NationalLibraryOfScotland/medical-history-of-british-india huggingface dataset:
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF RINDERPEST VIRUS IN GOATS
39
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do. . . . .
Goat. . . .
Do. . . . .
Goat . . . .
Do. . . . .
Goat . . . .
Do. . . . .
Goat . . . .
Do. . . . .
Goat . . . .
Do. . . . .
Goat . . . .
Do.
.
.
.
.
Goat . . . .
Do. . . . .
Goat . . . .
Do. . . . .
33
34
37
38
42
43
46
47
51
52
55
56
59
60
63
64
67
68
Temperature and
Diarrhœa.
Not pronounced.
.
Diarrhœa . .
Temperature and
Diarrhœa.
Temperature . .
Temperature and
Diarrhœa.
Not pronounced.
Do. . .
Temperature and
Diarrhœa.
Do. . .
Temperature and
Diarrhœa.
Not pronounced. .
Temperature . .
Not pronounced. .
Not pronounced .
Temperature and
Diarrhœa.
Not pronounced.
.
Do. . .
Died . .
Do. . .
Recovered .
Died . .
Died . .
Do. . .
Died . .
Do. . .
Died . .
Do. . .
Died . .
Do. . .
Recovered .
Died . .
Recovered .
Died . .
Died . .
Do. . .
P. M. : Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
(with pneumonia).
P. M. : Typical of Rinderpest
(with pneumonia).
P. M. : Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
P. M. : Typical of Rinderpest
(with pneumonia).
Do.
P. M. : Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
P. M. : Typical of Rinderpest
(with pneumonia).
P. M. : Typical of Rinderpest.
P. M. : Typical of Rinderpest.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest
(complicated with pneumonia.)
P. M. : Typical of Rinderpest.
P.M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
40
THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY SCIENCE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY [VI, I
TABLE II—contd.
Passage
Number
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Kind of animal
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do.
.
.
.
.
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do.
.
.
.
.
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do. . . . .
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do. . . . .
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do.
.
.
.
.
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do.
.
.
.
.
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do.
.
.
.
.
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do.
.
.
.
.
No.
of the
animal
71
72
75
76
80
81
84
85
89
90
94
95
98
99
105
106
Reaction
Temperature
.
.
Temperature and
Diarrhœa.
Temperature and
Diarrhœa.
Do. . .
Not pronounced.
.
Temperature and
Diarrhœa.
Diarrhœa . .
Not pronounced. .
Temperature
.
.
Temperature
and
Diarrhœa.
Diarrhœa . .
Temperature
.
.
Temperature . .
Temperature and
Diarrhœa.
Diarrhœa . .
Temperature and
Diarrhœa.
Result
Died . .
Do. . .
Died . .
Do. . .
Died . .
Do. . .
Died . .
Do. . .
Died . .
Do. . .
Died . .
Do. . .
Died . .
Do. . .
Died . .
Do. . .
Remarks
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
P.M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
P. M. lesions: Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF RINERPEST VIRUS IN GOATS
41
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
Goat . . . .
Do.
.
.
.
.
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do.
.
.
.
.
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do.
.
.
.
.
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do.
.
.
.
.
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do.
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do.
.
.
.
.
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do.
.
.
.
.
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do.
.
.
.
.
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do.
.
.
.
.
109
110
114
115
118
120
123
124
127
128
131
133
136
137
140
141
144
145
Temperature . .
Do. . .
Temperature . .
Not pronounced. .
Temperature . .
Do. . .
Temperature . .
Do. . .
Temperature
and
Diarrhœa.
Do. . .
Not pronounced. .
Temperature
and
Diarrhœa.
Not pronounced. .
Temperature
and
Diarrhœa.
Not pronounced.
Temperature
and
Diarrhœa.
Not pronounced .
Temperature
Died . .
Do. . .
Died . .
Do. . .
Died . .
Do. . .
Died . .
Do. . .
Died . .
Do. . .
Died
.
.
Do. . .
Died .
.
Do. . .
Died .
.
Do. . .
Died .
.
Do. . .
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
42
THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY SCIENCE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY [VI, I
TABLE II—contd.
Passage
Number
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
Kind of animal
Goat . . . .
Do. . . . .
