TX 
 S4 
 
 UC-NRLF 
 
 llllilllllllllllllllliiillllllllllilllililjj 
 
 r 
 
 &xs^-<^^^ 
 
 10 
 
I 
 
 1 
 
V*'?'*^''-^' ^ 
 
 The Adequacy and Economy 
 of Some City Dietaries 
 
The Adequacy and Economy of 
 Some City Dietaries 
 
 By 
 H. C. SHERMAN 
 
 Columbia University 
 and 
 
 L. H. GILLETT 
 
 New Yorlc Association for Improving 
 the Condition of tlie Poor 
 
 This study and Us publication are made possible by 
 
 the Department of Social Welfare established 
 
 by Mrs. Elizabeth Milbank Anderson 
 
 BUREAU OF FOOD SUPPLY 
 
 The New York Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor 
 
 NEW YORK 
 1917 
 
 Publication No. 121 
 
f 
 
 Copyright, 1917, by 
 The New York Association kor Improving the Condition of the Poor 
 
 CorneliuH N. Bliss, Jr., President 
 George Blagden, Treasurer 
 Franklin B. Kirkbride, Secretary 
 Bailey B. Burritt, General Director 
 
 The Association and authors wish to thank those who hare 
 in any way assisted in this work. They wish especially to 
 thajik Dr. A. W. Thomas, of Columbia University, arid 
 Dr. Mary Rose, of Teachers Cnllege, for the readifuj of the 
 manuscript. 
 
 PRINTED BY 
 
 EATON & GETTINGER 
 
 263 NINTH AVE. 
 
 NEW YORK 
 
A Study of the Adequacy and Economy of 
 Some City Dietaries 
 
 Since nearly half of the income of the majority of families is spent in the 
 purchasing of food supplies, and since food is such an important factor in the 
 welfare of the family, it is important both economically and physiologically 
 that expenditure for food be made in such a way as will give the best returns 
 for the money spent. 
 
 Any suggestions, however, as to how to improve upon present food habits 
 should be based on a knowledge of the adequacy of present family dietaries 
 and the relation existing between nutritive value and the different types of food. 
 
 To this end, 102 family dietaries have been carefully collected and analyzed, 
 each dietary being an exact record of the amount and cost of the food eaten 
 by a family for a period of seven days during 1914-1915. 
 
 The records were secured in three ways. Two-thirds of them were collected 
 by the investigator who reached the families through settlements, mothers' 
 clubs, health centers, and schools. She made daily visits, sometimes two visits 
 daily, to the homes of the families, weighed the food, and supervised very 
 closely the keeping of the records. Some studies were made by women who 
 were interested and intelligent enough to keep an accurate record under the 
 general direction of the investigator but without detailed supervision. The 
 remaining studies were obtained through teachers of Home Economics who 
 incorporated the keeping of the record into a lesson in household accounts or 
 dietetics. Only such of these records were used as gave every evidence of 
 accuracy as shown by the data of the record itself, the reputation of the girl, 
 and the opinion of the teacher. 
 
 Of the 102 studies, 87 were made in New York City, 9 in Clevelaivl OliJn. 
 5 in Long Beach, California, and i in Stamford, Connecticut. 
 
 Among these 102 families there were 10 which, as supervised pensioners m 
 the New York Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor, had been 
 so influenced by a dietitian that they showed food habits which could hardly 
 be taken as typical. The results of these 10 studies were not included in the 
 general averages. 
 
 In the 92 remaining families from which the general averages have been 
 made there were 343 children and 287 adults, or 3.7 children and 3.1 adults 
 per family. As to nationality they were divided as follows: 2^ Irish, 20 
 Americans, 17 Hebrews, 13 Germans, 10 Italians, 5 Scotch, and 4 of mixed 
 races. The studies were quite equally distributed as to the season of the year,' 
 46 having been collected during October, November, and December in 1914 
 and January, February, and March in 1915, and 46 during the months of 
 April, May, June, July, August,, and September in 1915. 
 
 3 
 
 389420 
 
The averaoe cosl per rtiLtn per da)- was 32.9 cents, with a range from 11.2 
 cents to 76.0 cents. The distribution according to cost per man per day 
 
 Chart I ^2 Family Dietaries. (I914-I915) 
 
 Dislri bution as to Cost per Man per Day 
 
 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 IMS -46-50 51-55 5fr60 Sl-65 66-70 71-75 ?S-eo 
 
 Cost per Man per Day_ Cen is 
 
 (Chart I) shows the greatest frequency from 25 to 35 cents, with approximately 
 one-fourth spending less than 25 cents and one-fourth more than 40 cents. 
 
 These divisions as to nationality, season of the year, cost and make-up 
 of the family seemed to us to be fairly representative of social groups and well 
 suited to our purpose. 
 
 Each dietary was analyzed to determine cost per man per day and the 
 distribution of this food expenditure among the various types of food such as 
 meat and fish, eggs, cheese, milk, cream, butter, and other fats, grain products, 
 sugar, vegetables, fruits, nuts and a miscellaneous group including tea, coffee, 
 spices, yeast, vinegar, etc. In each case the food value was calculated in terms 
 of calories, protein, phosphorus, calcium (lime), and iron per man per day. 
 Where necessary this work was supplemented by laboratory analyses to deter- 
 mine the composition of the food. Calories and protein were quite generally 
 assumed from standard tables,* but much ash analysis was necessary where 
 there had not been sufficient work done to establish an average, t 
 
 * Those contained in Rose's Laboratory Hand book for Dietetics were chiefly used for 
 
 calories and protein, 
 t For analyses done in connection with this study see Table VI, page 30 of the appendix. 
 
On the basis of these results the studies have been classified, averaged, 
 and examined, to trace relationships between .the different types of food and 
 the resulting food value, and to determine the adequacy of the ordinary diet 
 in so far as the five factors mentioned above are concerned. 
 
 In considering the adequacy of the various food factors, it is obviously 
 necessary to have some basis for judgment as to what is adequate for proper 
 nutrition. 
 
 Since considerable work has been done to determine the energy require- 
 ment, a standard allowance for this factor is quite commonly agreed upon as 
 3400-3,500 calories for a man working moderately hard, and that is the basis 
 of the allowance used in this study. 
 
 A review of the work done on protein metabolism indicated that in about 
 100 experiments which seemed of such a character as to throw light on this 
 question, the average protein requirement was approximately 50 grams pef 
 man per day. If this be increased by 50 per cent ''for safety," one obtains 
 a standard allow^ance of 75 grams of protein per man per day. 
 
 Since very little work had been done on the phosphorus and^ralcium 
 requirement, however, it was thought advisable to investigate these factors 
 by means of laboratory experiments, and thus get more reliable information 
 than was available. Five metabolism experiments of a month each were 
 performed on healthy individuals, and upon these results in connection with 
 what had previously been done an adequate allowance for each was estimated 
 according to the plan used in estimating the allowance for protein. 
 
 No revision of the iron figures was made. 
 
 The results of the dietaries were interpreted in the light of these allowances, 
 which in view of all available evidence were judged as best expressing the 
 requirements of human nutrition. 
 
 Many of the studies gave evidence of deficiencies in food value in one or 
 more important aspects. These deficiencies occurred frequently where the 
 amount of money spent for food was adequate to supply sufficient nourishment 
 had it been spent wisely. Or in some cases, the amount of food consumed 
 was such as to give nearly 40 per cent more energy than was probably needed, 
 while the amount of calcium (lime) or iron was barely more than enough to 
 provide for the needs of the body. The selection of food was such that had 
 these families been getting energy at the rate of 3,500 calories per man, in 
 many instances some of the important ash constituents would have been below 
 the standard allowance. 
 
 The first classification of the dietaries was on the basis of cost. The 92 
 studies were arranged in the order of cost, and averaged in four groups of 2^ 
 each * In Group I were the dietaries of the 23 families sptindmg the least 
 amount for food and Group IV contained those spending the largest amount. 
 
 Table I gives for each group the average cost and food value with a state- 
 ment of the allowance used as a basis for judging the adequacy of the food 
 
 value. 
 
 ♦All figures will be given on the "per man per day" basis. 
 
Table 1. 92 Dietaries — Averaged in four groups according to cost. 
 Average food value per man per day of each group 
 
 Group 
 
 Cost 
 
 Calories 
 
 Protein 
 
 Phosphorus 
 
 Calcium 
 
 Iron 
 
 
 Cents 
 
 
 Grams 
 
 Grams 
 
 Grams 
 
 Milligrams 
 
 I 
 
 19.2 
 
 2043 
 
 78 
 
 1.14 
 
 0.51 
 
 12.1 
 
 n 
 
 28.2 
 
 2665 
 
 91 
 
 1.39 
 
 0.64 
 
 14.9 
 
 III 
 
 34.7 
 
 3106 
 
 109 
 
 1.60 
 
 0.72 
 
 17.7 
 
 IV 
 
 49.4 
 
 3889 
 
 126 
 
 1.95 
 
 1.01 
 
 20.6 
 
 Standard Al- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 _ lowance 
 
 
 2500-3500 
 
 75 
 
 1.44 
 
 0.69 • 
 
 15.0 
 
 Comparing these averages with the standard allowance given, it would 
 seem as though energy and calcium were the factors most often deficient. 
 This assumption is strengthened by the summary given in Table 2 of the 
 number and percentage of dietaries above and below what is considered a safe 
 allowance. By these figures we see that nearly 59 per cent of the families 
 were getting below the ordinary accepted standard of 3,000 calories and that 
 76 per cent were below 3,500 calories per man per day, the amount upon which 
 children's requirements have ordinarily been based. 
 
 Table 2. Number and percentage of dietaries distributed as to 
 calories, protein, phosphorus, calcium, and iron 
 
 CALORIES PROTEIN 
 
 PHOSPHORUS 
 
 CALCIUM 
 
 IRON 
 
 ' 
 
 
 Grams 
 
 
 Grams 
 
 
 Grams 
 
 
 Milligrams 
 
 d-? 
 
 Below 2000 
 
 11 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2000-2500 
 
 22 
 
 Below 50 
 
 
 
 Below 0.96 
 
 5 
 
 Below 0.45 
 
 13 
 
 Below 10 
 
 5 
 
 2500-3000 
 3000-3500 
 
 21 
 16 
 
 50-75 
 75-Above 
 
 12 
 
 80 
 
 0.96-1.44 
 1.44- Above 
 
 40 
 47 
 
 0.45-0.68 
 0.68-Above 
 
 36 
 43 
 
 10-15 
 15- Above 
 
 33 
 54 
 
 3500-Above 
 
 22 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CALORIES 
 
 PROTEIN 
 
 PHOSPHORUS 
 
 CALCIUM 
 
 IRON 
 
 
 
 Grams 
 
 ^8 
 
 Grams 
 
 ^1 
 
 Grams 
 
 
 Milligrams 
 
 S3 c 
 
 Below 
 2500 
 3000 
 
 35.9 
 58.7 
 
 Below 
 50 
 
 75 
 
 0.0 
 13.0 
 
 Below 
 0.96 
 1.44 
 
 5.4 
 48.9 
 
 Below 
 0.45 
 0.68 
 
 14.1 
 53.2 
 
 Below 
 10 
 
 15 
 
 5.4 
 41.3 
 
 3500 
 
 76.1 
 
 100 
 
 51.0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
There seems to be little danger of protein deficiency, indicating that the 
 money spent for food has been spent in such a way as to supply relatiyely high 
 protein at a sacrifice to the energy. As regards the probable comparative 
 danger of insufficient energy and protein, only 12 families were getting less 
 than 75 grams of protein as against 54 getting less than 3,000 calories, while 
 none were getting less than 50 grams of protein, but 33 were getting less than 
 2,500 calories. Since an adequate supply of energy is essential both to healthy 
 growth and activity, and to the proper protection of body tissue, the frequent 
 deficiency of energy value in these city dietaries must be regarded as an im- 
 portant factor in causing the large amount of malnutrition reported amo ig 
 school children. 
 
