The objections that I have made against the use of the flesh of fish
and mammals as an article of food may also be assessed against the use
of domestic and wild fowls. There are a few special points, however, in
favor of poultry as food that are worth special consideration.
The production of chickens and other domestic poultry is one of the
most prolific industries in America, and is of great importance to the
general public because it is capable of being carried on in communities
too thickly settled for the economic production of beef and other meats.
[Sidenote: Poultry superior to the flesh of mammals]
Another point to be observed in the use of poultry as food is that,
because of the ease with which every farmer and villager can keep a
flock of chickens, it is possible for him to have fresh meat produced
under the most sanitary and hygienic conditions, while if he uses meat
as food, he will be compelled to depend upon the various meat products
of unknown age and origin, secured from the general market.
Another reason why the use of poultry, from a hygienic standpoint, is
less objectionable than the use of pork and beef is that the quantity
consumed is usually much smaller than the amount eaten of these
heavy-blooded meats.
For example: When five pounds of beefsteak is purchased in the market,
the amount consumed would be almost the full weight of the purchase. If
the money were invested in a five-pound chicken, a goodly portion of
this weight would be lost in preparing the fowl for the table, while
a still further loss would occur in the bones and in the inedible
portions, so that the actual amount of flesh consumed would not be more
than perhaps two pounds.
According to the old idea of economy and diet, this would be a serious
argument against the use of poultry products, but as has been clearly
proved in this course of lessons, the most serious criticism that can be
urged against the modern bill of fare is quantity, and especially the
use of meat in large quantities, so common among the American people.
[Sidenote: Custom vs. hygiene]
The chief reason for which meat is kept upon the bill of fare of most
civilized people is that of conformity to custom, surely not to that of
hygiene. That form of meat, therefore, which is pleasing to the taste,
and which has a tendency to reduce the quantity of flesh consumed, is a
step in the right direction of true food reform.