SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF PAYMASTER GEN. T. J. COWIE, UNITED STATES NAVY. COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS, December 12, 1913. The CHAIRMAN. Admiral Cowie, please give the allowance of the components of the Navy ration, the general conditions governing the purchase of the different component articles, and the reasons for the difference in cost, if any, between the articles comprising the Army and Navy ration. Admiral CowIE. The Navy ration, as prescribed in sections 1580 and 1581 of the Revised Statutes, as amended by the act of March 2, 1907, is as follows: Lard (or suitable substitute), 7 pounds for every 100 pounds of flour issued as bread. "Combined ration" articles, as miscellaneous, by value. An extra allowance of 1 ounce of coffee or cocoa, 2 ounces of sugar, 4 ounces of hard bread or its equivalent, and 4 ounces of preserved meat or its equivalent, will be allowed to enlisted men of the engineer and dynamo force who stand night watches between 8 o'clock p. m. and 8 o'clock a. m. under steam. Any article comprised in the Navy ration may be issued in excess of the authorized quantity, provided there be an underissue of the same value in some other article or articles. With regard to the general conditions governing the supply of the components of the ration, the exigencies of the naval service require that purchases in large quantities be made considerably in advance of the dates of their actual consumption, and in order to reduce to a minimum the losses through broken packages due to the frequent and unusual handling in shipments to vessels and naval stations, and the loss from deterioration due to the lapse of time between the dates of receipt and consumption, it is absolutely necessary to require that the major portion of the articles of the Navy ration be delivered in exceptionally substantial and somewhat expensive packages, as well as to exact, with respect to quality, a 6 or 12 months' guaranty. In making a comparison of the cost between the Army and Navy rations, it must be remembered that the conditions just mentioned do not generally obtain in making purchases of articles of the Army ration, since at a great majority of the Army posts, as well as those of the Marine Corps, supplies are purchased locally in such quantities only as are required for immediate consumption, thereby necessitating only the most inexpensive and fragile containers. The questions of containers and guaranty for a specified period of time materially increase the cost of the articles of the Navy ration, but it is considered that economy ultimately results therefrom, since considerable losses to the Government would result in shipments to various ports and particularly to such naval stations and vessels as are located in tropical climates, where military requirements make storage a vital factor. In order to permit proper dietetic varieties of the Navy ration, all substitute articles are furnished by the Government, there being no payments to the messes for the purchase of substitute articles, as is the case in the Army, where increments to the regular ration are received from monthly payments to each company mess of its share of the profits from the post exchange. Recently an investigation was made of the prices paid at various ports of the United States by the Navy and Marine Corps (which is subsisted on the Army ration) for the different component articles of the ration common to both services, and it was ascertained that, notwithstanding the obligatory requirements as to containers and the superior quality of the Navy ration (the necessary sequel to a time guaranty), the prices paid by the Navy compare most favorably with those paid by the Marine Corps. The question as to whether there exists any marked difference in the prices paid by the Army and Navy for certain articles of the ration is not, in my opinion, the main essential the prime consideration being the method of delivery and the standard of quality required by the exigencies of each branch of the service. Other elements to be considered in connection with the difference in cost between the articles of the rations of the different services are the number of articles comprising each ration, the quantity allowed of each article, and the basis upon which the net cost is figured. The different articles of the Navy ration and the allowance of each article are, as I have herein before stated, fixed by Congress (secs. 1580 and 1851, Rev. Stat., as amended by act of Mar. 2, 1907, 34 Stat., 1193), and the value of the ration is neither fixed nor limited by law or regulation, except in the case of small vessels without a pay officer, such as torpedo boats, destroyers, gunboats, etc., where the cost of the ration is limited by Navy Regulations and varies with the complement of the vessel and the latitude in which it operates. The cost of the Army ration, as well as that of the Marine Corps, is ascertained from certain fixed base components, considered in definite quantities, that are a part of the ration. These stipulated base components and the allowance of each are fixed by the President, and the extent to which other articles allowed as substitutes for each of these base components may be issued is governed by the local contract price of the unit of each base component. The component articles of the Army ration and the allowance of each component article are as follows: In view of the difference between the component articles comprising the rations of the two services, and the allowances of each component article, the different requirements regarding delivery, and the time guarantee as to quality, no exact comparison between the cost of the Army and the Navy ration is possible. The nearest approximation to an exact comparison would be to figure out the exact cost of the