 Had the energy been 3,000 calories in each case, the cause for concern re- 
 garding the other food factors would have been much less, as shown in Table 3. 
 
 Table 3. 92 Dietaries distributed as to food value on the basis of 
 
 3,000 calories 
 
 PROTEIN 
 
 PHOSPHORUS 
 
 CALCIUM 
 
 IRON 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 «-> 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 a; 
 
 c 
 
 
 <u 
 
 G 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 Grams 
 
 
 
 Grams 
 
 ^ 
 f 
 
 a 
 
 Grams 
 
 
 t5 
 
 Milligrams 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 Im 
 
 
 
 i-i 
 
 
 3 
 
 u 
 
 
 3 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 Z 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 1) 
 
 0^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 a; 
 
 
 "Z 
 
 ^ 
 
 Below 50 
 
 
 
 0.0 
 
 Below 0.96 
 
 
 
 0.0 
 
 Below 0.45 
 
 4 
 
 4.4 
 
 Below 10 
 
 
 
 0.0 
 
 Below 62 
 
 1 
 
 1.1 
 
 Below 1.20 
 
 4 
 
 4.4 
 
 Below 0.57 
 
 17 
 
 18.5 
 
 Below 12.5 
 
 3 
 
 3.3 
 
 Below 75 
 
 2 
 
 2.2 
 
 Below 1.44 
 
 28 
 
 30.5 
 
 Below 0.68 
 
 37 
 
 40.2 
 
 Below 15.0 
 
 18 
 
 19.6 
 
 Below 100 
 
 36 
 
 39.2 
 
 Above 1.44 
 
 64 
 
 69.5 
 
 Above 0.68 
 
 55 
 
 59.8 
 
 Above 15.0 
 
 74 
 
 80.4 
 
 Above 100 
 
 56 
 
 60.8 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 In only 2 cases was there less than 75 grams of protein at 3,000 calories, while 
 40 per cent of the families were getting less than the standard allowance of 
 calcium, 30 per cent less than the standard allowance of phosphorus, and 19 
 per cent less than that of iron. Next to energy, then, calcium deficiency seems 
 to offer the largest problem. The importance of calcium deficiency must not 
 be overlooked even though one may not be able to point to clinical symptoms. 
 Professor Mendel of Yale says of his recent nutrition experiments that "animals 
 may be in excellent nutritive condition in so far as protein is concerned for long 
 periods of time while they are still losing calcium from their bones. It then 
 happens that suddenly a collapse comes for which there is frequently no obvious 
 explanation." Since this element plays such an important part, not only m 
 bone and teeth formation but in organic functions as well, the frequent de- 
 ficiency of calcium in the diet is a serious defect in present food habits. 
 
 7 
 
In the economic study of dietaries it is necessary to consider the different 
 types of food used, the influence which each has on the total food value, and 
 the relation between cost and nutritive return. For these comparisons foods 
 have been divided into the various types as represented in Table 4. 
 
 Table 4. Average distribution of expenditure among various types 
 
 of food in 92 families (divided into 4 groups on 
 
 the basis of cost per man per day) 
 
 Cost per man per day 
 Cost per 3000 calories 
 
 Type of Food 
 
 Meat-fish 
 
 Eggs 
 
 Milk 
 
 Cream 
 
 Cheese 
 
 Fats 
 
 Grain products 
 
 Sugars 
 
 Vegetables .... 
 
 Fruit 
 
 Nuts 
 
 Miscellaneous . 
 
 Calories 
 
 Protein 
 
 Phosphorus, . . 
 
 Calcium 
 
 Iron 
 
 Protein 
 
 Phosphorus . . . 
 
 Calcium 
 
 Iron 
 
 Group I 
 
 19.2 cents 
 26.1 cents 
 
 Per cent 
 
 36.8 
 4.5 
 9.1 
 0.3 
 0.9 
 6.7 
 
 22.6 
 3.4 
 9.0 
 2.3 
 0.1 
 4.3 
 
 2043 
 
 78 grams 
 1.14 grams 
 0.51 grams 
 12.1 milligrams 
 
 107 grams 
 1.59 grams 
 0.70 grams 
 16.7 milligrams 
 
 Group IT 
 
 28.2 cents 
 
 30.3 cents 
 
 Percentage 
 
 Per cent 
 
 29.4 
 
 6.4 
 
 9.2 
 
 0.2 
 
 1.6 
 
 8.1 
 17.7 
 
 4.4 
 
 9.0 
 
 7.2 
 
 0.6 
 
 6.2 
 
 Group III 
 
 34.7 cents 
 34.3 cents 
 
 Distribution* 
 
 Per cent 
 
 34.9 
 
 5.4 
 
 1.^ 
 
 0.1 
 
 0.8 
 
 7.9 
 17.9 
 
 3,.^ 
 
 9.2 
 
 6.4 
 
 0.1 
 
 5.7 
 
 Food Value per Man per Day* 
 
 2665 
 
 91 grams 
 1.39 grams 
 0.64 grams 
 14.9 milligrams 
 
 3106 
 
 109 grams 
 1.60 grams 
 0.72 grams 
 17.7 milligrams 
 
 Food Value per 3000 Calories 
 
 104 grams 
 1.57 grams 
 0.77 grams 
 16.7 milligrams 
 
 102 grams 
 1.54 grams 
 0.71 grams 
 17.1 milligrams 
 
 •Group IV 
 
 49.4 cents 
 44.7 cents 
 
 Per cent 
 
 31.8 
 5.9 
 8.4 
 1.2 
 1.2 
 98 
 
 13.1 
 3.6 
 9.3 
 8.2 
 0.6 
 6.9 
 
 3889 
 
 126 grams 
 1.95 grams 
 1.01 grams 
 20.6 milligrams 
 
 116 grams 
 1.69 grams 
 0.81 grams 
 17.9 milligrams 
 
 For the amount of each type of food consumed see Table I of the appendix. 
 
 In this table is given the distribution of expenditure for the various types of 
 food in each of the four groups as described on page 5 with the corresponding 
 return in food value. 
 
 It is clearly evident that the average expenditure in Group I was too low 
 to provide sufficient energy for that group. If, however, the cost and food 
 factors for each group be recalculated in proportion to 3,000 calories we have 
 a basis for comparison which indicates: (i) that if energy be sufficient the 
 
 8 
 
other food factors will on the average be adequately supplied, and (2) 
 that Group I was getting practically the same amount of food value for 26 
 cents for which Group IV was paying 45 cents. It should also be noted that 
 while only one-fourth were spending for food less than 25 cents per man per 
 day, about 50 to 75 per cent were not getting enough energy. 
 
 In order that we may judge intelligently with regard to the relative value 
 and economy of various foods, we must know to what extent each factor is 
 supplied by the various types of food. Hence special attention has been given 
 to those types which supply the largest amounts of the various factors consid- 
 ered here, namely, calories, protein, phosphorus, calcium, and iron (Table 5). 
 
 Table 5. Average of 92 dietary studies — percentage expenditure for 
 each type of food with the corresponding return in food values 
 
 Type of Food 
 
 Range of 
 Expenditure 
 
 Average 
 Expendi- 
 ture 
 
 Calories 
 
 Protein 
 
 Phos- 
 phorus 
 
 Calcium 
 
 Iron 
 
 Meat-fish 
 
 Eggs 
 
 Milk-cream . . . 
 
 Cheese 
 
 Fats 
 
 Grain products 
 
 Sugar 
 
 Vegetables . . . . 
 
 Fruit 
 
 Nuts 
 
 Miscellaneous . 
 
 Per cent 
 6.4-49.1 
 0.0-15.9 
 1.3-21.9 
 
 0.0-8.9 
 0.0-21.8 
 3.8-42.8 
 
 0.0-9.2 
 0.4-19.1 
 0.0-17.1 
 0.0- 7.7 
 0.0-17.6 
 
 Per cent 
 33.2 
 5.6 
 9.1 
 1.1 
 8.1 
 17.9 
 3.8 
 9.1 
 6.0 
 0.4 
 5.7 
 
 Per cent 
 
 16.5 
 
 1.7 
 
 8.1 
 
 0.9 
 
 10.3 
 
 37.8 
 
 10.8 
 
 9.1 
 
 3.9 
 
 0.3 
 
 0.6 
 
 Per cent 
 
 36.3 
 4.5 
 
 10.1 
 2.1 
 0.3 
 
 35.8 
 0.1 
 8.9 
 1.1 
 0.2 
 0.6 
 
 Per cent 
 
 It.l 
 4.0 
 
 18.5 
 2.9 
 0.3 
 
 28.9 
 0.1 
 
 14.6 
 2.4 
 0.3 
 1.3 
 
 Per cent 
 
 3.7 
 
 3.2 
 
 50.2 
 
 7.3 
 
 0.7 
 
 15.3 
 
 0.7 
 
 13.2 
 
 4.7 
 
 0.1 
 
 0.9 
 
 Per cent 
 
 31.4 
 
 6.2 
 
 4.7 
 
 0.5 
 
 0.4 
 
 25.0 
 
 0.2 
 
 26.2 
 
 4.1 
 
 0.2 
 
 Be rearranging the dietaries according to the expenditure for the various 
 types of food (which ranged for meat from 6 to 49 per cent, and for gram 
 products from 4 to 43 per cent) it was evident that deficiencies frequently 
 occurred where there had been enough money to supply sufficient food value, 
 but where the relation between the various types of food was not well adjusted. 
 
MEAT AND FISH 
 
 The largest expenditure for any one type of food was for meat and fish, 
 or an average for the 92 studies of 33.2 per cent (wherever meat is used in this 
 discussion both meat and fish are included). The dietaries were arranged in 
 order according to the proportion spent for meat. It was found that only 17 
 were spending less than 25 per cent, while 49 were spending more than 33 
 per cent of their total food expenditure for this type of food. 
 
 CKartn 92 Dietaries 
 
 Distribution of Expenditure for Meat 
 Average Expenditure 33.2% 
 
 ^^ 
 
 J5- 
 
 /O- 
 
 5-10% I0-1S% lS-20% 20-2SS 2S-30* 30 »» J5-1W 40-45* 45-50% 
 
 Cost perMan per day- 26 6^ 49.6* 36.8* 315* 36.5* 34.7< 30.8* 2&5* 311* 
 
 Average Calories- 3172 4221 3677 3353 3165 2886 2731 2487 2246 
 
 Cost per 3000Calone$-23D* 35.3* 300* 30i)*34£* 36.1* 318*33.2* 415^ 
 
 Chart II represents the distribution of expenditure for meat with the 
 corresponding cost and calories for each group. With the exception of the 
 first group where only 5 to 10 per cent of the food expenditure was for meat, 
 the calories decreased gradually with the increase in the percentage of total 
 expenditure for meat. While it is true that those spending relatively most 
 for meat were spending least for total food, it is apparent from the chart that 
 for 3,000 calories it would have cost those spending over 25 to 30 per cent for 
 meat more than they were already spending for food, while those spending 
 
 10 
 
less than 25 per cent for meat were getting more than ^,000 calories. In 
 other words, the greater the percentage expenditure for meat the more expensive 
 the dietary for adequate energy. It would have cost the families spending 
 from 5 to 10 per cent for meat only 23 cents for 3,000 calories, whereas it would 
 have cost those families spending from 45 to 50 per cent for meat 41.5 cents 
 for an equal amount of energy. 
 
 When the 92 dietaries were arranged according to the percentage expendi- 
 ture for meat and averaged in 4 groups of 23 each, as shown in Table 6, the 
 ppint mentioned above that the percentage spent for meat seems to increase 
 with the decrease in total food expenditure, is strengthened. 
 
