1916] BIDWELL: FEEDS AND FEEDING STUFFS 29

REPORT ON FEEDS AND F E E D I N G STUFFS.

BY G. L. BIDWELL (Bureau of Chemistry, Washington, D. C.), Referee.
The subject of the nitrogen factor has been before the association for
several years. The factor 6.25 has been used for nearly 70 years and,
when recent additions to the knowledge of the proteins are considered,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jaoac/article/2/1/29/5780520 by guest on 04 November 2020

is it not proper to ask if that value is not antiquated, and if it is not time
to change to one which will give results nearer the truth? When substances
containing a few well-known proteins are considered, such as dairy prod-
ucts or wheat flours, there can be no argument but that the change
should be made from 6.25 to a factor that is known to be nearer cor-
rect. But in the case of feeding stuffs, especially from a control or inspec-
tion standpoint, there is a different set of conditions. In the first place,
there are about 100 different products that enter into the composition of
stock feeds. Ten or fifteen different products are derived from corn alone.
From wheat we get bran, middlings, red dog, ship stuff and wheat screen-
ings. Because wheat has a factor of 5.7, it does not follow that bran, mid-
dlings, and red dog, have the same factor nor is it likely that bran has the
same factor as red dog. As for screenings, how is the factor to be deter-
mined? If it should be determined, would there ever be another sample
of screenings which would have the same factor?
Now, consider the labor involved in determining the factor to apply
to any one substance. This is not a problem to be solved by some as-
sistant in a few weeks. I t would be necessary to determine the amount
of each protein in that substance, then to prepare it in a pure condition
so that the per cent of nitrogen might be determined therein. This is a
problem for the specialist who has available almost unlimited time and
money. But if there were factors of all the ingredients of feeds could they
be used? About 45 per cent of the feeds examined in the Bureau of
Chemistry for the past two years were mixed feeds, and even when coarsely
ground, the trained microscopist could not tell, except within very wide
limits, the amounts of the various ingredients present. If different fac-
tors were used for the various feed stuffs, it would still be necessary to
have a general factor for mixtures. If the factor for corn meal should
be 6 and wheat by-products 5.7 and a mixture of 97 per cent middlings
and 3 per cent corn meal were being analyzed, the general factor would
still have to be used, whatever that might be. Although 5.7 would be the
factor that would give nearest correct results, it would be impossible to
tell the relative amounts of middlings and corn meal and therefore the
only course left would be to use the general factor. Now, keeping in
mind that we are considering this from the control and inspection stand-
point, is it ever desired to know the actual amount of protein in a feed?
It is known that the different proteins vary a great deal in composition,
30 ASSOCIATION OF OFFICIAL AGRICULTURAL CHEMISTS [Vol. II, No. 1

some having less than 15 per cent nitrogen and others having over 17
per cent. But is there anything to show that a pound of one of these is
equal to a pound of the other in feeding value? I t seems reasonable to
suppose that the amount of nitrogen may be a better index of the value
of the proteins of a feed than the actual weight of the protein itself. For
nearly 70 years the per cent of nitrogen has been multiplied by 6.25 and the

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jaoac/article/2/1/29/5780520 by guest on 04 November 2020

result called protein, but all this time it is the nitrogen percentages that
have been compared. If another factor were adopted the same ratios
would still be used when comparing the protein content of feeds; that is,
the percentages of nitrogen would still be used even though they were
multiplied by a factor. There are several hundred thousands of analyses
of feeds on record and nearly all of them employ the factor 6.25. If the
factor were changed the results of analyses would no longer be comparable
with former analyses. It is too much to hope that all chemists would
adopt the new factor. Experience has also shown that it would be im-
possible to persuade all chemists to indicate the factor they employed.
I t seems, therefore, that a change would cause endless confusion and give
no compensating advantages. Of course it should be understood that
these arguments do not apply to investigational work or work that is
restricted to single well-known substances such as those mentioned in the
first part of this report.
RECOMMENDATIONS.
I t is recommended—
(1) That 6.25 be retained as the factor to change nitrogen to protein
in all feeding stuffs control and inspection work.
(2) That the subject of improvements in the determination of fiber be
further studied.
REPORT ON CRUDE FIBER.
B Y CHARLES K. FRANCIS (Agricultural Experiment Station, Stillwater,
Okla.), Associate Referee.
The work on crude fiber has been confined to determinations on one
sample of cottonseed meal. The sample was sent to the collaborators
without special instructions, other than to determine the crude fiber and
report the details of the method used.
The well-known official method for determining crude fiber has been
subjected to criticism by many chemists. The chief trouble seems to be
with the filtering materials, linen, asbestos, or glass wool. These sub-
stances vary in their physical characteristics and necessarily in filtering
efficiency. The determinations reported show a sufficient range of ma-
terials, and certainly the results suggest a need for further study. Except
where otherwise indicated, the official method was used by the collaborat-
ing chemists.