cussion, but they constitute an almost unworked mine of valuable material. To cite a single personal illustration: The writer has somewhat recently undertaken a comparison of a few of the more readily available station experiments upon the fattening of cattle with reference to the proteid requirements of such animals. The results need not be quoted here; it is sufficient to say that they showed a strikingly good general agreement, and to that extent seem calculated to furnish a good guide for practice. Had it been possible to make a systematic search of station literature, doubtless the available data might have been largely increased, but such an undertaking is usually beyond the capacity of the individual investigator.

This last suggestion leads naturally to the consideration of a third line of activity, namely, the compilation and critical discussion of the literature of animal nutrition, so far as it is of value to the stock feeder. As a matter of course, such study and compilation would accompany the scientific investigations already suggested, but in addition there is a vast amount of recorded data, both American and foreign, available, out of which much valuable information might be dug which would serve to check and correct our conclusions from smallscale experiments. The work needs to be done, but its volume almost discourages one from making an individual beginning. In brief, we need, parallel with scientific investigation into principles, a comprehensive sifting, working over, and systematizing of the facts already on record.

I have thus endeavored, after pointing out the economic importance of the subject, to indicate the unsatisfactory nature of our present knowledge regarding the principles of stock feeding, and the need of broadly planned investigations in this field, and have ventured the attempt to outline in general terms some of the investigations needed. There still remains to be considered the administrative question of how systematic investigations of the sort needed can be most effectively promoted, and this again is part of the broader question of how far fundamental investigations into principles can legitimately and reasonably be expected from our institutions for agricultural research.

No simple and categorical answer is possible to this question. Diverse conditions and abilities must always be reckoned with. At the same time certain things may be suggested, with special reference to this particular subject, but of more or less general application. It may be remarked, in the first place, that in any such undertaking, whether along the lines suggested by this paper or relating to other subjects, there is need for a degree of coordination of effort. I am well aware that I am here treading on delicate ground, but without stirring up smoldering fires may we not freely and fully recognize the fact that while duplication of work, of which we have heard so much, far from being discouraged, should be encouraged, a certain common understanding of the broader features of the problem and of the most promising means of approach to it—to a degree, even a programme—is essential to satisfactory progress?

The fact is we have been carrying on a guerrilla warfare around the edges of the subject. Indeed, in pessimistic moments, I have sometimes feared that our stations and colleges have been quite as successful in capturing prizes at fat-stock shows as in developing the science of feeding or imparting pedagogic value to the subject. What we need is to plan a campaign against the unknown. Let me hasten to add, however, that this military metaphor, like all ethers, should not be made to "go on all fours." It does not necessarily imply military discipline or a commander in chief. What is important at the present time is that there should be some means of inspiring and promoting serious and systematic work in this field, guided by a broad view of the subject.

The writer hopes to be able to contribute something to the progress of science along this line and recognizes gratefully that circumstances have put greater opportunities at his disposal in some particulars than most of our investigators have hitherto enjoyed, but a few workers in a single institution seem like a forlorn hope when we contemplate the vast territory to be occupied. We need a dozen calorimeters instead of one. Above all, we need some means of guiding and to a degree coordinating the work of the younger men in our stations without depriving them of their initiative or of their individual credit for their investigations. Moreover, we need provision in some way for what may be called the drudgery of the work, for the computation of results, for the compilation of literature, and other work of the sort.

How this shall be accomplished I am far from undertaking to say. The stations as a rule, I think, appreciate the importance of the matter, but, as I took occasion to say recently in another connection, the pressure upon those in responsible charge of our experiment stations for results of immediate utility is such that it requires exceptional conviction and courage to set aside liberal

sums for pure scientific research. The United States Department of Agriculture has the advantage of a broader constituency, and to a certain degree, of larger freedom in its choice of subjects for investigation, yet it, too, perhaps even more than the stations, feels the pressure for popular approval. The problem is really one of educating our constituency.

It seems yet an open question how far it will prove possible for the experiment stations, with their pressing practical problems, to enter vigorously and aggressively into pure scientific research in the immediate future, either in this or other fields. The passage of the Adams Act has made this a live question, and it is most earnestly to be hoped that this fund will be used scrupulously in accordance with the spirit as well as the letter of the law and that the reflex influence of this will extend to expenditures under the Hatch Act as well. State problems should be studied at the expense of the State, and the national funds used for those broader investigations which are to benefit the whole country. It is to these funds and to those of the National Department of Agriculture that we must look for the promotion of comprehensive schemes of fundamental investigation whose results will become the common property of investigators everywhere.