 Table 6. 92 Dietaries arranged according to the percentage expendi- 
 ture for meat and averaged in groups of 23 each 
 
 
 AVERAGE 
 
 AMOUNT AND DISTRIBUTION 
 OF EXPENDITURE 
 
 AVERAGE FOOD VALUE 
 
 Group 
 
 Cost 
 
 per 
 
 Man 
 
 Meat 
 
 Eggs 
 
 Cheese 
 
 Grain 
 Milk Prod- 
 
 Vege- 
 tables 
 
 Cal- 
 
 Pro- 
 
 ♦Phos- 
 
 ♦Cal- 
 
 Iron 
 
 
 per 
 Day 
 
 
 
 
 ucts 
 
 and 
 Fruit 
 
 ones 
 
 tein 
 
 phorus 
 
 cium 
 
 
 
 Cents 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 
 Grams 
 
 Grams 
 
 Grams 
 
 Milli- 
 grams 
 
 I 
 
 34.8 
 
 21.3 
 
 6.0 
 
 1.6 
 
 9.3 
 
 20.6 
 
 18.9 
 
 3386 
 
 102 
 
 1.64 
 
 0.86 
 
 17.3 
 
 II 
 
 35.7 
 
 30.3 
 
 6.5 
 
 1.5 
 
 8.7 
 
 16.1 
 
 21.9 
 
 3129 
 
 105 
 
 1.62 
 
 0.80 
 
 17.4 
 
 III 
 
 31.5 
 
 37.3 
 
 5.5 
 
 0.6 
 
 8.0 
 
 18.2 
 
 13.4 
 
 2747 
 
 98 
 
 1.38 
 
 0.61 
 
 15.4 
 
 IV 
 
 29.8 
 
 42.0 
 
 4.3 
 
 0.9 
 
 8.5 
 
 16.5 
 
 12.2 
 
 2445 
 
 99 
 
 1.44 
 
 0.61 
 
 15.3 
 
 * Figures here given are for the element. To find the amount of lime (CaO) from the 
 amount of calcium (Ca), multiply by 1.4. To find the amount of phosphorus pento.xide 
 (PgOg), "phosphoric acid," from the amount of phosphorus (P), multiply by 2.29. 
 
 This relative increase in meat seems to be more at the expense of vegetables 
 and fruit than of any other one type of food. Both energy and calcium seem 
 to decrease with an increase in the expenditure for meat. It would have cost 
 Group I, 30.8 cents for 3,000 calories with only 21 per cent of the food money 
 spent for meat, whereas it would have cost Group IV, 36.6 cents with an 
 average meat expenditure of 42 per cent. (For further details with regard 
 to the amount of meat consumed and for prices paid for meat, see Tables I, 
 II, and V of the appendix.) 
 
 GRAIN PRODUCTS 
 
 Under the head of grain products we include such foods as bread, cereals, 
 macaroni, and rice. The 92 dietaries were arranged according to the per- 
 centage expenditure for this type of food and averaged in 4 groups of 27, each, 
 Group I representing the 23 families spending least for grain products and 
 Group IV, the 23 spending the largest amount. The results are given m 
 Table 7. 
 
 11 
 
Table 7. 92 Dietaries arranged according to the percentage expendi- 
 ture for grain products and averaged in groups of 23 each 
 
 
 A\^RAGE AMOUNT AND DISTRIBUTION 
 
 
 AVERAGE FOOD VALUE 
 
 
 OF EXENDITURE 
 
 Cal- 
 
 PER 3000 CALORIES 
 
 Group 
 
 Cost 
 
 Cost 
 
 
 
 
 Vege- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 per 
 Man 
 
 per 
 3000 
 
 Grain 
 Prod- 
 
 Milk 
 
 Meat 
 
 tables 
 and 
 Fruit 
 
 Fats 
 and 
 
 
 Pro- 
 
 ♦Phos- 
 phorus 
 
 ♦Cal- 
 
 Iron 
 
 
 per 
 
 Cal- 
 
 ucts 
 
 
 
 Sugar 
 
 
 tein 
 
 cium 
 
 
 
 Day 
 
 ories 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Cents 
 
 Cents 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 
 Grams 
 
 Grams 
 
 Grams 
 
 Milli- 
 grams 
 
 I 
 
 41.8 
 
 41.9 
 
 10.1 
 
 8.7 
 
 35.2 
 
 18.5 
 
 15.9 
 
 3010 
 
 107 
 
 1.66 
 
 0.84 
 
 17.91 
 
 II 
 
 33.9 
 
 34.3 
 
 15.2 
 
 8.1 
 
 32.9 
 
 16.0 
 
 12.5 
 
 2967 
 
 108 
 
 1.63 
 
 0.77 
 
 17.66 
 
 III 
 
 31.7 
 
 31.7 
 
 18.4 
 
 10.2 
 
 32.0 
 
 15.0 
 
 12.8 
 
 3007 
 
 104 
 
 1.57 
 
 0.78 
 
 16.08 
 
 IV 
 
 25.2 
 
 27.5 
 
 27.6 
 
 7.6 
 
 32.8 
 
 11.4 
 
 10.6 
 
 2719 
 
 108 
 
 1.53 
 
 0.63 
 
 16.81 
 
 * See note at the foot of Table 6 (page 11). 
 
 The most apparent correlation here is the decrease in total cost of food as 
 the percentage expended for grain products increases. In Group I, where 
 only lo per cent of total food expenditure v^as for grain products, the cost 
 per man per day was 41.8 cents, while in Group IV, where the percentage 
 expenditure for grain products was over 27 per cent, the cost was only 25.2 
 cents. The average number of calories in Group IV was only 2,719, but for 
 3,000 calories it would have cost this group only 27.5 cents, while it would 
 have cost Group I for the same amount of energy 41.9 cents. It will be noted 
 by studying Table 6 that less meat, fat, and sugar were used as the amount of 
 
 ^^rpIiN^pnniirT*; Relation of thefercentage Expenditiire for Grain Products and the Ener^ received 
 GRAIN PRODUCTS • ^ proportion b Money spent. ( 92 studies arranged according to the percent- 
 age expenditure for grain and averaged in 4 groups. 23 in each group) 
 
 Croup I\ 
 
 m 
 
 Ml 
 
 m 
 
 ' 5 ' ' ' '■ h ' ' ' '-/^ ' ' ' ' io' ' ' h' ' 
 Perccnla^ Expenditure for Grain Products in Each Group 
 
 Group 
 
 i\ 
 
 - 
 
 n\ 
 
 •• 
 
 M\ 
 
 •• 
 
 m 
 
 ^5 JO 
 Calories forOneCentinQjrrespondin^ Groups 
 
 Cost per Man perDay Cost per 3000 Calorie* 
 
 Group I 41.8* 41.9* 
 
 • n 33.9+ 343* 
 •• IH 31.7* 31.7* 
 
 • E 25.2* 27.5* 
 
 7J 
 
 12 
 
grain products increased, and when the food values are calculated to the basis 
 of 3,000 calories neither protein, phosphorus, or iron is decreased in amount 
 by this increase. The calcium seems to have been affected, but it will become 
 evident when we consider the influence of the amount of milk used that this 
 factor is controlled almost entirely by the milk consumption. 
 
 On Chart III there is represented the relative return in calories for the 
 money spent for food by these four groups. Group I, spending 41.8 cents, was 
 getting in return only 72 calories for every cent spent, while Group IV, with 
 an expenditure of only 25.2 cents, was getting in return 108 calories for every 
 cent. It appears then that the greater the expenditure for grain products the 
 cheaper the dietary for energy, while the amount of the other food factors are 
 not seriously affected. (For the amounts and prices of the various grain 
 products used see Tables I, III, and V of the appendix.) 
 
 MILK 
 
 When the 92 studies were arranged in four groups according to the expendi- 
 ture for milk in the same manner as for the meat and fish (Table 6), or grain 
 products (Table 7), there seemed to be no close correlations evident. The 
 percentage spent for milk increased slightly and the percentage spent for meat 
 decreased, as the total food expenditure decreased (Table 8). 
 
 Table 8. 92 Dietaries arranged according to the percentage expendi- 
 ture for milk and averaged in groups of 23 each 
 
 
 AVERAGE AMOUNT AND DISTRIBUTION 
 OF EXPENDITURE 
 
 AVERAGE FOOD VALUE 
 
 Group 
 
 Cost 
 
 per 
 
 Man 
 
 Day 
 
 Cost 
 iper 
 3000 
 Cal- 
 ories 
 
 Milk 
 
 Cream 
 
 Cheese 
 
 Meat 
 
 Vege- 
 tables 
 and 
 Fruit 
 
 Cal- 
 ories 
 
 Pro- 
 tein 
 
 ♦Phos- 
 phorus 
 
 ♦Cal- 
 cium 
 
 Iron 
 
 I 
 
 II 
 III 
 IV 
 
 Cents 
 
 38.0 
 29.9 
 31.4 
 
 Cents 
 
 34.7 
 34.8 
 33.2 
 32.8 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 4.1 
 
 6.8 
 
 9.4 
 
 14.2 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 0.4 
 0.8 
 0.2 
 0.3 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 1.4 
 1.1 
 1.4 
 0.7 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 33.5 
 32.1 
 35.0 
 32.2 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 16.4 
 15.8 
 14.6 
 13.8 
 
 2884 
 3259 
 2655 
 2906 
 
 Grams 
 
 95 
 111 
 
 94 
 104 
 
 Grams 
 
 1.35 
 1.64 
 1.43 
 1.65 
 
 Grams 
 
 0.55 
 0.74 
 0.70 
 0.90 
 
 Milli- 
 grams 
 
 16.3 
 
 18.4 
 
 14.9 
 
 15.7 
 
 » See note at the foot of Table 6 (page 11). 
 
 When the dietaries were arranged according to the amount of calcium in the 
 diet, averaged in groups of 4, the average amount of calcium m each group 
 calculated, and these figures were compared with the amount spent for m.lk, 
 cream, and cheese in the corresponding groups, a very interestmg correlation 
 appeared as shown on Chart IV. 
 
 13 
 
Chart]? 
 
 92 Dietaries arran^d according to the Amount 
 '^ of Calcium. Averaged in Groups of 4 and compared 
 with the Corresponding Expenditure for Milk 
 
 2 ■ 
 
 I TO 
 
 ^2 w 
 
 J 
 
 
 .09- 
 
 
 .06- 
 
 
 .07- 
 
 
 .06 
 
 <A 
 
 
 -P 
 
 
 c 
 
 .05 
 
 & 
 
 
 1 
 
 .04 
 
 
 
 g 
 
 
 L^ 
 
 
 «2 
 
 .03 
 
 Si^ 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 .02 
 
 "3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O- 
 
 
 li^ 
 
 .01 
 
 
 .00 
 
 12 3 4 5 6V 
 
 lO 11 12 13 14: 15 16 n 18 19 20 21 22 23 
 
 14 
 
The standard allowance for calcium (0.69 gram) is not reached until the 
 thirteenth group. By comparing the amount spent for the milk with the 
 calcium in the diet it appears that the families were in danger of insufficient 
 calcium when they were spending on an average of less than 3 cents per man 
 per day for milk. Since milk was quite generally 9 cents a quart when these 
 studies were made, it would seem as though every family should be using at 
 the rate of at least one-third of a quart of milk per man per day to provide the ^ 
 calcium requirements of that family. More milk should be provided whenever 
 there are small children, as nearly as possible "a quart of milk a day for every 
 child." In the average of these dietaries over 57 per cent of the total calcium 
 was obtained from milk and cheese. The grain products and the vegetables 
 contributed 12 and 15 per cent, respectively, leaving a very small margin to 
 be derived from the several remaining types of food. Since the calcium is so 
 important, and since the amount in the diet is dependent to such a large extent 
 upon the amount of milk used, the use of milk cannot be too strongly urged. 
 (For further correlation between the amount of milk used and the amount of 
 calcium in the diet see Table IV of the appendix. See also Tables I and V 
 for amounts used and prices paid for milk.) 
 
 VEGETABLES AND FRUIT 
 
 Because of the similarity of the function of vegetables and fruit in nutrition 
 these foods may be discussed here as one type. 
 
 The dietaries were arranged according to the percentage expenditure for 
 vegetables and fruit combined, and averaged in 4 groups as previously. The 
 results are shown in Table 9. 
 
