weights for canned or packaged foods were used.
A»
In still others, like
oer
“Me? 4
some marine foods, densities in grams/cc were computed and used for the
.
conversion.
.
’
.
fFAN
-7
.
es Pe
Some assumptions were also made where a specific food item
was unavallable.
gr
Tables 15 and 16 summarize the can conversion data we
developed for the subsistence and imported foods, respectively.
In each
table, the foods have been grouped under the major categories we will
eventually refer to in our dietary means.
We have included the results
reported by Pritchard, were appropriate; and have made liberal use of
footnotes to clarify the sources of data.
conversion data has some limitations.
“samples of all foods.
crabs, octopus,
In terms of accuracy, our can
First, we were not able to obtain
Second, our data for fish, shellfish, clams,
turtle, domestic meat, and wild birds is raw weight,
whereas, the majority of these foods are only consumed after some form of
cooking.
Third,
we have assumed an
average
for raw and scrambled
eggs
Since Pritchard reports that bird eggs are “usually eaten scrambled,"
chicken eggs are not described, and turtle eggs are "usually eaten raw or
scrambled.''
Fourth, pumpkin, and undoubtedly squash, is consumed cooked
rather than uncooked.
Fifth, there may be other foods that are consumed
in a form different than we reported.
Finally, the differences between
the LLL and Pritchard values for a specific food item could reflect
differences in food form (e.g., raw or cookec), can packing, or both.
To
be more precise in the can conversion data would require detailed
weighing of each food item in the form consumed by the Enewetak people.
The final
step in our procedure was analyses of the data with a
computer code specifically developed for that purpose.
For each specific
food item and major category identified, the mean intake, standard
deviation, high intake, low intake, and
sample (NO /N) were determined.
:
5011102
proportion of nonzeroes in the
Likewise for the total diet.
- 23 -
|
vN
Ss
7%,