THE MEAT WE OUGHT TO SAVE
“Do not buy a pound of meat
until you have bought three quarts of milk” is
a “war sign” pointing two ways. On
the one hand it tells us that we need to save meat;
on the other, that we should encourage the production
of that most indispensable food - milk.
But what a revolution in some households
if this advice is heeded! Statisticians tell
us that Americans have been consuming meat at the rate
of 171 pounds per capita per year, which means nearly
half a pound apiece every day for each man, woman,
child, and infant in arms. Now, as mere infants
and some older folk have not had any, it follows that
many of us have had a great deal more. Did we
need it? Shall we be worse off without it?
Meat is undeniably popular. In spite of the rising
price and the patriotic spirit of conservation, meat
consumption goes on in many quarters at much the usual
rate. There is probably no other one food so
generally liked. It has a decided and agreeable
flavor, a satisfactory “chew,” and leaves
an after-sense of being well fed that many take as
the sign of whether they are well nourished or not.
It digests well, even when eaten rapidly, and perhaps
partly for this reason is favored by the hurried man
of affairs. It is easy to prepare and hence is
appreciated by the cook, who knows that even with
unskillful treatment it will be acceptable and require
few accessories to make an agreeable meal. Its
rich flavor helps to relieve the flatness of foods
like rice, hominy, beans, or bread. From this
point of view there is no such thing as a “meat
substitute.”
But, nutritionally speaking, meat
is only one of many; undeniably a good source of protein,
but no better than milk or eggs. A lamb chop is
a very nice item on a bill of fare, but the protein
it contains can be secured just as well from one large
egg, or two level tablespoonfuls of peanut butter,
or one and one-fourth ounces of cheese; or a part of
the time from a quarter of a cup of dried navy beans
or a little less of dried split peas.
Meat is highly regarded as a source
of iron; but, again, it has no monopoly of this important
building-stone in the house of diet. The eggs,
or peas, or half the beans mentioned above would any
one of them furnish more iron than the lamb chop,
while a quarter of a cup of cooked spinach or a small
dish of string beans would furnish quite as much.
Besides green vegetables, fruit, and the yolk of egg,
cereals are a not inconsiderable source of iron.
A man would have adequate nourishment for a day, including
a sufficient supply of iron, if he were doing only
moderate physical labor, from one pint of milk, one
and one-half pounds of whole wheat bread, and three
medium-sized apples. Beef juice is often used
as a source of iron for children and undoubtedly it
is one which is palatable and digestible, but it takes
a quarter of a pound of beef to get a few tablespoonfuls
of juice, and a tablespoonful of juice would hardly
contain as much iron as one egg yolk; and it seems
probable that the iron of the egg yolk would be better
utilized for the making of good red blood.
Meat is good fuel for the human machine
if used in moderate amounts along with other food.
But meat is no better fuel than other food. An
ordinary lamb chop will furnish no more calories than
a dish of oatmeal, a piece of bread an inch thick
and three inches square, a large apple or banana, an
egg, five ounces (five-eighths of a cup) of milk, or
a tablespoonful of peanut butter. The fatter
meat is the higher its fuel value (providing the fat
is used for food). A tablespoonful of bacon fat
or beef drippings has the same fuel value as a tablespoonful
of butter or lard, or as the lamb chop mentioned above.
The man who insists that he has to have meat for working
strength judges by how he feels after a meal and not
by the scientific facts. While in the long run
appetite serves as a measure of food requirement,
we can find plenty of instances where it does not make
a perfect measure. Some people have too large
appetites for their body needs and get too fat from
sheer surplus of fuel stored in the body for future
needs as fat. If such people have three good meals
a day all the time, there never is any future need
and the fat stays. Other people have too small
appetites for their needs and they never seem to get
a surplus of fuel on hand. They live, as it were,
from hand to mouth. Anyone accustomed to eating
meat will have an unsatisfied feeling at first after
a meal without meat. The same is true of other
highly flavored foods. It is well for the cook
to bear this in mind and serve a few rather highly
seasoned dishes when there is no meat on the bill
of fare. A very sweet dessert will often satisfy
this peculiar sensation, and it can be allayed, at
least in part, by the drinking of water some little
time after the meal. Such a sensation will pass
away when one becomes accustomed to the change in
diet. It is probably due to certain highly flavored
substances dissolved in the meat juices which are
known to be excellent stimulants to the flow of gastric
juice and which are stimulating in other ways.