Goat . . . .
Do. . . . .
Goat . . . .
Do. . . . .
Goat . . . .
Do. . . . .
Goat . . . .
Do. . . . .
Goat . . . .
Do. . . . .
Goat . . . .
Do. . . . .
Goat . . . .
Do. . . . .
No.
of the
amimal
148
149
152
153
156
157
161
162
165
166
169
170
174
175
180
181
Reaction
Temperature
and
Diarrhœa.
Not pronounced. .
Diarrhœa . .
Not pronounced. .
Temperature . .
Not pronounced. .
Temperature . .
Do. . .
Not pronounced. .
Diarrhœa . .
Temperature
and
Diarrhœa.
Temperature . .
Diarrhœa . .
Not pronounced. .
Temperature . .
Do. . . .
Result
Died . .
Do. . .
Died . .
Do. . .
Died . .
Do. . .
Died . .
Do. . .
Died . .
Do. . .
Died . .
Do. . .
Died .
.
Do. . .
Died . .
Do. . .
Remarks
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF RINDERPEST VIRUS IN GOATS
43
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do.
.
.
.
.
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do.
.
.
.
.
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do.
.
.
.
.
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do.
.
.
.
.
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do.
.
.
.
.
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do.
.
.
.
.
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do.
.
.
.
.
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do.
.
.
.
.
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do.
.
.
.
.
185
186
193
194
198
199
202
203
208
209
212
213
216
217
220
221
225
226
Temperature and
Diarrhœa.
Temperature
.
.
Temperature and
Diarrhœa.
Temperature and
Diarrhœa.
Temperature
.
.
Temperature and
Diarrhœa.
Temperature
.
.
Do.
.
.
Temperature
.
.
Do.
.
.
.
Temperature and
Diarrhœa.
Do. . .
Temperature and
Diarrhœa.
Temperature
.
.
Temperature
.
.
Not pronounced.
.
Temperature . .
Temperature and
Diarrhœa.
Died . .
Do. . .
Died . .
Recovered .
Recovered .
Died . .
Died . .
Do. . .
Died . .
Do. . .
Recovered .
Died . .
Died . .
Do. . .
Died . .
Do. . .
Died . .
Do. . .
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
P. M. lesions : Typical of rinderpest.
Do.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest
and Diarrhœa
Do.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
(with pneumonia).
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest
(with pneumonia).
44
THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY SCIENCE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY. [VI
I
TABLE II—contd.
Passage
Number
82
83
84
85
86
87
Kind of animal
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do.
.
.
.
.
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do.
.
.
.
.
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do.
.
.
.
.
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do.
.
.
.
.
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do.
.
.
.
.
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do. . . . .
No.
of the
animal
229
230
233
234
2
3
6
7
10
12
15
16
Reaction
Temperature . .
Do. . .
Diarrhœa . .
Not pronounced. .
Temperature
and
Diarrhœa.
Do. .
Temperature . .
Temperature
.
.
Temperature . .
Do. . .
Temperature . .
Do. . .
Result
Died .
Do. . .
Died . .
Do. . .
Died . .
Do. . .
Died . .
Do. .
Died . .
Do. .
Died . .
Do. . .
Remarks
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest
(with pneumonia).
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
P. M. lesions Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest
(with pneumonia).
Do.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest
(with pneumonia).
Do.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest
(with pneumonia).
Do.
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF RINDERPEST VIRUS IN GOATS
45
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do. . . . .
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do.
.
.
.
.
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do.
.
.
.
.
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do.
.
.
.
.
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do.
.
.
.
.
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do.
.
.
.
.
Goat
.
.
.
.
Do.
.
.
.
.
Goat . . . .
Do.
.
.
.
.
19
20
23
24
27
28
31
32
38
39
42
43
48
50
53
54
Temperature
.
.
Do.
.
.
Temperature
.
.
Temperature and
Diarrhœa.
Temperature
.
.
Temperature and
Diarrhœa.
Temperature . .
Temperature and
Diarrhœa.
Not pronounced.
.
Temperature . .
Temperature
.
.
Temperature and
Diarrhœa.
Temperature
.
.
Do.
.
.
Temperature . .
Diarrhœa . .
Died . .
Do. . .
Died . .