I am inclined to see possibilities for larger service in this direction on the part of the United States Department of Agriculture than. I think, are some of my colleagues. Suppose, for example, that the Department were able to undertake a comprehensive scheme of investigation upon stock feeding corresponding to that which it is conducting so successfully in human nutrition. While the Department could hardly hope to find an Atwater to organize and direct the undertaking, yet with even a moderate degree of tact it surely ought to be able to attract the interest and confidence of the stations to its work, so that it would be to their manifest advantage to correlate their investigations with its own, whether officially or unofficially. For one, I can hardly doubt that such a course patiently adhered to, without effort for notoriety and depending on moral authority alone, would be a powerful influence in favor of unity of work and of the study of fundamental questions by scientific methods, as well as in training men in the methods of investigation. That the same methods might be applied to quite other lines of investigation is, of course, too obvious to require mention. Indeed, it is a phase of the vexed question of cooperation which seems to me well worth careful thought-the essence of the method, of course, lying in the personality of its executor.

After all is said, however, it may be questioned whether, in the present temper of the public mind, the more abstract forms of scientific research can be adequately maintained by institutions dependent entirely upon taxation for their support. The average taxpayer has come to have a considerable degree of confidence in scientific investigation, but he does not like long-term investments. He wants to see results, or at least the definite prospect of results, within a comparatively short time. This doubtless has its wholesome side as a discourager of dawdling and dilettanteism, but on the other hand the public has yet to learn that "the search for knowledge with exclusive reference to its practical application is generally unrewarded."

I believe that the question of the permanent endowment of research in agricultural science, either in special institutions or in our great universities, is a subject well deserving the consideration of all interested in agricultural progress, and that an investment of this sort would yield richer returns of honor and satisfaction to the donor than many a memorial pile or stately library.

Nor are the amounts required large as compared with the magnitude of the interests involved. Thus, to take the single subject of this paper, a sum sufficient not only to equip, but to permanently endow, an institution for research in animal nutrition far superior to any now in existence anywhere would equal less than one-twentienth of 1 per cent of the value of our live stock and dairy products in a single year. Two cents per $100 upon the average value of the live stock handled yearly at the Union Stock Yards for the last five years would amply equip such an institution, and a liberal revenue for its maintenance would amount to 1 cent per head upon the cattle alone slaughtered yearly in Chicago. But the endowment of research in agriculture is too large a subject to be entered upon at the close of a paper of this length, and I forbear to tax your patience further.

I am conscious of having spoken with a certain degree of personal bias in urging as I have done the importance of, and necessity for, fundamental investigations in a branch of science in which I am deeply interested. For this I

26140-No. 184-07 M--- -9

make no apology. If anything which I have said proves of service in promoting scientific investigation in any branch of agriculture. I shall feel amply justified.

W. H. JORDAN, of New York. The paper to which we have listened is certainly an able presentation of the subject which it treats. Two or three points have occurred to me on which I would like to comment briefly.

I trust that young men who would like to engage in investigations in animal nutrition will not feel that extensive and costly equipments are necessary for the study of nutrition problems. There is much that can be done without a respiration apparatus. With such an apparatus we arrive at knowledge that is very important, such as the balances of matter and energy under given conditions and the influence of various conditions upon metabolic processes, the use of energy, and so on. There are other important problems, however.

For instance, a digestion experiment is not as simple a matter as it was once supposed to be. The fact is we are even now practically unable to determine the real undigested residue. We can not separate this residue from metabolic waste products with any degree of accuracy. We have learned also that compounds which have been absorbed into the circulation are returned to the alimentary canal for excretion. We have right here, then, problems that should command the attention of the very best scientific ability for a period of years. A study of the functions of nutrients offers a very attractive field. We know something of the general uses of what we call protein, carbohydrates, and fats. constructively, and as to other functions, but our knowledge is limited as to the difference in function of individual compounds. We have done a great deal of quantitative work in animal nutrition and have studied the influence of varying nutritive conditions upon production, and now we should give more attention to the relation of individual compounds to the physical status of the animal. Here is a field that may be made very fruitful of important results without the aid of an expensive apparatus, and I trust there are a few young men at least coming forward who will have enthusiasms along this line.

At the end of his paper Doctor Armsby referred to the attitude of the public toward long-continued investigations. I regard the situation as very hopeful in this respect. There is an intelligent minority among the agricultural public that has come to realize the supreme value of a study of fundamental truths. This is because the large practical results from certain severe and long-continued investigations along chemical and biological lines have become very evident. Intelligent farmers have come to see the foolishness of superficial work. I have faith that our constituencies will stand by us so long as they are convinced that we are earnestly seeking truth in the interests of agriculture and they will wait patiently until we are ready to announce our conclusions.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON UNIFICATION OF TERMS USED IN CHEMICAL ANALYSIS.

C. G. Hopkins, of Illinois, read the following report:

Your committee has. been working in cooperation with a similar committee from the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, and the following report is in harmony with a report already made to that association by its own committee, on which action was postponed for one year.