These have no food value in themselves, but, nevertheless,
we prize meat for them, as is shown by the distaste
we have for meat which has its juices removed.
“Soup meat” has always been a problem for
the housewife hard to make palatable and
yet the greater part of the nourishment of meat is
left in the meat itself after soup is made from it.
Let us frankly recognize then that
we eat meat because we like it for its
flavor and texture rather than any peculiar nourishing
properties and that it is only our patriotic
self-denial or force of economic circumstances that
induces us to forgo our accustomed amounts of a food
which is pleasant and (in moderation) wholesome.
We must save meat that the babies of the world may
have milk to drink. Nowhere in Europe is there
enough milk for babies today. A conservative request
for one European city alone was a shipment of one
million pounds of condensed milk per month! If
cattle are killed for food there will be little milk
to send and the babies will perish. We must save
meat for our soldiers and sailors, because they need
it more than we do. It is not only easily transported,
but one of the few things to give zest to their necessarily
limited fare. Fresh fruits and green vegetables,
which may serve us as appetizers, are not to be found
on the war fields. Dainty concoctions from cheese
and nuts may provide for us flavor as well as nutriment,
but meat is the alternative to the dull monotony of
bread and beans for the soldier the tonic
of appetite, the stimulant to good digestion.
We can scarcely send him anything to take its place.
We must save meat, too, as a general
food economy. Meat is produced at the expense
of grain, which we might eat ourselves. And the
production of meat is a very wasteful process.
Grains have a fuel value for man approximating 1,600
calories per pound. A pound of meat in the form
of beef will require the consumption by the animal
of some fourteen pounds of grain. The pound of
beef will furnish perhaps 1,200 calories, while the
grain consumed will represent over 20,000 calories.
The production of milk from grain is only about one-third
as expensive, so the purchase of three quarts of milk
to one pound of meat is an economy in more ways than
one.
Saving for the rest of the world will
not be without some physical advantage to ourselves,
if we have been accustomed to indulge in meat freely.
Among the well-to-do meat eating is apt to be overdone
to the extent of affecting the kidneys and the arteries,
and some enforced restriction would be a real advantage
to health, as has been demonstrated in other than
war times. Because a food is good is no reason
for unlimited quantities; an ounce of sugar a day
is wholesome a pound is likely to result
in both indigestion and a badly balanced diet.
A quarter of a pound of meat a day is not undesirable
for an adult, but a pound a day may result in general
overeating or in the special ills which are related
directly to a large quantity of meat. One of these
is an upsetting of a proper balance of food elements
in the diet. Diets high in meat are apt to be
low in milk and consequently low in calcium. If
the income is limited this is almost sure to be the
case, since there will not be enough money to provide
meat freely and at the same time satisfy other nutritive
requirements. Such diets are also likely to be
low in fuel value and not provide enough working force
even while men are declaring that they must have meat
to give them strength. They would have more strength
and a better diet from every point of view if part
of the meat money were spent for milk. So the
injunction to buy three quarts of milk to one pound
of meat is a good rule for securing a well balanced
and ample diet at the lowest cost.
Another good rule is to spend no more
for meat, fish, and eggs than for milk, and as much
for fruits and vegetables as for meat, fish, and eggs.
Families very commonly spend as much as one-third of
the food money for meat; and, while they may secure
a full third of their protein, iron, and phosphorus
in this way, they may not get more than a sixth of
their fuel and almost no calcium. Three quarts
of milk at fourteen cents a quart will yield about
2,000 calories. For an expenditure of forty-two
cents for beef as free from waste as milk, we would
pay perhaps thirty-two cents per pound. A pound
and a quarter of lean beef would yield about 1,000
calories. So as fuel alone the milk would be twice
as cheap as the meat. Three quarts of milk would
yield almost if not quite as much protein as the meat
and a liberal supply of calcium to offset the iron
furnished by the meat. Everything considered,
then, milk is a better investment than meat.
The same is true of some of the other foods which supply
protein in the diet such as dry peas and beans; cheese
and peanut butter are at least twice as valuable nutritionally
as beef. The domestic problem is to make palatable
dishes from these foods. This requires time and
patience. The cook must not get discouraged if
the first trial does not bring marked success.
The rest of the family should count it their “bit”
to eat valiantly until they can eat joyfully.