IJeel: (jliiick Cents. 9.6 15.5 12.3 8.4 10 7.6 12 2 13.5 21.5 2.5 2.B 3.7 5. 1 1.1 9.5 Pound. 0. 159 .205 .103 .261 .276 .301 . 117 .092 .799 .039 .010 .011 Found. Calorics. 1, 005 1.155 1, 035 1. 380 1 440 Pound. 0.19 .10 .11 .18 15 Pound. 0.17 .13 .10 .31 .28 .48 .10 .07 .37 .16 .04 .03 Pounds. Calories. 1 045 745 82."i 1 640 Loin 1 440 Sliiuik 1.7.'-.5 .15 770 . 12 020 . 09 3,370 320 . 13 2, 3115 (^liickcn l.;.r,.s 0. 050 .740 .618 .980 .144 .117 460 UllttiT 0.20' 2.85 1.40 1.92 1.31 .12 1 , 570 Milk 1,270 1, 000 1, 160 1,825 295 240 .38 .22 G 150 I'.teatl 3, 12.1 3 576 !VttatOL-s .014 .012 .13 .01 2,675 250 GENERAL REMARKS ON THE DIETARY STUDIES. The families studied represent a .great diveisity ol' occupation and linaneial condition. (3are was taken to .select as re|)resentative f;imi- lies as ]iossil)le and it is believed the food consuiniitiou in dietary Xo. 43 is fairly leprescntative of a jtrofessidnal man's family, tiiat in nnl m:tii's fiiniilv {Xo. 4^1) ■21 91 14;-. :iHii 3, 2«0 Uietur'y of a mill wiirkiiwnrM lamilv (M" 12H) 111 S6 104 :i07 2, 575 Dietary ot'a mill iv..rkiMaii s lamilv (N^i. 12!)) !) 77 no :iu 2. 440 Dietary c.f a liuilir trmli-r s familv (X". IH'J) 22 147 n-T C8;i 5.010 Dii-tar\ .ila licius.Ml,.ec.raliM s taniilv (No. 190) 20 U2 144 :i68 3, 305 Diclary of a ^lass liloucr's f.nnily (No. 181) 10 94 121 :i85 3. 085 Averaj:e 14 dietaries ol])rofessioiKil meirs farailie.s i , ■^ 2.^) 104 125 423 3 325 ATcra;ie 14 dietaries of meeliauies' latiiilics^ "20 103 150 402 3, 405 ' Connecticut Storra Sta. Rpf. ISOO, and V. S. Dci.t. .A^r., Office of Exiierim.iit Stations. Bui. 32 I>ietary No. 43 of this Itulletin is also iiirluded and three dietaries of professiimal men in lUinids iiol yet ]mblislied. 2 .\ verajie of nine studies- i^Cimneetietit Storrs Sta. Ilpt. l.K'.lf,, an.l r, S. l)e|it. A;;r.. lllll. e .if Kx).eiimeii I Stations IIoI.h. 20,32, anil 35. " ^Vvcrasc of live studies. It will l>e seen from tlic ;il)ovc tiiblc tliat tlic^ food coii.snuiptioii of tlie family in dietary No. 4.". was (|nitc near the aveiaj;e for jirofpssional men's families. The other dietary studies made at iMttslmrg, while rejiresentiiij;' the food coiisniiiptioii of peojilc with moderate miisenlar labor, show no iiniforniily of ifsnlts. Some ('ontiiin a larger and some a smaller iimount of nutrients tlian the a-verage of II dietary studies of niechanies" families. All l)iit one are htdow the tentative standard for ;\, man at inodci;ite hibor. The cost of the food "per man per diiy" \aiied considerably in the different studies, ranging from llli cents in dietary No. 4.'') to !» cents in dietary No. ILM). An examination of the data of the different studies will sliow that the less the income the more eeonomical the exjienditures fbi- food (as shown by the ainount of nutrients olitained) and vice versa. This is more noticeable in the case of the aniimil food than of the vegetable food and as regards the fuel value or energy of the food tliSn its con- tent of ]>rotein. The \'ari;ition in tlie avw'age cost of nutiients is smaller in case of vegetable foods than in case of animal foods. This is doubtless due to the fact that the cereal foods, which fiiiiiishcil so large a part of the total nutrients, do not vary greatly in luice. Tims flour and bread together furnished from one fifth to one tliinl of the total nutrients in these studies, and the viiriation in the cost per jioiind was comparaf i\ely slight. The food materials contuining the largest projiortion of nutri- ents are the cheapest source of these nntrienfs. II is in the increased purchase of the higher pricearatively small exi)enditure for accessories. The actual cost of salt, flavoring extracts, pejjper, etc., was very small. Tea and coffee 43 were the chief beverages, ami the cost of these two materials made up the largest proportion of the money paid for food accessories. The largest amount expended for tea and coffee as compared with the sum paid for actual food materials was found in dietary No. 189, in whicli $0.91 was paid for food materials and O.'i cents, or about one-seventh, for the food accessories. In dietary No. 128, $24.52 was expended for food materials and •'?1.2() for food accessories. While this sum was