The subject-matter referred to your committee naturally divides itself into two classes, one of which includes soils, fertilizers, ash, and other materials whose analysis may be expressed in terms of chemical elements or in simple compounds; while the other class includes foodstuffs, condiments, and other materials whose analysis may best be expressed in terms of more complex compounds, or groups of compounds, which actually compose or are contained in the material.

SOILS, FERTILIZERS, ETC.

Special efforts have been made during the past two years to secure a full consideration, especially by directors of experiment stations, chemists, and agronomists, of the question whether it is better to continue to report analyses of soils and fertilizers on the basis of oxids (excepting nitrogen, which is aready most commonly reported as the element), or to report such analyses on the uniform basis of the chemical elements.

Several circular letters have been sent out, and in answer to this question 85 replies have been received. Of these there were 21 making comments, but expressing no definite or final opinion on the question; there were 16, including 12 chemists, who favor retaining the present system; while there were 17 chemists, 16 agronomists, and 15 directors and other officers, or 48 in all, who expressed definite opinions in favor of adopting the uniform system of elements.

In view of these facts, and providing concurrent action is taken by the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists and the American Chemical Society, your committee favors the adoption of the element system for reporting analytical results in the analysis of soils, ashes, and fertilizers as rapidly as possible. and recommends that the association urge those responsible for fertilizer legislation to have the laws changed if necessary, and as soon as practicable to meet with these recommendations if concurred in.

This would necessitate the adoption of the dual system of expressing results temporarily in some States, but it is hoped that when fertilizer laws are adopted to meet these requirements some definite time will be set, at the expiration of which only the element system will appear on the bags or tags. It is therefore suggested that no other terms than those of the element system be allowed after the year 1916.

Your committee also recommends, provided the foregoing is adopted, that this association adopt some definite form for stating the composition of fertilizers and fertilizer materials. The following form is suggested:

Elements guaranteed:
Available nitrogen.
Inert nitrogen_.
Available phosphorus

Inert phosphorus.

Available potassium.

Inert potassium.......

Per cent.

We recommend that the terms · available" and "inert" shall be used in harmony with the construction placed upon them by the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists.

The committee also recommends that in case of the adoption of the foregoing there be required to be printed on the bag or on the tag to be attached to the bag or to accompany fertilizers sold in bulk an explanatory statement naming the materials in which the plant food is carried, as, for example:

The plant food guaranteed in this fertilizer is carried in cotton-seed meal, potassium chlorid, and acid phosphate.

FOODSTUFFS, CONDIMENTS, ETC.

In the case of foodstuffs, condiments, etc.. your committee recommends in the statement of analytical results the use of names of compounds actually present as such in the material. this being in accordance with the present general practice.

Your committee asks for further time in which to consider the more complete unification of systems for reporting results of analysis of some miscellaneous materials, as insecticides, baking powders, etc.

It is further recommended that this association appoint a committee to aid (preferably in cooperation with a similar committee from the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists) in trying to bring about both national and international uniformity in the reporting of analytical results.

CYRIL G. HOPKINS,
HARRY SNYDER,
H. J. WHEELER,

Committee.

1

In the discussion of this report attention was called to the importance of having its recommendations concurred in by the American Chemical Society and the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists.

C. G. Hopkins called attention to the fact that the adoption of the recommendations provides that they shall be concurred in by the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists and the American Chemical Society, and explained that the matter had already been under consideration by the former association for some time. He also explained that there was some difference of opinion among the committee.

H. J. WHEELER, of Rhode Island. I think we should understand just what would be the result of the adoption of these recommendations. It would mean the changing of every fertilizer law in the Union, except possibly one, that of Illinois. I think it is practically impossible to get the States to change their laws, however desirable it may be. Now, if definite action is to be taken, it seems to me it ought to be taken with a full knowledge of what it means in the way of changes in the fertilizer law of the country. In some States it is extremely easy to change legislation, and in other States it is extremely difficult and dangerous to do it. I think that if in those States which use the most fertilizer any attempt were made to change the laws it would be very dangerous, and I don't think you could get them to attempt it. We must pass this proposition along first to the official chemists with a probability of it passing them, and then we will pass it to the American Chemical Society, and who is to say what sort of reception it will meet. Then we will have to deal with a great many other organizations in the country. It involves a great change in the practice of chemists, and it involves a great change in the farmer's understanding of matters as they now exist.

C. G. HOPKINS. Not more than 1 per cent of the farmers of the United States understand the use of the system we have now. There is necessarily some confusion on any new subject when we make any change whatever. Probably 1 per cent of the farmers of the United States would be confused for the next five or ten years, but the question is whether we shall cause this confusion or whether we shall continue a system which will be a cause of confusion for ali centuries and for all our people.

The report was adopted and the committee continued.
Thereupon the section adjourned sine die.