 Table 9. 92 Dietaries arranged according to the percentage expendi- 
 ture for Vegetables and Fruit— and averaged in groups of 23 each 
 
 
 WERAGE AMOUNT AND DISTRIBUTION 
 OF EXPENDITURE 
 
 AVERAGE FOOD VALUE 
 
 Group 
 
 Cost 
 Per 
 Man 
 Per 
 Day 
 
 Cost 
 Per 
 3000 
 Cal- 
 ories 
 
 Vege- 
 tables 
 
 Fruit 
 
 Meat 
 
 Milk 
 
 Grain 
 Prod- 
 ucts 
 
 Cal- 
 ories 
 
 Pro- 
 tein 
 
 ♦Phos- 
 phorus 
 
 ♦Cal- 
 cium 
 
 Iron 
 
 I 
 
 II 
 III 
 IV 
 
 Cents 
 
 25.6 
 35.0 
 32.7 
 39.4 
 
 Cents 
 
 31.2 
 34.6 
 34.5 
 35.0 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 5.6 
 
 8.9 
 
 10.5 
 
 10.9 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 2.5 
 
 4.5 
 
 6.3 
 
 10.9 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 38.2 
 36.3 
 30.4 
 27.8 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 9.0 
 8.2 
 9.4 
 7.9 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 21.5 
 19.1 
 17.4 
 13.4 
 
 2428 
 3072 
 2905 
 3359 
 
 Grams 
 
 93 
 109 
 100 
 102 
 
 Grams 
 
 1.36 
 1.60 
 1.53 
 1.60 
 
 Grams 
 
 0.61 
 0.70 
 0.77 
 0.81 
 
 MiUi- 
 grams 
 
 13.8 
 
 17.3 
 
 16.5 
 
 17.6 
 
 See note at the foot of Table 6 (page 11). 
 
 15 
 
Each of the ash constituents seems to be favorably influenced by the in- 
 crease in the use of vegetables and fruit, the iron and calcium rather more so 
 than the phosphorus. The relation between the amount of iron and vege- 
 tables and fruit is shown in Chart V. 
 
 ChartY 
 
 IRON. Relation between the Amount of Iron in the Diet and the Percentage Expenditure for Vegetables 
 and Fruits. (92 dietaries arranged according to the amount of iron in the diet, averaged 
 in 4 groups) 
 
 Group l\ 
 
 II\ 
 
 J 10 _ 15 
 
 Iron per Man perDay_ Milligrams 
 
 Group n 
 
 E\ 
 
 m 
 
 3 10 15 
 
 Corresponding Percentage Expenditure for Vegetables and Fruits 
 
 Table lo might indicate that the amount of iron was more especially in- 
 fluenced by the expenditure for meat, but when the iron figures are calculated 
 to 3, coo calories in Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9 the amount of iron per 3,000 calories 
 seems to be practically the same for each group. We shall see in Chart VII 
 that by reducing the expenditure for meat and increasing the expenditure for 
 vegetables the iron is increased slightly. This will depend, obviously, on the 
 kind of vegetables used. (For the amounts and prices of vegetables and fruits 
 used see Tables I and V of the appendix.) 
 
 BUTTER AND OTHER FATS, AND SUGAR 
 
 According to these dietaries, the fats and sugars contribute on an average 
 about 20 per cent of the total energy of the diet, but very little of any of the 
 other factors considered in this study. The question arises whether there may 
 not be danger of a deficiency of some of the ash constituents through too liberal 
 a use of fat and sugar? When the dietaries were averaged according to the 
 amount of iron at 3,000 calories the relation between the iron and the per- 
 centage of energy from the fats and the sugar appeared as shown in Table 10, 
 and as represented on Chart VI. As the amount of iron increased there was 
 a decided decrease in the percentage of the calories from fats and sugar. 
 
 16 
 
Table 10. 92 Dietaries arranged according to the amount of 
 in the diet at 3,000 calories and averaged in 4 groups 
 
 iron 
 
 
 FOOD VALUE AND COST AT 
 3,000 CALORIES 
 
 AVERAGE AMOUNT AND DLSTRIBU- 
 TION OF EXPENDITURE 
 
 Cal- 
 
 Group 
 
 Cost 
 per 
 
 Man 
 per 
 
 Day 
 
 Iron 
 
 Pro- 
 tein 
 
 ♦Phos- 
 phorus 
 
 ♦Cal- 
 cium 
 
 Meat 
 
 Milk 
 
 Vege- 
 tables 
 and 
 Fruit 
 
 Grain 
 Prod- 
 ucts 
 
 Fats 
 
 Sugar 
 
 ories 
 from 
 Fats 
 and 
 Sugars 
 
 
 Cents 
 
 Milli- 
 grams 
 
 Grams 
 
 Grams 
 
 Grams 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 Per 
 cent 
 
 I 
 
 31.7 
 
 13.90 
 
 90 
 
 1.37 
 
 0.71 
 
 28.8 
 
 9.7 
 
 15.9 
 
 17.8 
 
 10.8 
 
 4.7 
 
 26.7 
 
 11 
 
 33.9 
 
 16.16 
 
 104 
 
 1.58 
 
 a77 
 
 32.7 
 
 8.1 
 
 14.5 
 
 18.2 
 
 8.6 
 
 3.8 
 
 21.8 
 
 III 
 
 31.2 
 
 17.94 
 
 109 
 
 1.66 
 
 0.76 
 
 31.4 
 
 9.2 
 
 15.9 
 
 19.6 
 
 7.7 
 
 3.7 
 
 19.1 
 
 IV 
 
 38.4 
 
 20.40 
 
 128 
 
 1.78 
 
 0.75 
 
 39.9 
 
 7.5 
 
 14.3 
 
 15.9 
 
 5.5 
 
 3.0 
 
 16.7 
 
 * See note at the foot of Table 6 (page 11). 
 
 When the dietaries were arranged according to the peroentage expendi- 
 ture for butter and sugar, the same relationship between fats and sugar and 
 the amount of iron in the diet was apparent. In Group I, where only 7.7 
 per cent of the money was spent for fats and sugar there were 18.5 milli- 
 grams of iron per man per day. In group IV, 16.4 per cent of the money 
 was spent for fats and sugar with only 15 milligrams of iron per man per 
 day. In many individual cases where the amount spent for fats and sugar 
 was above the average, the iron figures were considerably below what 
 seemed a safe allowance. 
 
 It would seem then as though some of the money spent for fats and 
 sugar might better be spent for vegetables and fruit. (For the amounts 
 and prices of fats and sugars used see Tables I and V of the appendix.) 
 
 ^^'^^iSN- Relation between theAmountof Iron intheDiet and the percentage of Calories from FaU 
 and Sugar.(92 dietaries arranged according to the amount of iron (per 3000 calories)- 
 
 Group 
 
 averaged in groups of 23) 
 
 Iron per Man per Day_ Milligrams 
 
 Percendj^ of Calories from Butter and Suj?^,r in con-espond«a^Gro»ip3 
 17 
 
From these results it would seem as though the family dietary, at least 
 among city people of limited means, is often relatively poor in energy and cal- 
 cium, and sometimes also in iron or phosphorus. As the percentage 
 expenditure for meat increases the diet tends to suffer in energy. As the 
 relative expenditure for grain products increases, the energy is increased. 
 Calcium seems to be dependent to a large extent on the amount of milk used, 
 and both iron and calcium are favorably influenced by increasing the propor- 
 tion of expenditure for vegetables and fruits. In the average diet the expen- 
 diture for milk, vegetables and fruit are much overbalanced by the 
 expenditure for meat. If there were an equal expenditure for (i) meat, (2) 
 milk, (3) fruit and vegetables, there is little doubt that the results irf food value 
 would be more favorable to a well balanced diet. In Chart VII we have 
 reconstructed a dietary according to the suggested distribution. In each 
 case, A represents the allowance as given on page 6 for each of the five 
 chief food factors. B represents the amount of each corresponding food factor 
 which this family was receiving where 49 per cent of its total food money was 
 spent for meat, 26 per cent for grain products, 10 per cent for milk, and 7.8 
 per cent for vegetables. 
 ChartYir 
 
 Chart to show the Increase in Food Value when the expenditure 
 for Milk,Meat,andVe^ tables and Fruit are made exjual. 
 
 A- Standard Allowance 
 B- Food Value from the Original Distribution of money 
 C- Food Value possible by Redistribution of money 
 D-FoodValue at 3000 Calories CC) 
 
 
 
 CALORIES 
 
 
 A 1- ~l 
 
 ."L [ -1 
 
 
 
 
 
 B| 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c Hi 
 
 
 HHIH! 
 
 
 
 PROTEIN 
 
 
 PHOSPHORUS 
 
 a 1 ' ' ' 
 
 A 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 b| 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 
 c B^^^^B l^^^l^ 
 
 
 ° i. 
 
 CALCIUM 
 
 s::J p::.-. 
 
 IRON 
 
 A 1 ' ' ' 
 
 A 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 B| 
 
 Z] 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 c m 
 
 HIHH 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 Di - 
 
 . ■■,■•■,,.;;., • ,; ■ 
 
 13 |;-:;- 
 
 ^ . ^:.-^:-m 
 
 The Standard Allowances 
 used are those given on 
 page 6 
 
 Actual Expenditure per Man per Dtay_H.3+ 
 Cosi of 3000 Calories ( B) 28.0^ 
 
 Cost of 3000 Calories (C) 22.3^ 
 
 18 
 
Since they were spending only 11.3 cents for food, it is evident that they 
 could not have been getting what they needed. Had they been spending more 
 for milk and vegetables and less for meat, or equal amounts for these three 
 types of food, they would, however, have been getting more food value for the 
 same money as represented by C in Chart VII. According to the way in which 
 they were spending the money, it would have cost them 28 cents for 3,000 
 calories, whereas, had they spent equal amounts for milk, meat, and vegetables, 
 it would have cost them only 22.3 cents for the 3,000 calories. Although this 
 dietary was somewhat extreme in the amount of money spent for food, 18 
 dietaries similarly reconstructed give corresponding increases in food value. 
 As none of the five food factors here represented would have suffered in any 
 case by this redistribution, it would seem as though the average diet would 
 be improved so far as food value is concerned by reducing meat and increasing 
 milk, vegetables, and fruit. 
 
 The changing of food habits is a gradual process. That there is considerable 
 room for improvement is fairly well recognized. That there has been some 
 improvement through education and other forces is evidenced by Chart VIII. 
 
 ChartM Improvement in Food Habits through Education. Actual expend- 
 iture forMilkyegetablesand Fruit Compared with a Proposed Standard 
 
 FVoposed Standard Percentage Expenditure for Mi Ik, Vegetables and Fruit A.I.C.P 
 
 Actual Percentage Expenditure for Milk,Vegetables and Fruit 
 
 1891-1895 
 
 Average Expenditure of 80 Families 
 
 1914-1915 
 
 Average Expenditure of 92 Families 
 
 1914 
 
 Average of 10 Al.C.P Families-Influenced 
 by a Dietitian 
 
 The upper line in Chart VIII represents an expenditure for milk, vegetables, 
 and fruit as proposed by the Relief Department of the New York Association 
 for Improving the Condition of the Poor. The average of 80 families in 1891- 
 1895 shows an expenditure for these foods of only half what this allowance 
 calls for These families had a high average expenditure for meat. The 
 average of 92 families in 1914-1915 shows a slight increase in the relative 
 expenditure for milk, vegetables, and fruit. The average of 10 famdies which 
 had been strongly influenced by the educational efforts of the New Yo k 
 Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor showed a materially 
 greater increase. 
 