Army ration at the contract prices obtaining at certain ports for a specified period of time for both services, and in this particular connection I would like to submit, for the consideration of the committee, the following table, which has been prepared with the view of showing the cost of the Marine Corps ration (which is the same as the Army ration) based upon the average prices paid by the Marine Corps at the ports of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Norfolk, and the cost of the same ration figured at the average Navy prices at the same ports for the same period: Cost of 100 rations, $25.45653 for Navy, and $24.71432 for Marine Corps. I am informed that the average cost of the Marine Corps ration is approximately the same as the Army, which condition should naturally obtain, since the component articles of the ration and the allowance of each component article are the same for both services and purchases are made upon identical specifications, in a similar manner, in practically the same locality. To summarize briefly, the main reasons for the difference in the average cost between the Navy and Army, or Marine Corps, ration are as follows: The requirement by the Navy for more substantial and expensive containers as a protection against damage through shipment and deterioration incident to storage. The requirement by the Navy for a time guarantee for certain articles, thereby necessitating a superior quality. The money value prescribed by the Navy Regulations for the cost of the ration upon torpedo boats and other vessels not carrying pay officers, the sum of 45 cents being allowed each man per day upon such vessels as have a complement of 35 or less and 40 cents per man per day upon vessels having a complement of over 35 men. The increased number of articles comprising the Navy ration and the difference in the allowance of each article, both of which are essential by reason of the periodical absences of vessels from the base of supplies, the difficulties attending the proper preparation and service of the food, and the necessity for a proper variety. The CHAIRMAN. Admiral, how does the ration of the United States Navy compare with the ration of foreign navies, especially in its nutritive value? Admiral CowIE. The ration of the United States Navy is far more liberal than the ration of the navy of any foreign power, and the contentment of the enlisted personnel of our Navy can in a large degree be attributed to its quality, acceptability, and service. With regard to the nutritive value of the Navy ration as compared with the ration of foreign navies, I would like to quote the following extract from a report in this connection made in 1911 by Medical Director J. D. Gatewood, United States Navy: It is difficult to compare the United States Navy ration with the navy ration of other countries except in more or less general terms, as often the information is not available or is not sufficiently explicit. The amounts of nutrients in a ration as issued can not be considered as all available because they are not all ingested, the question of waste being of much importance and probably varying with methods of different nations. Besides, a people obtaining much of its starch from rice will probably have a smaller percentage of waste in preparing food than one that obtains much of its starch from the potato, and calculations based upon average percentage of fat in fresh beef are subject to wider variations than those based upon olive oil or even other vegetable sources. In general terms, the United States Navy ration seems to greatly exceed the ration of any other navy. The nutritive ration in foreign navies is generally much narrower and in not a few there is the expedient, doubtful from a work point of view, of obtaining carbon to some extent from alcohol, even by additional allowance to the engineer force. At any rate, that forms in many cases a characteristic difference in comparing the ration of our service with others. However, the following may be considered under the limitations indicated: The figures in the above table relating to the French Navy should be accepted with not a little reservation, as in the data obtainable it is not clear that all necessary factors have been included or that any allowance for waste is made. It is probably the ration as issued and not as consumed. In regard to the Japanese Navy, it may be noted that the average weight of the enlisted man seems to be about 129 pounds. The figures relating to the British Navy result from calculations based upon information previously given. In regard to the nutritive value of flour issued in our Navy it may be stated that it is now required to contain not less than 11 per cent of gluten, to show not more than 13 per cent of water, and to give not more than one-half of 1 per cent ash. The following may be taken as the average composition of flour obtained under the new specifications: Water, 12 per cent; protein, 11.4 per cent; fats, 1 per cent; carbohydrates, 75 per cent; ash, 0.5 per cent. Attention is also invited to the very valuable degree of elasticity provided for the ration of our Navy. That feature depends upon the following law, which is regarded as representing one of the great advances of modern times in relation to the food of the Navy: "Any article comprised in the Navy ration may be issued in excess of the authorized quantity, provided there be an underissue of the same value in some other article or articles." In view of the very large variety of foodstuffs allowed under the wording of the United States Navy ration and purchased, the elasticity provided enables the service to make issues to accord with consumption in any given case, thus making very much allowance for the tastes of the men themselves, greatly increasing the acceptability of the ration as a whole. |