Page:Indian Journal of Economics Volume 2.djvu/418

 4( (. J. . O'BYRNE in price o[ the wheat come into play. I st examined the grains to see how far cheaper grains with both food values of the difference rice and the various in price was due to inferiority of actual food contents. Professor Church in given us the analysis common cereals and his Foodgrains of India has of the constituents of all the pulses. From this a simple calculation gives the number of calories or measures of food values contained in any particular grain. The main difficulty in comparing grains according to their food values lay in calculating the amount of husk, which was lost in converting the grain into a product fit for human consumption. From enquiries made it would appear milling for production generally consumed the for wheat about 7 per gram 11 per cent, jur cent, anjt bajra 5 per cent. that in ordinary of coarse flour loss for husk cent, barley 15 per cent millstone such as is will 20 per marne 10 average cent: Common rice of course, as it is ordinarily sold, .has the husk already removed so that no allowance for husk is necessary. Work- ing on this basis the number of calories contained in 100 grams of each ain is as below:. rice 857, wheat 829, barley 277, gram 829, maize 881, juaz 804 bajza 851. If cheaper grains be compared with rice and wheat, the food values contained therein, subject to variations of quality, may be shown as below :-- as conpared with wheat-100 Whea 9 78 Food values Riee Barley Gram Maize Juar Bajra 109 84 100 100 92 107 Food values as corpard with rice100 Barley Gram Maize Juar 9 92 86 Bajra 98 These following food equivalents reasons :---(1) The are not exact for the percentage., of moisture