 19 
 
A SUGGESTION FOR THE COMPARISON OF FOOD VALUES 
 
 Discussion of food values may seem confusing to the layman who is told 
 that one food is valuable for certain factors, another for other factors plus 
 some of those already given, and still another for some of those in one, some of 
 those in the other, and has other valuable qualities in addition. If we compare 
 the cost of each type of food with the energy and individual nutrients which it 
 furnishes, it is difficult to decide which expenditures are more economical. 
 Thus in Table 5 (page 9) meat and fish cost one-third of the total expenditure 
 for food and furnished about one-third of the protein, phosphorus, and iron, 
 but only one-sixth of the energy and about one-thirtieth of the calci^lm. Grain 
 products were less than one-fifth of the cost but furnished over one-third of 
 the energy and protein, one-fourth of the iron and phosphorus and about one- 
 sixth of the calcium. Milk, costing less than one-tenth of the total food 
 expenditure, furnished corresponding amounts of energy and protein but over 
 half of the calcium and very little iron. It becomes difficult to judge the rela- 
 tive merits of different types of food as soon as we try to consider the various 
 factors of food value which we now know to be important Certainly one not 
 familiar with food composition and the terminology used is likely to become 
 confused. 
 
 To assist in overcoming this confusion, it has seemed worth while to try to 
 combine these various factors of food value in such a way that the relative 
 values of foods may be expressed by single terms. We have endeavored to do 
 this by means of assigning arbitrary values to each factor on the principle of a 
 score card. In assigning these arbitrary values we have taken into considera- 
 tion the fact that energy is the most frequent deficiency in American dietaries 
 and that the majority of dietaries studied would furnish enough of all other 
 factors if the energy were adequate. We have, therefore, assigned to energy 
 a value of about half its total or combined food value. We have assigned 
 equal values to protein,* calcium, phosphorus and iron. Since any score card 
 has to be made arbitrarily and the results can be only indicative and relative, 
 we have suggested two systems of scoring. The bases of the two systems are 
 as follows: 
 
 If we give to energy a value of 60 on the scale of 100, and to protein, cal- 
 cium, phosphorus, and iron each a value of 10, the combined value ("composite 
 valuation") of a type of food like meat and fish which in the average of 92 
 dietaries furnished 16.5 per cent of the energy, 36.3 per cent of the protein, 
 26.7 per cent of the phosphorus, 3.7 per cent of the calcium, and 31.4 per cent 
 of the iron, would score as given under I in Table 10. 
 
 If a value of 40 were assigned to the energy, and 15 to each of the other 
 factors, meat and fish would score as given under II in Table 10. This system 
 of weighting would give less prominence to sugar and fat, and slightly less to 
 grain products, but place more emphasis on vegetables, milk, meat and eggs. 
 
 * In reality, this amounts to giving a higher valuation to protein since this is counted 
 both as protein and as a part of the energy as well. 
 
 20 
 
Because of this variation in emphasis, it has seemd advisable to give the two 
 systems of weighting throughout for purposes of comparison. 
 
 Table 10. Score for meat and fish 
 
 
 Per cent of 
 Food Value 
 Supplied by 
 Meat and Fish in 
 92 Dietaries 
 
 I 
 
 II 
 
 
 Assigned Values 
 
 Points 
 
 Assigned Values 
 
 Points 
 
 Energy 
 
 16.5 per cent 
 
 60 
 
 9.90 
 
 40 
 
 6.60 
 
 Protein 
 
 36.3 per cent 
 
 10 
 
 3.63 
 
 15 
 
 5.45 
 
 Phosphorus 
 
 26.7 per cent 
 
 10 
 
 2.67 
 
 15 
 
 4.01 
 
 Calcium 
 
 3.7 per cent 
 
 10 
 
 0.37 
 
 15 
 
 0.56 
 
 Iron 
 
 31.4 per cent 
 
 10 
 
 3.14 
 19.71 
 
 15 
 
 4.71 
 21.33 
 
 This gives us a score for the average combined food value of meat as pur- 
 chased by 92 families. Similarly we would find milk to score 13.22 (I) or 
 15.78 (II), according to the values used. The relative value of meat and fish 
 and milk may be expressed by (I) 19.7 for meat against 13.2 for milk, or (II) 
 21.3 for meat against 15.8 for milk. The combined food value ('^composite 
 valuation") for each type of food according to these two different values is 
 given in Table 11. 
 
 Table 11. The relative food value of the various types of food, 
 based on the combined food value 
 
 Type of Food 
 
 Score for the Combined 
 
 Food Value 
 (''Composite Valuation") 
 
 
 I 
 
 II 
 
 Meat and fish 
 
 Eggs 
 
 Milk (and cream) 
 
 Cheese 
 
 Butter and other fats 
 
 Grain products 
 
 Sugar and molasses 
 
 Vegetables 
 
 Fruit 
 
 Nuts 
 
 Miscellaneous 
 
 19.7 
 2.8 
 
 13.2 
 1.9 
 6.3 
 
 33.2 
 6.6 
 
 11.7 
 3.6 
 0.2 
 0.8 
 
 21.3 
 3.4 
 
 15.8 
 2.3 
 4.4 
 
 30.8 
 4.5 
 
 13.1 
 3.4 
 0.2 
 0.8 
 
 21 
 
These figures would seem to suggest that meat scores higher as a food than 
 milk. While this may be true per unit of weight, it is not true per unit of 
 cost. For every cent spent for meat we get in these studies only 0.60 (I) 
 of a point of food value in return, whereas for every cent spent for milk we 
 get 1.45 (I) points of food value, or 0.64 (II) for meat against 1.73 (II) for milk. 
 
 The relation between cost and food value for each type of food is shown in 
 Table 12. 
 
 Table 12. To show the relative return in combined food value for 
 an equal amount of money spent for each type of iood 
 
 Type of Food 
 
 Cost in Per cent 
 
 of Total 
 
 Expenditure 
 
 The Combined Food \'alue Divided by 
 the Per cent of Total Expenditure. 
 
 T 
 
 II 
 
 Meat and fish 
 
 Per cent 
 33.2 
 5.6 
 9.1 
 1.1 
 8.1 
 17.9 
 3.8 
 9.1 
 6.0 
 0.4 
 5.7 
 
 Points 
 0.60 
 0.50 
 1.45 
 1.73 
 0.78 
 1.85 
 1.74 
 1.29 
 0.60 
 0.50 
 0.14 
 
 Points 
 0.64 
 
 Eggs 
 
 0.61 
 
 Milk (and cream) 
 
 Cheese 
 
 1.73 
 2.09 
 
 Butter and other fats 
 
 Grain products 
 
 0.54 
 1.72 
 
 Sugar and molasses 
 
 Vegetables .... 
 
 1.18 
 1.44 
 
 Fruit 
 
 0.57 
 
 Nuts 
 
 0.50 
 
 Miscellaneous 
 
 0.14 
 
 By comparing the composite valuation with the cost it will be seen that 
 if either of these methods of estimating comparative values is at all valid, the 
 money spent in these 92 families for milk and cheese, grain products and veg- 
 etables brought a better relative return in food value and was therefore better 
 invested than the money spent for meats and fish, eggs, and fruit. • 
 
 In making any such comparison, it must be kept prominently in mind (i) 
 that the values assigned to the different factors of food value must necessarily 
 be more or less arbitrarily chosen so that the resulting ''combined value," or 
 ''score value," rests partly on facts and partly on assumptions; (2) that not all 
 the important factors of food value are taken into account in these valuations, 
 the "vitamine values" being wholly omitted from the calculations because as 
 yet we have not the data necessary to permit us to give them numerical ex- 
 pression (it is quite possible that when it becomes feasible to state the "vita- 
 mine values" in numerical terms and give them due weight in the composite 
 
 22 
 
valuation, the expenditures for eggs and butter may appear more economical 
 than is indicated by the above table); (3) that the assumption that a given 
 amount of protein, of phosphorus, of calcium, or of iron, is of the same value 
 in whatever food found, which is certainly not true in detail, and may be very 
 far from true in many cases; (4) that any attempt to reduce foods to a single 
 basis for comparison necessarily tends to obscure these differences which must 
 be kept in mind in order to give each food its proper place in a well balanced 
 dietary. Any comparisons based on the use of such arbirtary valuations as 
 can at present be assigned must therefore be used with much discretion if 
 misconceptions are to be avoided; if so used, however, they may be found 
 serviceable as a guide in the economical choice of food, and to some extent in 
 teaching relative food values. 
 
 While this method may be open to criticism, it seems much fairer to the 
 various foods than stating the relative value in terms of calories only. Chart 
 IX compares the two methods. In one case we have the return per unit of 
 cost in calories and in the other case the return per unit of cost in terms of the 
 "combined" food value ("composite valuation"). Fats and sugars occupy 
 a much more prominent place when calories alone are considered, while milk, 
 cheese, and vegetables rank much higher in the scale where the ash constituents 
 are taken into consideration. 
 
 ChartlX Return in Food Value for Money Spent for Food 
 
 Ratio between a)stand Calories Ratio between Cost and Combined Food Value 
 
 FRUIT ^^^^ 
 
 I 0.6b 
 
 NUT& i^BH"'^'^ 
 
 MISCELUNtOUS |o.U 
 
 portion to cost, grain products second, and '^"'^^^ f™ "^ , „„, comparison 
 view of the lack of ash constituents n, both suga '^"^^^^^;;' .;';;„„,'' 
 on the basis of calories alone is pla.nly not fa.r to m,lk an.l ^cget 
 
 23 
 
Chart X 
 
 Comparison Between Calories an(l'Combined"Food Value per unit of Cost 
 for Each of the Main Types of Food. Averageof 92 Studies. 
 
 MILK -CHEESE 
 GRAIN PRODUCTS 
 
 VEGETABLES 
 
 MEAT.EGGS.NUTS 
 
 FRUIT 
 
 CALORIES 
 
 — I— 
 
 JO 
 
 /oo 
 
 /<50 
 
 ^00 
 
 MILK -CHEESE 
 CRA.IN PRODUCTS 
 VEGETABLES 
 MEAT-EGGS^NUTS 
 FRUIT 
 
 COMBINED FOOD VALUE 
 
 ^0 
 
 100 
 
 t60 
 
 £0C 
 
 Individual articles of food may be calculated to a basis of combined food 
 value in a similar manner. Thus if loo calories be given a value of 40 on the 
 scale of 100, and such quantities of protein, phosphorus, calcium, and iron as 
 should accompany 100 calories in an adequate economical diet be given a 
 value of 15 each, the score for almonds might be ascertained as follows: 
 
 To every 100 calories of almonds there are 3.23 grams of protein, 0.071 
 gram of phosphorus, 0.039 gram of calcium, and 0.0006 gram of iron. If we 
 accept for the standard allowance* of man 75 grams of protein, 1.44 grams of 
 phosphorus, 0.69 gram of calcium, and 15 milligrams of iron, to every loo 
 calories of the 3,000 ordinarily taken as the requirement of a man at ordinary 
 labor, there should be 2.5 grams of protein, 0.048 gram of phosphorus, 0.02 
 gram of calcium and 0.0005 gram of iron. Then to every 100 calories of 
 almonds there is 1.3 (3.23 divided by 2.5) the amount of protein required to 
 ''balance" the energy value; 1.48 the amount of phosphorus, 1.85 the amount 
 of calcium, and 1.2 the amount of iron. Scoring these as indicated above, we 
 have the score value for almonds as follows: 
 
 Assumed Vakies 
 
 Score 
 
 
 Points 
 
 Calories (100) 40 
 
 40 
 
 Protein 1.3 x 15 
 
 19.5 
 
 Phosphorus 1.48 x 15 
 
 22.2 
 
 Calcium 1.85 x 15 
 
 27.8 
 
 Iron 1.20 x 15 
 
 18.0 
 
 
 127.5 
 
 * See Page 6 
 
 24 
 
Since a pound of almonds contains 16.14 loo-calorie portions, then a pound 
 of almonds has a score value of 2058 (127.5 multiplied by 16.14). Table 14 
 gives the score value of the common typical foods: 
 
 Table 14. Score Value (Composite Valuation) per pound of 8ome 
 common typical foods. 
 
 Meat — Beef, medium fat , 
 Bacon 
 
 Fish — Cod, salt . . , 
 Salmon, canned . 
 