Do. . .
Died . .
Recovered .
Died . .
Do. . .
Died . .
Do. . .
Died . .
Do. . .
Died . .
Do. . .
Died . .
Recovered.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
Do.
P. M. lesions : Typical of Rinderpest.
46
THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY SCIENCE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY [VI, I
Chart I.
Chart II.
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF RINDERPEST VIRUS IN GOATS
47
Chart III.
Chart IV
48
THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY SCIENCE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY [VI I
Chart V.
Chart VI.
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF RINDERPEST VIRUS IN
GOATS
49
Chart VII.
Chart VIII.
50
THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY SCIENCE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY
[VI, I
Chart IX.
Chart X.
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF RINDERPEST VIRUS IN GOATS
51
Chart XI.
Chart XII.
52
THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY SCIENCE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY [VI, I
Chart XIII.
Chart XIV.
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF RINDERPEST VIRUS IN GOATS
53
Chart XV
Chart XVI
54
THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY SCIENCE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY [VI, I
Chart XVII.
Chart XVIII.
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF RINDERPEST VIRUS IN GOATS
55
Chart XIX.
Chart XX.
56
THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY SCIENCE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY [VI,
Chart XXI.
Chart XXII.
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF RINDERPEST VIRUS IN GOATS
57
Chart XXIII.
Chart XXIV.
58
THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY SCIENCE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY [VI,
Chart XXV.
Chart XXVI.
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF RINDERPEST VIRUS IN GOATS
59
Chart XXVII.
Chart XXVIII.
60
THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY SCIENCE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY [VI, I
Chart XXIX.
Chart XXX.
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF RINDERPEST VIRUS IN GOATS
61
Chart XXXI.
Chart XXXII.
62
THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY SCIENCE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY [VI, I
Chart XXXIII.
Chart XXXIV.
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF RINDERPEST VIRUS IN GOATS
63
Chart XXXV.
Chart XXXVI.
64
THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY SCIENCE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY [VI,
Chart XXXVII.
Chart XXXVIII.
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF RINDERPEST VIRUS IN GOATS
65
Chart XXXIX.
Chart XL.
66
THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY SCIENCE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY [VI, I
Chart XLI.
Chart XLII.
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF RINDERPEST VIRUS IN GOATS
67
Chart XLIII.
Chart XLIV.
68
THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY SCIENCE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY [VI, I
Chart XLV.
Chart XLVI.
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF RINDERPEST VIRUS IN
GOATS
69
Chart XLVII.
Chart XLVIII.
70
THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY SCIENCE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY [VI, I
Chart XLIX.
Chart L.
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF RINDERPEST VIRUS IN GOATS
71
Chart LI.
Chart LII.
72
THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY SCIENCE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY [VI, I
Chart LIII.
Chart LIV.
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF RINDERPEST VIRUS IN
GOATS
73
Chart LV.
Chart LVI.
74
THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY SCIENCE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY [ VI, I
Chart LVII.
Chart LVIII.
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF RINDERPEST VIRUS IN GOATS
75
Chart LIX.
Chart LX.
76
THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY SCIENCE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY [VI, I
Chart LXI.
Chart LXII.
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF RINDERPEST VIRUS IN GOATS
77
Chart LXIII.
Chart LXIV.
78
THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY SCIENCE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY [ VI, I
Chart LXV.
Chart LXVI.
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF RINDERPEST VIRUS IN GOATS
79
Chart LXVII.
Chart LXVIII.
80
THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY SCIENCE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY [VI, I
Chart LXIX.
Chart LXX.
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF RINDERPEST VIRUS IN GOATS
81
Chart LXXI.
Chart LXXII.
82
THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY SCIENCE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY [VI, I
Chart LXXIII.
Chart LXXIV.
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF RINDERPEST VIRUS IN GOATS
83
Chart LXXV.
Chart LXXVI.
84
THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY SCIENCE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY [VI, I
Chart LXXVII.
Chart LXXVIII.
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF RINDERPEST VIRUS IN GOATS
85
Chart LXXIX.
Chart LXXX.
