while the fat is shown by the white parts. As in cutting across the body at the three places named we cut square across most of the muscles, the reader can see the relative 'size of, each mus cle, in cross section in two hogs of each lot. The reader is asked to give these illustrations more than a -passing glance—to study each. It will show far less fat between them than of Lot B. The most remarkable difference, though, is in the small of the back, where it will be noted that Lot A has about twice as much muscle as Lot B. The viscera of each lot was carefully dissected out and weighed and some most remark able differences between the two lots were found.
The hair was saved and weighed. Each hog was carefully skinned and skins weighed. The large muscle of the back, also the tenderloin muscles were dissected and weighed. The bones were freed from tendons and flesh by boiling, and the thigh bones were broken on a testing machine, to determine the strength of each. Each bone was on two iron edges about a quarter of an inch thick set four inches apart ; a similar iron edge was brought down from above just midway between the I wo edges below. This plate was crowded 'down by a lever until the bone broke. In this way we broke five thigh hones of Lot A, and the same of Lot B. We found that the aggregate pressure required to break five thigh bones with the protein-fed hogs was 4550 lbs., or an average of over 909 lbs. per each bone ; against 2855 lbs., or 571 lbS. per each bone with the corn-fed hogs. Here was a weak ening of the bones of over 300 lbs. each in 136 days. The following table gives the most im portant'facts in the case, the weights being of three hogs in each lot.
Lot A, Lot B.
Fed for Lean. Fedfor Fat.
Total Live weight 669% lbs. 5613˘ lbs.
Total dressed weight 541% lbs. 451 Ms.
Total external fat 150 lbs. 156 lbs. Total lean meat 244 Ms: 1783˘ lbs. Total weight of kidneys 27 oz. 19 oz.
Total weight of sheens 16 oz. 12 oz.
Total weight of livers 146% oz. 109% oz.
Total weight of blood 296 oz. 186 oz.
Breaking strain 5 thigh bones 4550 lbs. 2855 lbs.
But figures placed in this way are largely lost to the general reader, so we take the' liberty of placing them in a different form : 1. The live weight of Lot A (fed for lean) is 19 per cent. greater than Lot B, fed for fat.
2. The dressed weight of Lot A is 21 per cent. greater than Lot B.
These differences should be borne in mind in considering what follows.
3. The kidneys of Lot A weighed 42 per cent. more than those of Lot B.
4. The spleens of Lot A weighed 33 per cent. more than those of Lot B.
5. The livers of lot A weighed 32 per cent. more thaw those Lot B.
6. The blood (caught on killing) of Lot A weighed 59 per cent. more than that of Lot B.
7. The hair on Lot A weighed 36 per cent more than that of Lot B.
8. The skin of Lot A weighed 36 per cent. more than that for Lot B.
9. The large muscles of the back (Bio spinalis) of Lot A weighed 64 per cent. more than those of Lot B.
10. The two tenderloin muscles (Psoas magnus) of Lot A weighed 38 per cent. more than those of Lot B.
11. Thirty-eight per cent. of all the meat that could he cut from the carcasses of Lot A was fat, while the fat of Lot B was 46 per cent. of all that could be separated.
12. The bones of Lot A were 23 per cent. heavier than those of Lot B.
13. The thigh hones of Lot A were 62 per cent. stronger with the testing machine than those of Lot B.
Before making any deduction we wish to make plain, possible, that which seems a most impor tant consideration, and one that must be clearly understood before we can use these experiments as we should. All through this discussion, we have carried the impression that we could put lean meat or fat on the hog at will ; but can we? Is it not true that in every animal there is a cer tain limitation to muscular development beyond which it cannot go? The blacksmith or the base ball player develops a large amount of muscle, but the limit is not very high, after all, with them, and probably a man weighing 175 lbs. cannot add, either by what he eats or the exercise he takes, over a very few pounds of real meat or muscle to his body ; indeed when men "go into training" they reduce their weight as a rule instead of in creasing it, getting rid of fat and water in the body. On the other when men have a tendency to laying on fat, the limit they may reach may double their normal weight. We may say, theu, that the possible- muscular de velopment of an animal has a narrow limit com paratively, while the possible fatty development has a much wider range. We should hold, then, it would seem, that our hogs which show the best muscular development are only normally developed, or at least have not departed far from the normal, and that whatever we find in them is a condition to be held as a standard, while our hogs which have grown fat and show a variation from the lean togs, are abnormal. Having assumed the above as correct we can make a much clearer statement of the deductions which may be drawn from the experiments. We may claim that the experiments show that when we feed to our., hogs a ration rich in carbhydrates but lacking in protein, like corn meal, we will end : n • (1.) That there is an extensive development of fat not only on the outside of the muscles and beneath the skin, but also among the muscles.