 Eggs 
 
 Cheese — Cottage 
 Hard 
 
 Milk — Condensed, sweetened 
 " unsweetened 
 
 Skimmed 
 
 Whole 
 
 Butter 
 
 Cream— 10% fat . 
 40% fat 
 
 Lard . . . . 
 OUve oil 
 
 Sugar — Brown . 
 
 White 
 
 Corn syrup . . 
 Maple syrup. 
 Molasses. . . . 
 
 Grain Products — 
 
 Barley, pearled 
 
 Bread, entire wheat. 
 
 " graham 
 
 " white 
 
 rye 
 
 Cornmeal 
 
 Crackers 
 
 Cornflakes 
 
 Cream of Wheat . 
 
 Farina 
 
 Force 
 
 Flour, graham . . 
 
 '* rye 
 
 " white. . . . 
 
 Hominy 
 
 Macaroni 
 
 Oatmeal 
 
 Rice 
 
 Shredded Wheat 
 Tapioca 
 
 1480 
 1750 
 
 1310 
 930 
 
 1092 
 
 1287 
 4460 
 
 2005 
 
 1556 
 
 514 
 
 612 
 
 2320 
 
 869 
 1342 
 
 2450 
 
 2449 
 
 1231 
 1090 
 960 
 1080 
 1978 
 
 n 
 
 1630 
 1324 
 
 1710 
 1074 
 
 1341 
 
 1688 
 5690 
 
 2267 
 
 1955 
 
 688 
 
 761 
 
 1744 
 
 862 
 1150 
 
 1645 
 
 1630 
 
 983 
 725 
 800 
 974 
 2315 
 
 1513 
 
 1470 
 
 1325 
 
 1429 
 
 1409 
 
 1525 
 
 1098 
 
 1060 
 
 1125 
 
 nil 
 
 1444 
 
 1360 
 
 1579 
 
 1433 
 
 1270 
 
 1090 
 
 1460 
 
 1370 
 
 1418 
 
 1308 
 
 2078 
 
 2316 
 
 2001 
 
 2188 
 
 1502 
 
 1459 
 
 1372 
 
 1257 
 
 1301 
 
 1147 
 
 1502 
 
 1444 
 
 2245 
 
 2465 
 
 1289 
 
 1139 
 
 2028 
 
 2214 
 
 1262 
 
 1091 
 
 Vegetables — 
 
 Asparagus, fresh . . . 
 Beans, dry, white. . 
 
 " " limas. . 
 
 " fresh limas 
 
 " string 
 
 Beets 
 
 Cabbage 
 
 Carrots 
 
 CauUflower 
 
 Celery 
 
 Corn, canned 
 
 Cucumbers 
 
 Lentils 
 
 Lettuce 
 
 Onions 
 
 Peas, dry 
 
 " fresh 
 
 Parsnips 
 
 Potatoes, sweet . . 
 " white. . 
 
 Radishes 
 
 Rhubarb 
 
 Spinach 
 
 Squash 
 
 Tomatoes 
 
 Turnips 
 
 Fruit — 
 
 Apples, fresh . 
 " dry... 
 
 Bananas 
 
 Dates 
 
 Figs 
 
 Grapefruit. . 
 
 Grapes 
 
 Lemons 
 
 OUves 
 
 Oranges , 
 Peaches, fresh. 
 
 Pears 
 
 Pineapple . . . . 
 
 Plums 
 
 Prunes 
 
 Raisins 
 
 Strawberries . 
 
 Nuts 
 Almonds 
 Cocoa . . . 
 Filberts . 
 Peanuts 
 Pecans. 
 Walnuts. 
 
 279 
 
 2767 
 
 2380 
 363 
 374 
 246 
 285 
 278 
 487 
 256 
 497 
 125 
 
 2834 
 223 
 263 
 
 2510 
 400 
 349 
 399 
 377 
 161 
 170 
 576 
 130 
 162 
 246 
 
 175 
 
 1075 
 
 254 
 
 1298 
 
 1667 
 
 167 
 
 286 
 
 199 
 
 1000 
 
 209 
 
 169 
 
 236 
 
 234 
 
 345 
 
 1144 
 
 1290 
 
 293 
 
 1900 
 2900 
 1676 
 2010 
 1556 
 798 
 
 n 
 
 368 
 
 3367 
 780 
 420 
 472 
 286 
 367 
 338 
 661 
 350 
 523 
 153 
 
 3464 
 299 
 295 
 
 2960 
 475 
 405 
 374 
 414 
 195 
 224 
 810 
 144 
 192 
 307 
 
 156 
 
 955 
 
 236 
 
 1240 
 
 1782 
 
 169 
 
 266 
 
 228 
 
 1004 
 
 228 
 
 177 
 
 228 
 
 253 
 
 337 
 
 1135 
 
 1235 
 
 355 
 
 2045 
 3231 
 1752 
 2078 
 1440 
 768 
 
 25 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 Table T. Number of ounces of food used per man per day in each of 
 four groups where 92 dietaries are divided on the basis of expenditure. 
 
 
 Group I 
 
 Cost per Man 
 per Day— 
 19.2 Cents 
 
 Group II 
 
 Cost per Man 
 ])er Day — 
 28.2 Cents 
 
 Group III 
 
 Cost per Man 
 per Day — 
 34.7 Cents 
 
 Group IV 
 
 Cost per Man 
 per Day — 
 49.4 Cents 
 
 Meat and fish— Total 
 
 Beef 
 
 Ounces 
 
 6.74 
 2.96 
 0.39 
 0.88 
 0.56 
 0.29 
 1.66 
 
 0.78 
 
 0.15 
 
 7.80 
 7.49 
 0.31 
 
 0.09 
 
 0.64 
 
 11.51 
 9.58 
 
 1.80 
 
 11.78 
 7.80 
 0.30 
 
 2.48 
 0.04 
 
 0.01 
 
 0.32 
 
 Ounces 
 
 7.34 
 2.87 
 0.42 
 0.67 
 1.36 
 0.89 
 1.13 
 
 1.39 
 
 0.37 
 
 9.07 
 8.94 
 0.13 
 
 0.06 
 
 1.15 
 
 11.97 
 7.37 
 
 2.97 
 
 13.01 
 8.11 
 0.41 
 
 5.55 
 0.21 
 
 0.06 
 
 0.45 
 
 Ounces 
 
 9.59 
 4.46 
 0.50 
 0.96 
 1.81 
 0.80 
 1.06 
 
 1.40 
 
 0.20 
 
 10.45 
 10.25 
 0.20 
 
 0.02 
 
 1.36 
 
 14.29 
 
 8.89 
 
 3.09 
 
 13.97 
 8.04 
 0.33 
 
 8.37 
 0.11 
 
 0.19 
 
 0.72 
 
 • 
 
 Ounces 
 
 11.64 
 4.09 
 
 Veal 
 
 0.50 
 
 Lamb and mutton 
 
 Pork 
 
 1.64 
 2.12 
 
 Fowl and game 
 
 Fish 
 
 1.69 
 1.60 
 
 Eggs 
 
 1.80 
 
 Cheese 
 
 0.45 
 
 Milk— Total 
 
 14.73 
 
 Fresh 
 
 14.53 
 
 Condensed 
 
 Cream .... 
 
 0.20 
 
 0.63 
 
 Butter and other fats .... 
 
 Grain products — Total . . . 
 Bread 
 
 2.42 
 
 14.03 
 7.06 
 
 Sugar. . 
 
 3.87 
 
 Vegetables— Total 
 
 Potatoes 
 
 18.07 
 10.58 
 
 Dry vegetables 
 
 Fruit— Total 
 
 0.36 
 
 11.63 
 
 Drv fruit 
 
 0.33 
 
 Nuts 
 
 0.29 
 
 Coffee and tea 
 
 0.83 
 
 
 
 Total food — Ounces 
 
 44.10 
 
 53.39 
 
 63.65 
 
 80.49 
 
 26 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 Table II. 92 Dietaries arranged according to the amount of meat 
 t>sed, and averaged in groups of 23 each. 
 
 Group 
 
 Amount of 
 
 Meat per Man 
 
 per Day 
 
 Cost of Total 
 
 Food per Man 
 
 per Day 
 
 Calories 
 
 Cost of Total 
 
 Food per 
 3000 Calories 
 
 Amount of 
 Meat 
 
 Adjusted in 
 Proportion to 
 3000 Calories 
 
 
 Ounces 
 
 Cents 
 
 
 Cents 
 
 Otinces 
 
 I 
 
 5.0 
 
 24.6 
 
 2548 
 
 29.1 
 
 5.9 
 
 II 
 
 7.3 
 
 30.5 
 
 2857 
 
 31.7 
 
 7.7 
 
 III 
 
 9.5 
 
 32.8 
 
 2900 
 
 34.8 
 
 9.8 
 
 IV 
 
 13.5 
 
 44.7 
 
 3397 
 
 39.9 
 
 11.9 
 
 Table III. 92 Dietaries arranged according to the amount of grain 
 products used, and averaged in 4 groups. 
 
 Group 
 
 Amount of 
 
 Grain Products 
 
 per Man per 
 
 Day 
 
 Cost of Total 
 
 Food per Man 
 
 per Day 
 
 Calorics 
 
 Cost of Total 
 
 Food per 
 3000 Calories 
 
 Amount of 
 
 Grain Products 
 
 .\d justed in 
 
 Proportion to 
 
 3000 Calories 
 
 
 Ounces 
 
 Cents 
 
 
 Cents 
 
 Ounces 
 
 I 
 
 7.9 
 
 31.6 
 
 2473 
 
 37.9 
 
 9.6 
 
 II 
 
 10.8 
 
 30.7 
 
 2556 
 
 35.1 
 
 12.7 
 
 III 
 
 13.9 
 
 33.8 
 
 3061 
 
 32.5 
 
 13.6 
 
 IV 
 
 19.2 
 
 36.5 
 
 3613 
 
 29.7 
 
 16.0 
 
 Table IV. 92 Dietaries arranged according to the amount of milk 
 used, and compared with the calcium. 
 
 Group 
 
 Amount of 
 Milk Used per 
 Man per Day 
 
 Amount of 
 Calcium per 
 Man per Day 
 
 I 
 
 II 
 III 
 IV 
 
 Ounces 
 
 4.11 
 
 8.68 
 
 11.95 
 
 19.29 
 
 Grants 
 0.473 
 0.616 
 0.747 
 1.474 
 
 27 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 Table V.^ To show the range of prices, the average price paid by each 
 
 of four groups (92 dietaries divided on the basis of cost) and the 
 
 number of families using the most common articles of food. 
 
 MEAT— FISH 
 
 Beef, uncooked 
 
 " cooked 
 
 " corned 
 
 '' dried 
 
 Brains, tripe, kidney, 
 
 liver 
 
 Veal 
 
 Liver 
 
 Lamb — mutton 
 
 Pork 
 
 " cooked 
 
 Bacon 
 
 Salt pork 
 
 Sausages 
 
 Fish, fresh 
 
 Canned, pickled 
 
 Salt, dried and smoked 
 
 Smoked 
 
 Fowl 
 
 DAIRY PRODUCTS 
 
 Eggs 
 
 Milk, fresh 
 
 " condensed ... 
 Cream 
 
 CHEESE 
 American . . 
 Cottage . . . 
 Cream. . . . 
 Neufchatel 
 Parmesan . 
 Roquefort . 
 Swiss 
 
 FATS 
 
 Butter 
 
 Lard and other fats. 
 Oil 
 
 SUGAR 
 
 Sugar 
 
 Corn syrup . 
 