86
THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY SCIENCE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY [VI, I
Chart LXXXI.
Chart LXXXII.
STUDIES ON THE DETERMINATION OF DIGESTIBILITY
COEFFICIENTS :
II. THE ESTIMATION AND COMPUTATION OF DIGES-
TIBILITY COEFFICIENTS FROM INDIVIDUAL TESTS
AND THEIR ORDER OF PRECISION
BY
M. CARBERY, D.S.O., M.C., M.A, B.Sc,
Agricultural Chemist to the Government of Bengal,
AND
INDU BHUSHAN CHATTERJEE, L.AG.,
Physiological Chemist, Bengal.*
(Received for publication on 30th July 1935).
INTRODUCTION
In a recent paper by Carbery, Chatterjee and Hye [1934]. a method of experi-
mentation and computation has been described, which is likely to ensure a greater
degree of accuracy in arriving at the digestibility values of individual feeds and
their components in a mixed ration. The chief point in favour of this method
is that it enables direct estimation of the digestibilities without having recourse
either to the use of assumed values (from standard books) for one or other items
of the mixed feed, or to the alternative of conducting the trial with a single feed
in the first instance, followed by the combined feed.
The method developed by the above authors is the result of an elaborate
test involving eighteen individual estimations conducted in a cyclic order on
six animals in a restricted randomised distribution. It need hardly be stated
that the larger the number of tests and animals, the greater is the accuracy and
representative character of the mean values. At the same time it cannot be
overlooked that an increasing number of tests implies increasing outfits in staff,
material and expenses. Thus, in many cases, it is not possible to have a large
number of tests owing to shortage of men, money and materials.
On such an occasion a shorter method can be the only possible way to meet
such special requirements. The development of a method giving a reasonable
order of accuracy in such a contingency will be of great practical value. Naturally
since the initiation of original tests this aspect engaged the close attention of the
authors, and in the present paper a partial solution of this complicated problem
* Under the grant of the Imperial Council of Agricultural Research, India.
( 87 )
88
THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY SCIENCE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY [VI, I
has been attempted by directing attention to two main lines of approach, viz.,
(1) the method of computation and (2) the minimum number of tests necessary
for a certain specified standard of accuracy.
METHOD OF COMPUTATION
With respect to the method of computation a mathematical formula can
be satisfactorily worked out, in fact, has been done. It is based, of course, on
the assumption that the behaviour of the animals is uniform. This assumption
is implicit in all digestion tests and has been made by all investigators. If the
animals were perfectly uniform, the data obtained from a test performed on one
single animal would be quite sufficient to work on this formula.
In such a case the equation can be set up on the following basis. If R and C
represent the amount of roughage and concentrate actually consumed and if D
be the amount digested from the combined feed, then in a course of two digestion
trials we get the following simultaneous equations :—
R 1 x+C 1 y=D 1 .
R 2 x+C 2 y=D 2 .
.
. (1)
.
. (2)
where x and y are the digestibility values (unitary basis) of R and C, and are
assumed to be constant.
By solving these two equations we get:—
x = D 1 C 2 —D 2 C 1 / R 1 C 2 —R 2 C 1 .
. (3)
y = D 2 R 1 —D 1 R 2 / R 1 C 2 —R 2 C 1 . . (4)
Similarly, if there are three feeds, say R, C and F and if x, y and z be their digesti-
bility coefficients (unitary basis) then in the course of three digestion trials, we
obtain the following three equations :—
R 1 x+C 1 y+F 1 z=D 1
R 2 x+C 2 y+F 2 z=D 2
R 3 x+C 3 y+F 3 z=D 3
.
(5)
.
(6)
.
(7)
By solving these we obtain the following values which for convenience are shown
in terms of determinants :—
X =
y=
z=
D 1 C 1 F 1
D 2 C 2 F 2
D 3 C 3 F 3
R 1 D 1 F 1
R 2 D 2 F 2
R 3 D 3 F 3
R 1 C 1 D 1
R 2 C 2 D 2
R 3 C 3 D 3
÷
÷
÷
R 1 C 1 F 1
R 2 C 2 F 2
R 3 C 3 F 3
R 1 C 1 F 1
R 2 C 2 F 2
R 3 C 3 F 3
R 1 C 1 F 1
R 2 C 2 F 2
R 3 C 3 F 3
.
