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.