The Topeka state journal., 1906-06-22

Sc pounds having lost one-1ourIn
pound since May p.
1T is regretted that at this time the
exp periments had to be discontinued,
owing to personal reasons over which
/ had no control. It had been hoped
that the experiments might be con-
tinued up until thesday Of this meeting.
as the first six weeks of continued use
of preservatives seemed to have just
begun to have their serious effect and
the first decrease in weight noticed,
Notwithstanding that the food had
been increased by the addition of one
pound of corn bread daily.
Dog No. 2, Borax, was fed in the
same way and manner and at the
same time as dog No. 1, the fresh
meat being borated at the rate of one
half of one per cent on the first day,
or 19 y grains of boric acid. On May
4 the amount was increased to one
per cent, divided in two doses, name
", the morning and evening dose.
The milk was borated at the rate of
one-tenth of one per cent. AS in the
first case, there was nothing noticeably
different within the first week. On
May 10 the first change was noticed,
that at the noon hour the dog did not
seem to want to take all the milk;
otherwise the condition seemed good.
the temperament seemed not to be
| changed. and the tendency to play
continued. It was noticeable how
ever, that there was a growing aver
sion to the borated milk. On May p
the dog weighed 2S pounds, a gain of
Il pounds. At this time the borax
was substituted for boric acid. and
continued until June l. when the boric
acid was again used. This change was
made for the reason that it was feared
the borax made the milk taste and
the refusal was on that account. but
1 the change to boric acid apparently
I made difference I7of ie .,
| tasteiess product the refusal of the
milk cannot be said to be due to the
faet that 1t had an unusual or disa-
greeable taste.
! ''Borax- Wouldn't Eat.
On June the growing aversion to
mix and corn bread finally climaxed ia
/ an utter refusal to eat at the noon hour.
| and it was only by coaxing that the
| Iresh meat was eaten. She would take
| a bite or two of the meat and then drou
/ II ana go to another portion of the pen
ana lie down, SO it was only by constant
coaxlng that the dog continued to eat
] the meat but utterly refused to drink
| the milk and eat the corn bread. At
TINS time there was less inclination to
play. and apparently a growing thirst
developed, the dog drinking large guam
tltles OF water On June it weighed
~ pounds. having gained one pound
since the last Weighing.
IN the case of the control dog there
| was nothing noticeable in the conduct
whatsoever. She was healthy and live
~ from start to finish, the most eager
after her food of any of the three. con
tinued playful and cheerful, and contin-
ued to Increase in weight notwithstand-
/ ing she was much the feshiest of the
three when the experiments began. on
May % she weighed 3S1z pounds and
on June II SO pounds. It cannot he
urged that the confinement of the dogs
had anything to do with the action Of
the two, as it might be reasonably ex-
pected that the same conditions would
obtain in the third
DR.. Crumbine says in concluding his
paper:
In conclusion desire to say that /
believe the use of coal tar dyes in food
and drink products should be pro-
| hibited, and the use of preserva lives
| be limited to perishable goods and in
minimum quantities, and where such
preservatives are used that the label
or tag shall distinctly set forth the
name and amount of preservative
used. that the manufacturers be re
| quired to accurately label all products
stating the name Of the product ol
compound. its actual net weight, anc
the place and name of the manufac-
| turer''