. (8)
. . (9)
. . (10)
STUDIES ON THE DETERMINATION OF DIGESTIBILITY COEFFICIENTS
89
In this way, we can obtain the individual digestibility of two, three or more
feeds by conducting two, three or more trials depending on the number of feeds
used. Theoretically, such a procedure would be free from any blemishes, if at
the same time it satisfies the primary condition implicit in such an experiment,
viz., that the animal used behaved with mathematical uniformity. This, how-
ever, is next to impossible in actual practice. We have, therefore, to ascertain,
what should be the minimum number of animals compatible with a reliable
estimate of digestibility coefficient.
From the statistical standpoint, it is necessary to estimate the digestibility
coefficient independently from a number of animals and then test the agreement
between the results obtained. The closer the agreement, the greater the preci-
sion of individual estimates, hence the smaller the number of animals (i.e., repli-
cations) required for the test. But we must theoretically have, at least a dupli-
cation, if not more to obtain an estimate of the precision of a single observation.
This principle of replication must be kept in view to obtain an objective estimate
of the precision in all possible cases and it is exactly for this purpose that field
experiments in agriculture are always replicated. There are, however, instances
where the test has been confined to one single animal. In such cases, the calcula-
tion of digestibility on the basis of the above equation can be the only alternative,
despite its serious inherent limitations.
It will, however, be obvious that being based on the results of a single animal
(in other words single observation in the statistical sense), it will not be possible
to determine the extent of reliability of the digestibility coefficients. If, there-
fore, one or other sets of observations deviate appreciably from the normal condi-
tions, the estimates of digestibilities are bound to be correspondingly affected
without there being any means to detect their extent. Similarly, if the sets happen
to be normal ones, the results are expected to be as much satisfactory as is possible
within the range of the experiment. Such uncertainties in the calculation of
digestibilities should, however, be avoided, as far as possible, in scientific investi-
gations.
We should, therefore, have some definite knowledge as to what should be the
minimum number of replications necessary to attain a certain specified standard
of statistical accuracy. This will naturally imply a large number of individual
tests. We have a fairly large number of data from another experiment leading to
the paper on the estimation of digestibility coefficients [1934] and an analysis
of the same would serve as a proximate index of the extent of deviation of a single
observation.
It will, therefore, be necessary at this stage to give a short outline of the ex-
periment conducted with regard to the above paper. This experiment was based
on graphical representation and multiple regression equations with respect to two
feeds, viz., aman paddy straw and linseed cake, the latter being in doses of 1 lb.,
90
THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY SCIENCE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY [VI, I
2 lb. and 3 lb. combinations, distributed in cyclic orders on the same six animals
(D 1 , D 2 , D 3 , D 6 ,D 7 , D 8 ) thereby providing eighteen separate figures for the amounts
consumed and digested—six under 1 lb., six under 2 lb., and six under 3 lb. cake.
For details, the reader is referred to Part I of this paper published in this Jour-
nal, Vol. IV, P. 295—340. Suffice it to state here that for the computation of
digestibilities, x and y, as set forth under the equations (3) and (4), we require
only two sets of data from a course of two feedings. Since, however, each indi-
vidual animal was in turn under 1 lb., 2 lb. and 3 lb. combinations of cake, it
provides three sets of data enabling three sets of computations for each indi-
vidual animal, viz., (1) in which the equation can be worked with the data of 1 lb.
and 2 lb., (2) with the data for 1 lb. and 3 lb. and (3) with the data for 2 lb.
and 3 lb. As an illustration, one of the individual animals, D 1 may be taken.
It consumed and digested the following amounts of crude protein during the
three courses of feeding trial:—
TABLE I
Crude protein
Combination of feeding
1
1 lb. group
....
2 lb. group
....
3 lb. group
....
Consumed
R
Straw (grm.)
2
151.16
167.52
154.85
C
Cake (grm.)