 Range 
 
 of 
 Prices 
 
 per 
 Pound 
 
 Cents 
 
 12-32 
 36-70 
 10-14 
 34-60 
 
 8-15 
 16-40 
 
 10-36 
 10-30 
 23-40 
 20-40 
 15-24 
 15-40 
 
 4-25 
 10-36 
 
 9-26 
 18-80 
 15-28 
 
 25-60* 
 6-1 If 
 10-16 
 
 10-30t 
 
 20-28 
 9-12 
 
 38-40 
 20 
 
 50-54 
 
 40-44 
 40 
 
 30-48 
 12-20 
 14-60 
 
 5- 8 
 
 6- 7 
 
 Group I 
 
 Spending 
 19.2 Cents 
 per Man 
 per Day 
 
 No. 
 
 of 
 
 Times 
 
 Used 
 
 3 
 6 
 
 '7 
 9 
 
 6 
 3 
 2 
 
 18 
 8 
 
 10 
 
 19 
 
 20 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 21 
 7 
 4 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 Price 
 Paid 
 
 Cents 
 
 19.4 
 39.0 
 10,14 
 
 13 
 19 
 
 18 
 22 
 
 27 
 16 
 16,22 
 8 
 19 
 16 
 
 18 
 
 28* 
 6t 
 11.5 
 10.5 J 
 
 23 
 9 
 
 20 
 50 
 
 40 
 
 40 
 
 16 
 
 14,44 
 
 Group II 
 
 Spending 
 
 28.2 Cents 
 
 per Man 
 
 per Day 
 
 No. 
 
 of 
 
 Times 
 
 Used 
 
 17 
 5 
 7 
 5 
 
 10 
 13 
 4 
 6 
 4 
 9 
 
 23 
 
 22 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 10 
 
 5 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 21 
 
 13 
 
 6 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 Price 
 Paid 
 
 Cents 
 
 20 
 40,60 
 
 60 
 
 11 
 21 
 
 19^5 
 18.0 
 25.0 
 
 26 
 
 18 
 
 24 
 
 12 
 
 23 
 
 14 
 
 27 
 
 19 
 
 32* 
 8t 
 13 
 15t 
 
 22 
 10 
 40 
 
 52 
 
 40 
 
 38 
 
 15 
 
 21,42 
 
 Group III 
 
 Spending 
 
 34.7 Cents 
 
 per Man 
 
 per Day 
 
 No. 
 
 of 
 
 Times 
 
 Used 
 
 23 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 7 
 
 9 
 17 
 
 8 
 7 
 3 
 
 12 
 5 
 4 
 1 
 6 
 
 21 
 
 23 
 7 
 1 
 
 20 
 
 12 
 
 5 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 Price 
 Paid 
 
 Cents 
 
 21 
 40 
 
 35 
 
 10 
 24 
 
 2L8 
 21 
 38 
 29 
 17 
 23 
 11 
 23 
 23 
 24 
 20 
 
 34* 
 8t 
 14 
 20t 
 
 29 
 10 
 39 
 20 
 50 
 
 40 
 
 39 
 15 
 
 22,38 
 
 Group IV 
 
 Spending 
 
 49.4 Cents 
 
 per Man 
 
 per Day 
 
 No. 
 
 of 
 
 Times 
 
 Used 
 
 2 
 5 
 1 
 
 14 
 
 17 
 8 
 
 11 
 2 
 8 
 
 16 
 8 
 4 
 6 
 
 12 
 
 23 
 
 23 
 
 4 
 
 10 
 
 23 
 
 13 
 
 9 
 
 23 
 2 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 Price 
 Paid 
 
 Cents 
 
 24 
 40,70 
 
 34 
 
 12 
 29 
 30 
 21 
 20 
 40 
 28 
 18,24 
 25 
 19 
 24 
 12 
 53 
 21 
 
 43* 
 9t 
 11 
 20t 
 
 25 
 10 
 40 
 20 
 52 
 40,44 
 40 
 
 39 
 
 18 
 
 32,50 
 
 6 
 6,7 
 
 * Price per dozen, t Price psr quart, t Price per pint. 
 
 28 
 
TABLE v.— Continued 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 Range 
 
 of 
 Prices 
 
 per 
 Pound 
 
 Group I 
 
 Spending 
 19.2 Cents 
 per Man 
 per Day 
 
 No. 
 
 of 
 
 Times 
 
 Used 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 Price 
 Paid 
 
 Group II 
 
 Spending 
 
 28.2 Cents 
 
 per Man 
 
 per Day 
 
 No. 
 
 of 
 
 Times 
 
 Used 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 Price 
 Paid 
 
 Group III 
 
 Spending 
 
 34.7 Cents 
 
 per Man 
 
 per Day 
 
 No. 
 
 of 
 
 Times 
 
 Used 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 Price 
 Paid 
 
 Group IV 
 
 Sf)ending 
 
 49.4 Cents 
 
 per Man 
 
 per Day 
 
 No. 
 
 of 
 
 Times 
 
 Used 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 Price 
 Paid 
 
 GRAIN PRODUCTS 
 
 Barley 
 
 Bread, white 
 
 Rolls 
 
 Cake and cookies . 
 
 Crackers 
 
 Cornflakes 
 
 Cornmeal 
 
 Farina 
 
 Flour 
 
 Macaroni 
 
 Oatmeal 
 
 Rice 
 
 VEGETABLES 
 Beans, dry 
 
 " fresh 
 
 " string 
 
 Beets 
 
 Cabbage 
 
 Carrots 
 
 Celery 
 
 Corn, canned 
 
 Lentils 
 
 Lettuce 
 
 Onions 
 
 Peas, canned 
 
 " dried 
 
 " fresh 
 
 Potatoes, sweet. . . 
 " white. . . 
 
 Spinach 
 
 Tomatoes, canned. 
 
 fresh... 
 
 Turnips 
 
 FRUIT 
 
 Apples 
 
 Bananas 
 
 Currants, dry. 
 
 Dates 
 
 Figs 
 
 Grapes 
 
 Grapefruit 
 
 Jam 
 
 Jelly 
 
 Cents 
 
 6-10 
 4-10 
 7-16 
 8-50 
 9-40 
 15-25 
 3-10 
 5-12 
 4- 6 
 6-20 
 5-12 
 6-10 
 
 5-10 
 6-15 
 5-10 
 2- 4 
 1- 5 
 2-10 
 5-22 
 6-12 
 7- 9 
 5-40 
 
 1- 8 
 5-17 
 6-12 
 3-12 
 
 2- 5 
 
 1- 4 
 2-10 
 4-15 
 2-20 
 
 2- 5 
 
 1-12 
 
 3- 8 
 
 10-13 
 
 10-20 
 
 15-20 
 
 4-28 
 
 4-10 
 
 18-30 
 
 10-20 
 
 Cents 
 
 8 
 
 5 
 
 9 
 17 
 22 
 
 4.4 
 8 
 6 
 
 9 
 6,9 
 
 '2 
 2 
 3 
 
 15 
 2.1 
 
 2 
 
 1.6 
 
 7,10 
 
 5 
 4 
 2 
 
 2.6 
 4 
 
 24 
 10 
 
 8 
 2 
 
 '4 
 4 
 5 
 2 
 3 
 1 
 7 
 
 19 
 3 
 3 
 
 6 
 23 
 3 
 7 
 6 
 3 
 
 Cents 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 11 
 15 
 12 
 25 
 
 3 
 
 10 
 4.4 
 10 
 
 5 
 
 9 
 
 2.7 
 2.7 
 2.6 
 
 5 
 10 
 
 7 
 15 
 
 3 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8.6 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2.5 
 
 4 
 
 1.5 
 
 22 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2.7 
 
 17 
 
 5.5 
 
 6 
 
 10.13 
 
 
 10 
 
 1 
 
 20 
 
 
 8 
 
 2 
 
 
 3 
 
 24 
 
 3 
 
 12 
 
 2 
 
 22 
 
 11 
 
 12 
 
 13 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 16 
 
 9 
 
 13 
 
 11 
 
 Cents 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 9 
 
 14 
 
 10 
 
 15 
 
 3 
 
 9 
 
 4.6 
 
 10 
 
 7 
 
 9 
 
 8 
 7,8 
 
 6 
 2.6 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 11 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 15 
 2.5 
 8.5 
 8.0 
 
 7 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 2.5,5 
 
 2.9 
 4 
 
 10 
 
 7 
 
 18 
 12 
 
 2 
 
 22 
 
 15 
 
 21 
 
 10 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 21 
 
 11 
 
 14 
 
 16 
 
 16 
 4 
 3 
 6 
 11 
 10 
 9 
 8 
 1 
 
 13 
 13 
 6 
 3 
 2 
 9 
 23 
 2 
 
 5 
 4 
 
 Cents 
 
 9 
 
 7 
 
 9 
 
 16 
 
 16 
 
 19 
 
 6 
 
 9 
 
 4 
 
 10 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 12 
 
 7 
 2.5 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 11 
 10 
 
 7 
 18 
 
 5 
 12 
 
 8 
 6,12 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 5,7 
 
 7 
 
 9 
 2.5 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 10 
 
 20 
 
 15,20 
 
 14 
 
 6 
 25 
 15 
 
 29 
 
TABLE v.— Continued 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 
 Range 
 
 of 
 
 Prices 
 
 per 
 
 Pound 
 
 Group I 
 
 Spending 
 19.2 Cents 
 per Man 
 per Day 
 
 Group II 
 
 Spending 
 
 28.2 Cents 
 
 per Man 
 
 per Day 
 
 Group III 
 
 Spending 
 
 34.7 Cents 
 
 per INIan 
 
 per Day 
 
 Group IV 
 
 Spending 
 
 49.4 Cents 
 
 per Man 
 
 per Day 
 
 
 No. 
 
 of 
 
 Times 
 
 Used 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 Price 
 Paid 
 
 No. 
 
 of 
 
 Times 
 
 Used 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 Price 
 Paid 
 
 No. 
 
 of 
 
 Times 
 
 Used 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 Price 
 Paid 
 
 No. 
 •of 
 Times 
 
 Used 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 Price 
 Paid 
 
 YKVIT— Continued 
 Oranges 
 
 Cents 
 
 3-25 
 8-16 
 6-16 
 4-25 
 5- 8 
 10-16 
 
 16 
 
 20 
 18-24 
 20-80 
 20-45 
 20-80 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 3 
 5 
 1 
 2 
 
 4 
 15 
 15 
 
 Cents 
 
 3,6 
 
 8 
 8 
 5 
 8 
 12,16 
 
 27 
 26 
 36 
 
 13 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 1 
 6 
 
 4 
 14 
 19 
 15 
 
 Cents 
 
 8 
 8 
 6,8 
 6 
 5 
 12 
 
 24 
 
 32 
 27 
 44 
 
 12 
 3 
 4 
 4 
 1 
 3 
 
 '7 
 18 
 15 
 
 Cents 
 
 8 
 12 
 
 7 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 12 
 
 16 
 
 42 
 29 
 
 45 
 
 17 
 5 
 4 
 2 
 
 8 
 
 "3 
 7 
 
 14 
 21 
 20 
 
 Cents 
 7 
 
 Peaches, canned 
 
 fresh 
 
 Pears 
 
 9.5 
 
 7 
 
 5,25 
 
 Plums . . 
 
 
 Raisins . . 
 
 14 
 
 NUTS 
 
 Filberts 
 
 
 Peanuts 
 
 20 
 
 Walnuts 
 
 22 
 
 Cocoa and chocolate 
 
 Coffee 
 
 35 
 30 
 
 Tea 
 
 52 
 
 
 
 Table VI.— Percentage composition of foods analyzed in connection 
 
 with the dietary study and metabolism experiments. 
 
 (Figures given are on edible portion.) 
 