not hirge, it should l)e remembered tliat as comi)ared w ith the standards this family had insuHicient nourisliment. The conclusion seems war- ranted tliat tlioy could have advantageously e\])endeur- chased would have added S giams of i)rotein and 2(10 calories of energy per man per day to the diet. In the same way in dietary No. 129 the protein might have been increased 12 grams i)er man per day and the fuel value over 400 calories. While tea and coffee are stimulating and refreshing as I)e\erages, they are Cdinparatively ex[)ensive and furnisli little if any luitriment. Either ccwoa, whole milk, or skim milk would furnish considerable nutri- ment besides being useful as a beverage. Of these materials the skim milk would furnish the largest food return for the sum expemled. VARIATIONS IN THE COST AND COMPOSITION OF BREAD. It is, of course, to be expected that in any locality thexe will be more or less range in the composition of lood materials. This variation is due in part to fluctuations in the water content of different sjiecimens of the same kind of food and in part to varying proportions of the dil- ferent nutrients. Changes in the amount of water affect directly the nutritive value of the food material. Oliangcs in tlie proi)ortio]i of the different nutrients do not always affect the nutritive value materially. Generally speaking, however, if the amount of i)rotcin is diminished the value of the food is also lessened, for it li.as been found tlint it is tlie nitrogenous constituents of the food materials wliich are the most exjjensive. Fluctuations in the relative amounts of fat and carbohy- drates affect the fuel value, since the fuel value of the fats is 2^ times that of the carbohydrates. In most vegetable foods the amount of fat is so small as to be of little importance, and tlie real question of value must lie in the proi)ortion of protein to carbohydrates and in the anu)unt of water. From the data available it would api)ear that there is considerably greater variation in the composition of bread than of Hour. In 109 analyses of Hour' the water ranges from 9.3 to 14..'! j)er cent, averag- ing 12. .3 per cent, while in 108 analyses of bread' the water ranges from 20 to 49.1 i)er cent, averaging 3.").4 per cent. ' U. S. Dfpt. .\gr., Olii r Kxiirrimcut Stations liiil. 2S. 44 Since baker's bread forms so important an article of food witli many families, especially in the large towns and cities, it is desirable to liave abundant data concerning- the extent of variation in its composition and cost. For iustance, it is desirable to leain whether bread costing Gor 7 cents a pound contains more actual nutrients than bread costing 2A or .3 cents a pound; whether there is any marked variation in the amount of nutrients contained in the ditterent varieties of bread made by the same or by ditferent bakers, and whether the variations in com- position are due to the relative proportion of nutrients and water or to a variadon in the nutrients themselves. The work here reported is A'ery similar to that carried on by Profes- sor Voorhees, of New Jersey.* Ten saini)lcs of bread ])urchased in the o](en market were analyzed, and the results are gi\en in the followiug tables. In Table .'50 the weight of the ditferent loaves as purchased is given, together with the cost and composition on tlie fresh basis, while Table 31 gives the comi^osition on the water free basis and the actual heat of combustion per gram, as determined by tlie bomb calorimeter and as calculated. Taui.k 30. — ll'iigJil and lotst per luaf, cost per pound, and composition of fresh hrcad. Lal>o- ratory No. (;ost per loaf. Cents. 8 5 6 9 5 9 6 5 10 Cost, per pound. Composition of fresb bread. Weiglit "floaf. Wa- ter. Pro- tein. Fat. Carbo- !iy- (Iratea. Ash. Fuel value. I5re:id 594 .TOS rm, 597 598 599 COO 25.59 Grama. 1, 115 520 896 1,145 795 565 663 1 504 Lhs. 2.45 1.17 1.98 2 52 1.75 1. 25 1.40 l.:il 2. 34 Vemta. 3.3 4.3 3.0 3.6 2. 9 7.2 4.1 3.8 4.3 3.0 3.0 3.9 Per ct. 26. 34.8 34.4 33.3 29.8 29.3 32.1 1 35.6 34. 6 35.8 32-0 35. 1 12.1 Per ct. 11.3 9.8 10.8 9.8 11.0 15.4 10.6 10.3 9.2 9.7 P. ct. 0.5 .» .4 .4 .6 .7 .4 .3 .5 . 