The Stock-Feeder's Manual / the chemistry of food in relation to the breeding and feeding of live stock

by Sir Charles Alexander Cameron

There is no doubt but that sheep and oxen, from three to five years old, moderately fat, and fairly exercising their locomotive powers, furnish the most savory, and, perhaps, the most nutritious meat: but if such were the only kind of meat in demand, it may be fairly doubted that the supply would be equal to it. The produce of meat in these countries has been rapidly increasing for many years past; and the weight of meat annually supplied from a given area of land is now from 80 to 100 per cent. greater than it furnished thirty or forty years ago. It is chiefly by means of the so-called forcing system that the produce of meat has been so considerably increased. If this system were abandoned, the production would be greatly diminished, and the consequently high price of the article would place it beyond the reach of the masses of the population. Besides, it has not been proved that the flesh of the animals brought early to maturity is much inferior, except somewhat in flavor, to the meat of three-year-old beasts. There is, no doubt, plenty of unwholesome meat offered for sale, but it is that of animals which were affected by diseases as likely to attack the young as the old. On the whole, then, we may say of the improved system of fattening stock, that it produces a maximum amount of meat on a given area of land; that the meat so produced is, except in rare cases, perfectly wholesome; that it is capable of supplying the ingredient—fat—which is almost wholly absent from a vegetable diet; and, finally, that it places animal food within the reach of the working classes.

Diseased Meat.—The losses occasioned to stockowners by the diseases of live stock are far greater than is generally supposed. It has been calculated that in the six years ending 1860, the value of the horned stock lost by disease amounted to £25,934,650. Pleuro-pneumonia was the chief cause of these losses. Exclusive of the enormous losses occasioned by the ravages of the rinderpest, the annual loss by disease in live stock in these countries for some years past cannot be much under £6,000,000 sterling.

Whether it is owing to the somewhat abnormal condition under which the domesticated animals are placed, or to causes which operate upon them when in a state of nature, it is certain that they are remarkably prone to disease. It is extremely difficult to get a horse six years old that is not a roarer or a whistler, or "weak on his pins," or in some way or other unsound. Oxen, sheep, and pigs have almost as many maladies afflicting them as human flesh is heir to, notwithstanding the short period of life which they are permitted to enjoy.

It is a very serious question whether or not the flesh of animals that have been killed while they are in a diseased condition is injurious to health. The opinions on this point are conflicting, but the majority of medical men believe that the flesh of diseased animals is not wholesome. There are certain maladies which obviously render meat unsaleable, by causing a sensible alteration in its quality. For example, blackleg in cattle and measles in the porcine tribe render the flesh of these animals, as a general rule, unmarketable, or nearly so. But there are very serious diseases—often proving rapidly fatal—which, whilst seriously affecting certain internal organs, do not palpably deteriorate the quality of the flesh. In such cases are we to rely upon the evidence of our mere senses in judging of the wholesomeness of the meat? If we find beef possessing a good color and odour, and firm to the touch, and appearing to be in every respect healthy flesh, are we under such circumstances to take it for granted that it must be healthy? This is a very important question, involving as it does the interests of both the producers and consumers of animal food. If the flesh of all diseased animals be unwholesome, a very large number of oxen now sold whilst laboring under pleuro-pneumonia should not be sent into the market. This, of course, would be a heavy loss to the stockowner, but a still heavier one to the meat consumer; because, if there were fewer animals for sale, the price of meat would ascend, in obedience to the law of supply and demand. The whole question is, then, well worthy of being considered in the most careful, unbiassed, and scientific manner; for at present it is in a state which is the reverse of being satisfactory.

A large proportion of the animals conducted to the shambles is in a diseased condition. Professor Gamgee estimates it at no less than one-fifth. Dr. Letheby, food analyst to the Corporation of London, condemns weekly about 2,000 pounds weight of flesh; but as his jurisdiction is limited to the "City," which contains a population of only about 114,000, the 2,000 pounds of diseased meat are probably only about 1-30th of the quantity exposed for sale within the whole area of the metropolis. Making an estimate of the most moderate kind, we may assume that 30,000 pounds weight of bad meat are weekly offered for sale in London—three million pounds weight annually.