3
122.51
261.96
394.03
D
Digested
4
119.59
238.05
348.46
By applying, from the above table, the values of 1 lb. and 2 lb. combinations
on formulae (3) and (4), we get the digestibilities of straw and cake as follows :—
x =
119.59×261.96—238.05×122.51
151.16× 261.96—167.52×122.51
=0.11346
(11)
y=
238.05×151.16—119.59×167.52
151.16×261.26—167.52×122.51
=0.83617
(12)
STUDIES ON THE DETERMINATION OF DIGESTIBILITY COEFFICIENTS:
91
Again, by applying the values under 1 lb. and 3 lb combinations on the same
formulae, we get the digestibilities :—
x=
119.59×394.03—348.46×122.51
151.16×394.03—154.85×122.51
=0.10919
(13)
y=
348.46×151.16—119.59×154.85
151.16×394.03—154.85×122.51
=0.84144
(14)
Similarly, by applying the values under 2 lb. and 3 lb. combinations, we get
the digestibilities :—
x =
238.05×394.03—348.46×261.96
167.52×394.03—154.85×261.96
=0.09890
(15)
y=
348.46×167.52—238.05 ×154.85
167.52×394.03—154.85×261.96
=0.84548
(16)
For a better presentation the above figures are set forth in the following
table.
TABLE II
Combination of group
1
1lb. and 2 lb
1 lb. and 3 lb
2 lb. and 3 lb
Digestibilities
Straw
2
0.11346
0.10919
0.09890
Cake
3
0.83617
0.84144
0.84548
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
In this way we have been enabled to obtain eighteen (6×3) separate digesti-
bility values for each of the food components (viz., dry matter, organic matter,
crude protein, ether extract, crude fibre and nitrogen-free extract) from the six
animals experimented upon. These have been analysed statistically, and in the
following table the mean values by each set of computations are set forth with
92
THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY SCIENCE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY [VI, I
their corresponding standard deviations. To enable comparison the correspond-
ing values by the graphical method and multiple regression equation as developed
in the earlier paper (loc. cit.) are also given.
TABLE III
1
Dry matter.
Organic
matter.
Crude
protein.
Basis
of
calcula-
tion
2
1 & 2 lb. .
1 & 3 lb. .
2 & 3 lb. .
Mean
Graphical
Method.
Multiple
Regression
Equation.
Older me-
thod.
1 lb. cake
2 lb. cake
3 lb. cake
1 & 2 lb. .
1 & 3 lb .
2 & 3 lb .
Mean
Graphical
Method.
Multiple
Regression
Equation.
Older
method—
1 lb. cake
2 lb. cake
3 lb. cake
1 & 2 lb. .
1 & 3 lb
2 & 3 lb
Mean
Graphical
Method.
Multiple
Regression
Equation.
Old
me-
thod—
1 lb. cake
2 lb. cake
3 lb.cake
No.
of
obser-
vation
3
6
6
6
18
18
18
6
6
6
6
6
6
18
18
18
6
6
6
6
6
6
18
18
18
6
6
6
Paddy straw
Mean
Digesti-
bility
4
0.46180
0.45450
0.41960
0.44529
0.45070
0.45560
0.44278
0.42053
0.41834
0.51460
0.50845
0.47180
0.49827
0.50734
0.51032
0.49623
0.47390
0.47055
0.12670
0.12875
0.02987
0.09510
0.08735
0.09898
0.5905
—1.2730
—0.9120
Standard
deviation
Actual
5
0.0552
0.0387
0.0723
0.0599
0.0601
0.0420
0.0899
0.0696
0.0984
0.0414
0.1594
0.1200
In%
on
mean
6
11.95
8.52
17.23
13.45
11.68
8.26
19.06
13.97
77.66
32.16
533.65
126.32
Linseed cake
Mean
Digesti-
bility
7
0.58735
0.86942
0.78935
0.68202
0.70100
0.65150
0.79000
(H. & M.)
0.62205
0.68980
0.80995
0.70728
0.72160
0.67069
0.81020
0.85160
0.90305
0.95499
0.84754
0.84113
0.89000
(H. & M.)
Standard
deviation
Actual
8
0.3140
0.1292
0.2604
0.2606
0.3223
0.1552
0.3095
0.2898
0.0436
0.0476
0.0790
0.0699
In%
on
mean
9
53.46
19.30
32.99
38.21
51.81
22.50
38.21
40.97
5.38
5.59
8.75
7.33