7 Per ct. 60.7 53.3 63.0 55.3 .57.2 53.0 55.6 ,52.6 54.3 52.6 F.ct. 1.5 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.2 Calories. Do ... ] 210 Do Do 1,230 Do 1,295 Do 1 300 Do Do 1, 185 Do I ],001 2743 1,200 Do 2749 1 190 Aver.ijio of 10 ailJllv3P9 Avcr.-if.'o of 140 10.8 9.4 11.2 .5 1.2 1.2 .54. 8 53.2 75.2 1.3 1.1 .4 1,240 1 215 ' From an unpublished compilation of analyses. U. S. Df'pt. Agr., Oliice of Exiierimeiit Stntions P>iil. 35. 45 Tablk hi. — ('omjtosUion of ht-t-ttd valciiUiUd In wtilrr-frer hasiti, irilli lln- hrtits of i-oiii- hnsiion na (h'tirmined htj tin: homh r.jhtrinwler and tin roUulati d. Dij . Uo . Do . Do Ilo . Ui. . Po- I)o - Do . Avt-rasi^ of 10 nn:il.vt^ A\"erage of 135 analyses •*. Flour '. Lalio. latorj- No. r]'.)5 r.'io Kill liiiii •-'5S0 2743 •J74',l Composition. I'rotein. Fat. I'i'r cent. ; er cntf. 15. 3 O.C 15.0 1.4 16.4 .6 14.7 .6 1.5. 7 .11 21.7 1.0 15. 6 .0 16.0 .4 14.1 15. 1 16.0 14.5 12.7 .8 1. 1 Carlioliy drates. B2. 1 81. 8 80. '.) 82. II 81.4 75. II 81.11 81. 7 83. 82. .8 1.8 1.2 81.3 82. 85.6 ceiil. 2.0 1.8 2. 1 1.8 2.0 l!ll 1.11 2. 1 1.8 1.11 1.7 .5 Heats of combustion l)er gram. As (lottr- I As calcU" mined. ' I lati'd.'^ t'alin-ie.'i. 4.475 4, 460 4, 4U5 4, 390 4,415 4, 425 4, 4110 4 300 4, 3.'i5 4, 375 4, 400 265 310 275 365 285 365 265 4. 2R5 4,325 4,3211 ' Ily till- bomb calorimeter. 2()n tbe supposition tbat 1 gr.-im of jirotein, fat, and r;irboIiydrntes\viU yirld 5.5, 0.3, nnouud. This depended rather upon the brand or trade name given by the maker. 46 It isinterestiug to note tliiit while the average price of bread at the time these iiivestigatious were carried on was 3^J cents a pound in I'itts- bnrj;-, it averaged from 3.8 to 4.9 cents a i)Ound in different cities iu New Jersey, and was from 5 to 6 cents a pound in Middletown, (Jonn. BAKERY EXPERIMENT. Tlie usual process of bread making' is essentially as follows: Mour is intimately mixed with a certain amount of water (or milk), salt, and yeast, and usually with more or less sugar and butter or lard. The whole is then placed in a warm i)lace, where the yeast plant grows and causes the carbohydrates, sugars, etc., to ferment, yielding alcohol and car- bonic acid gas, which make the dough porous. During the process of baking, the alcohol and carbonic acid are mostly or entirely driven off, water escaping at the same time. For sometime j)ast ajjparent discrepancies in the results obtained from analyses of flour and of bread made from similar flour have led to the belief that there may be a loss of nutrients during the process of baking. The information on this point is limited.* Tlie experiment here rci)orted was made in a small bakery in Pitts- burg, and was conducted under the personal supervision of the writer. All the ingredients used in the process of bread making were weighed and the tlour was analyzed. The other ingredients were so small in amount that they were not sampled. Tlicir chemical composition was assumed from average analyses of similar articles. After baking, the bread was weighed and a sample at once jjrcpaicd for analysis. The following tnble gi\es the cost, weights, and percentage composi- ti(m of the ingredients used in making the bread, and the amount and pei'ceiitage composition of the bread made from them: Tablk 32. — iycifiht.-roi>ortinn9 as in average given in U. 8. Dept. Agr., Office of Experiment Stations Rul. 28, ^Including water nsed in preparing the bread. * U. S. Dept. Agr., Office of Experiment Stations Bui. 35. 47 In the following table tbe amounts, composition, and fuel value of tlie nutrients of tbe diflerent ingredients and of the bread made from tliem are given : Table 3;^. — IVrifihls omlfnrl rahtr of uutyinils in itifirrtlicnts ii.- above, an imiwrtant i)ecuniary saving would result if bread was baked at home. To the man iu ordinary circumstances it must be always more a (pies- tion of convenience and taste than of cdst. In short, each family can best determine whether it is desirable to pay the baker for the trouble of making the bread and delivering it or whether the labor of making and the extra fuel for baking can best be provided at home. As meutioued above, the actual cost per pound of bread is apparently less in IMttsburg than in the other cities where similar investigations have been cari'ied on. I b Mr '07 r