Many persons have been affected with dysentery and choleraic symptoms after partaking of butcher's meat of apparently the most healthy kind. The meat has often been subjected to minute chemical and microscopical examination, but no poison has been discovered. But these cases are becoming so frequent that they are exciting uneasiness, and demand an exhaustive investigation. The unskilful persons who officiate in the capacity of "clerks of the market" and inspectors of meat can only judge of the quality of flesh that is obviously inferior to the eye, nose, or touch; but are there not cases where the flesh may appear to be good, and yet contain some subtle malign principle? It is an ascertained fact that young or "slink" veal very frequently gives rise to diarrhœa, more especially when that disease is epidemic. Dr. Parkes, in his celebrated work on Hygiene, page 162 (second edition), states that "the flesh of the pig sometimes produced diarrhœa—a fact I have had occasion to notice in a regiment in India, and which has often been noticed by others. The flesh is, probably, affected by the unwholesome garbage on which the pig feeds." Menschell states that 44 persons were afflicted with anthrax after eating the flesh of oxen affected with carbuncular fever. Dr. Kesteren, in the Medical Times for March, 1864, mentions a case where twelve persons were affected with choleraic symptoms after the use of pork not obviously diseased. At Newtownards, county of Down, several persons died after eating veal in which no poisonous matter of any kind could be detected. One instance has come under my own notice where a man, two dogs, and a pig died after eating the flesh of an animal killed whilst suffering from splenic apoplexy. Several butchers have lost their lives in consequence of the blood of diseased animals being allowed to come in contact with abrasions or recently received wounds on their arms. The flesh of over-driven animals is stated by Professor Gamgee to produce a most serious skin disease, although the meat appeared to be perfectly healthy. The Belgian Academy of Medicine has decided that the flesh of animals suffering from carbuncular fever is unwholesome, and its sale in that country is prohibited.

Many persons have died in Germany and a few in England from a disease produced by eating pork containing a small internal parasite termed trichina spiralis. I have recently met with a case of trichiniasis in the human subject. The body of the unfortunate person—who had been an inmate of the South Dublin Union Workhouse—was found to contain thousands of the trichinæ. In Iceland a large proportion of the population suffers from a parasitic disease traceable to the use of the flesh of sheep and cattle in which flukes abound.

Pleuro-pneumonia is in this country the disease which most frequently affects the ox. It is probable that about 5 per cent. of these animals sold in Dublin are more or less affected by this malady. There are two forms of pleuro-pneumonia—the sporadic, or indigenous, and the foreign, or contagious. It is the latter form which has become the scourge of the ox tribe in this country, though unknown here until the year 1841, when it appeared as an epizoötic, and carried off vast numbers of animals.

The contagious pleuro-pneumonia is an extremely severe inflammatory disease, and is produced—not in the same way that common pleuro-pneumonia is, by exposure to excessive cold, &c.—but by a blood poison received from an infected animal. In the congestive stage of the disease there is no structural alteration in the organs of the animal, and if well bled its flesh might (probably) be safely eaten; but when a large portion of the lungs becomes solidified, and rendered incapable of purifying the blood, is it not doubtful, to say the least, that the blood or flesh is perfectly wholesome? The blood, during the life of the animal, is in a state of fermentation; there is extreme fever, and the animal presents all the characteristic symptoms of acute disease. On being killed, the flesh, if the disease be of a fortnight's duration, will usually be extremely dark, but in a less advanced stage of the malady the flesh will generally present a healthy appearance. Is it really so? That is the question which science has to determine. Going upon a broad principle, I can hardly conceive that so serious a disease as pleuro-pneumonia does not injuriously affect the quality of the flesh. It is no argument to say that thousands consume such flesh, and yet enjoy good health. Millions of people drink water and breathe air that are extremely impure, and yet they do not speedily die. It is one thing to be poisonous, another to be unwholesome. The flesh of animals killed whilst suffering from lung distemper is not directly poisonous, but who can prove that it is not, like bad water, unwholesome?