 
 
 
 
 Carbo- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Pro- 
 
 
 hy- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Mois- 
 
 tein 
 
 Fat 
 
 drate 
 
 Total 
 
 CaO 
 
 Ca 
 
 PoO, 
 
 P 
 
 Fe 
 
 
 ture 
 
 (Nx 
 6.25) 
 
 
 (By 
 Differ- 
 ence) 
 
 Ash 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 MEAT 
 
 Per 
 
 Per 
 
 Per 
 
 Per 
 
 Per 
 
 Per 
 
 Per 
 
 Per 
 
 Per 
 
 Per 
 
 Beef, lean, round 
 
 cent 
 
 cent 
 
 cent 
 
 cent 
 
 cent 
 
 cent 
 
 cent 
 
 cent 
 
 cent 
 
 cent 
 
 (free from visi- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ble fat) 
 
 
 20.55 
 
 
 
 
 0.015 
 
 0.011 
 
 0.443 
 
 0.193 
 
 
 Beef liver 
 
 67.87 
 
 20.84 
 
 4.74 
 
 
 1.13 
 
 0.008 
 
 0.006 
 
 0.927 
 
 0.405 
 
 
 Fowl 
 
 75.04 
 68.40 
 
 21.46 
 18.85 
 
 3.00 
 
 4.57 
 
 
 0.96 
 
 7.35 
 
 0.029 
 0.043 
 
 0.021 
 0.031 
 
 0.473 
 0.385 
 
 0.207 
 0.168 
 
 
 Ham, smoked .... 
 
 
 Mutton chops 
 
 74.90 
 
 19.31 
 
 4.38 
 
 
 1.17 
 
 0.023 
 
 0.016 
 
 0.547 
 
 0.239 
 
 
 FISH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Blue 
 
 77.34 
 
 20.45 
 
 0.76 
 
 0.34 
 
 1.11 
 
 0.032 
 
 0.023 
 
 0.483 
 
 0.211 
 
 
 Cod, fresh 
 
 80.67 
 
 18.22 
 
 0.15 
 
 
 1.12 
 
 0.014 
 
 0.010 
 
 0.465 
 
 0.203 
 
 
 Halibut . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .0007 
 
 Herring, fresh 
 
 .0016 
 
 Mackerel 
 
 66.91 
 
 20.34 
 
 12.45 
 
 
 1.35 
 
 0.015 
 
 0.011 
 
 0.692 
 
 0.302 
 
 
 30 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 TABLE VI.— Continued 
 
 Mois- 
 ture 
 
 FISH 
 
 {Continued) 
 
 Perch 
 
 Porgies 
 
 Salmon, canned 
 
 fresh.. 
 
 Tuna, canned. . 
 
 White, smoked. 
 
 Lobster, canned. . 
 Oysters 
 
 CHEESE 
 
 American 
 
 Cottage 
 
 Parmesan 
 
 Swiss 
 
 DAIRY 
 PRODUCTS 
 
 Milk 
 
 Cream (31% fat) 
 Butter 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 79.10 
 59.12 
 69.94 
 60.67 
 68.20 
 
 GRAIN 
 
 PRODUCTS 
 Bread, Boston 
 
 brown 
 
 Bread, Graham. . . 
 
 " entire 
 
 wheat 
 
 Bread, rye 
 
 " white 
 
 Bran 
 
 Buckwheat 
 
 Cornflakes 
 
 Cornstarch 
 
 Cream of Wheat. 
 
 Farina 
 
 Flour, graham. . 
 
 " rye 
 
 " white .... 
 
 " entire 
 
 wheat 
 
 Force. 
 
 Macaroni 
 
 Pretzels 
 
 Shredded Wheat. 
 Tapioca — sago . . 
 Wafers — cheese. . 
 Fig Newtons .... 
 Social Teas 
 
 Pro- 
 tein 
 (Nx 
 6.25) 
 
 72.68 
 24.85 
 29.93 
 
 30:85 
 
 32.44 
 
 12.20 
 
 10.90 
 
 9.64 
 
 12.47 
 
 5.95 
 11.18 
 10.29 
 
 11.60 
 7.05 
 
 11.50 
 5.66 
 
 Fat 
 
 Carbo- 
 hy- 
 drate 
 (By 
 Differ 
 ence) 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 18.25 
 23.20 
 20.90 
 26.60 
 20.86 
 
 28.32 
 21.34 
 34.86 
 30.85 
 
 3.11 
 0.59 
 
 5.97 
 
 8.72 
 9.22 
 
 0.47 
 11.84 
 11.34 
 
 11.03 
 
 9.61 
 12.67 
 10.97 
 11.12 
 
 0.20 
 14.90 
 
 4.16 
 
 6.50 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 1.74 
 16.23 
 
 7.86 
 11.35 
 
 7.30 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 0.21 
 
 0.48 
 28.86 
 31.95 
 
 6.29 
 
 0.28 
 
 0.41 
 1.12 
 1.23 
 
 1.72 
 
 1.13 
 0.64 
 0.37 
 
 0.23 
 
 12.20 
 
 4.69 
 
 9.94 
 
 Total 
 Ash 
 
 4.22 
 5.48 
 
 2.87 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 1.26 
 1.93 
 1.09 
 2.16 
 3.70 
 
 53.98 
 
 56.50 
 
 86.72 
 
 75.78 
 
 81.32 
 74.82 
 73.51 
 
 87.71 
 63.25 
 78.47 
 76.87 
 
 CaO 
 
 1.28 
 5.95 
 4.40 
 
 Ca 
 
 2.92 
 
 2.06 
 
 0.20 
 0.36 
 
 2.00 
 0.69 
 4.86 
 
 0.26 
 2.60 
 1.18 
 1.03 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 0.076 
 0.019 
 0.023 
 0.009 
 0.031 
 
 0.096 
 
 1.184 
 0.140 
 1.540 
 1.520 
 
 0.166 
 0.144 
 0.019 
 
 0.180 
 
 0.045 
 
 0.033 
 0.029 
 
 0.025 
 0.030 
 
 0.057 
 0.035 
 
 0.030 
 
 0.058 
 0.024 
 0.474* 
 0.1121 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 0.054 
 0.014 
 0.016 
 0.006 
 
 P.O, 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 0.536 
 0.531 
 0.589 
 0.831 
 
 0.022 0.62 
 
 0.069 
 
 0.846 
 0.100 
 1.101 
 1.086 
 
 0.119 
 0.082 
 0.014 
 
 0.129 
 
 0.032 
 
 0.024 
 0.021 
 
 0.018 
 0.021 
 
 0.041 
 0.025 
 
 0.022 
 
 0.041 
 0.017 
 0.339- 
 ().()80t 
 
 1.392 
 0.747 
 2.001 
 1.860 
 
 0.213 
 0.040 
 
 0.465 
 
 0.338 
 0.201 
 
 0.053 
 0.112 
 0.133 
 0.355 
 0.286 
 0.833 
 0.590 
 
 0.707 
 0.856 
 0.344 
 0.469 
 0.740 
 0.207 
 0.720 
 0.254 
 0.362 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 0.234 
 0.232 
 0.257 
 0.363 
 0.274 
 
 0.608 
 0.326 
 0.874 
 0.812 
 
 0.093 
 0.018 
 
 0.203 
 
 0.148 
 0.088 
 
 0.231 
 0.049 
 0.058 
 0.155 
 0.125 
 0.364 
 0.258 
 
 0.309 
 0.374 
 0.150 
 0.205 
 0.323 
 0.090 
 0.314 
 0.111 
 0.158 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 .0014 
 
 .0081 
 
 0013 
 
 .0012 
 
 .0003 
 
 .0114 
 .0011 
 
 .0008 
 .0008 
 .0036 
 .0011 
 .0007 
 
 .0035 
 
 .0011 
 
 .0042 
 .0016 
 
 *^d^ulated from the protein in cheese and crackers. 
 t Calculated from the protein in figs and crackers. 
 
 31 
 
TABLE .VI.— Continued 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 Mois- 
 ture 
 
 Pro- 
 tein 
 
 (Nx 
 6.25) 
 
 Fat 
 
 Carbo 
 hy- 
 drate 
 (By 
 Differ 
 ence) 
 
 Total 
 Ash 
 
 CaO 
 
 Ca 
 
 P«0, 
 
 SUGAR 
 
 Sugar, brown (mo 
 
 lasses) 
 
 Corn syrup 
 
 Maple syrup. . . . 
 
 MOLASSES 
 
 Barbadoes 
 
 New Orleans .... 
 Porto Rican .... 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 4.90 
 
 VEGETABLES 
 Artichokes,French 
 Beans, dry, lima 
 " fresh, 
 
 string 
 
 Brussels sprouts. 
 
 Carrots 
 
 Cauliflower 
 
 Cucumbers 
 
 Egg plant 
 
 Kohlrabi 
 
 Parsnips 
 
 Peas, dry 
 
 Peppers, green . . 
 Potatoes, sweet.. 
 
 Rhubarb 
 
 Tomatoes 
 
 FRUIT 
 
 Apples 
 
 Bananas 
 
 Grapefruit 
 
 Grape juice, I. . . 
 
 " II.. 
 
 Grapes, Tokay*. 
 
 " Concord* 
 
 Orange juice .... 
 
 JELLY 
 (Commercial) 
 
 Currant 
 
 Strawberry 
 
 NUTS 
 
 Almondsf 
 
 Peanuts 
 
 Peanut butter . . 
 Pecans 
 
 MISCEL- 
 LANEOUS 
 Coffee infusion. 
 Gelatine 
 
 82.80 
 
 93.04 
 
 94.20 
 
 79.90 
 
 6.11 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 0.20 
 
 3.41 
 
 1.03 
 
 24.56 
 0.73 
 
 0.19 
 
 0.43 
 0.28 
 
 0.62 
 
 29.81 
 11.28 
 
 0.12 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 0.51 
 
 0.11 
 
 0.10 
 
 0.07 
 
 70.62 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 93.50 
 
 11.97 
 
 5.34 
 
 4.59 
 
 10.37 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 1.40 
 
 1.28 
 
 0.38 
 
 1.62 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 0.107 
 0.072 
 0.156 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 0.076 
 0.051 
 0.112 
 
 0.043 0.245 
 0.520 0.372 
 0.730 0.522 
 
 0.057 
 0.085 
 
 0.044 
 
 0.49 0.016 
 
 0.076 
 0.008 
 
 0.009 
 
 0.013 
 0.018 
 
 0.016 
 
 0.020 
 0.018 
 
 0.300 
 
 0.060 
 0.121 
 
 0.002 
 0.350 
 
 0.041 
 0.061 
 
 0.031 
 
 0.011 
 
 0.054 
 0.006 
 
 0.006 
 
 0.009 
 0.013 
 
 0.011 
 
 0.014 
 0.013 
 
 0.214 
 
 0.043 
 0.086 
 
 0.001 
 0.250 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 0.085 
 0.025 
 0.002 
 
 0.114 
 0.128 
 0.127 
 
 0.228 
 
 0.078 
 
 0.874 
 0.060 
 
 0.025 
 
 0.028 
 0.020 
 
 0.045 
 
 0.019 
 0.018 
 
 1.071 
 0.825 
 0.820 
 0.767 
 
 0.007 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 
 •0.037 
 0.011 
 0.001 
 
 0.050 
 0.056 
 0.055 
 
 0.100 
 
 0.260 0.114 
 
 0.034 
 
 0.382 
 0.026 
 
 0.011 
 
 0.012 
 0.009 
 
 0.020 
 
 0.008 
 0.008 
 
 0.468 
 0.360 
 0.358 
 0.335 
 
 0.003 
 
 * Tokay grapes analyzed with skins; Concord without skii 
 t Almonds were not blanched. 
 
 32 
 
Additional copies of this publication may be obtained 
 from the New York Association for Improving the 
 Condition of the Poor, 105 East 22nd Street, New lork 
 City, at 25 cents per copy. 
 
RETURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT 
 TO--^ 202 Main Library 
 
 LOAN PERIOD 1 
 ^ HOME USE 
 
 2 : 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 ( 
 
 b 
 
 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 
 
 Renewals and Recharges may be made 4 days prior to the due date. 
 
 Books may be Renewed by calling 642-3405. 
 
 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
 
 J0L21W- 
 
 r 
 
 
 RECEIYED &\ 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 
 
 JUL fi 1986 
 
 
 
 QRCUUTION DEPl 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 j 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY 
 
 FORM NO. DD6, BERKELEY, CA 94720 
 
 PS r 
 
GENERAL LIBRARY - U.C. BERKELEY 
 
 ^C^^uns 
 
 BODDflblMMki