256 



The Country GentlemaiCs Magazine 



dered and closed except at one point, where 

 there was a hole through which the steam 

 escaped. The object to be obtained was 

 primarily the expulsion of the air from the tin, 

 and, therefore, the high temperature required ; 

 and, secondly, the cooking of the meat, which, 

 however, might be effected at a much lower 

 temperature. Tlie tin, to prevent too great 

 loss of weight, was "primed" from time to 

 time, so as to keep up the weight of the con- 

 tents. The circumstances to be remarked in 

 the process were— first, that the meat was 

 neither roasted nor boiled, but stewed in its 

 own vapour; second that it was overcooked, so 

 that a larger proportion of the soluble mate- 

 rials was extracted than occurred in the ordi- 

 nary process of boiling, and the solid part 

 was more or less broken up into bundles of 

 fibres ; third, the extracted juices were more 

 valuable than from ordinary boiling of 

 meat ; and by so much the solid mass was 

 less valuable, than ordinary boiled meat ; 

 fourth, the peculiar flavour was given partially 

 by the mode of cooking, but chiefly by the 

 addition of the flavour of roasted meat, which 

 was agreeable. The solid matter, although 

 soft, was not easily masticated, since it 

 eluded the grasp of the teeth, and without 

 free mastication it was less perfectly digested. 

 The conclusions to be deducted were classed 

 under diffierent heads. The nutritive value 

 of the whole of the contents of the tin could 

 not be greater than that of the raw meat put 

 into the tin, and hence, although the meat 

 was cooked, the comparison of the value must 

 be with raw meat and not with cooked meat. 

 If, therefore, a dietary was 4 ounces of cooked 

 meat, the Australian meat would have to be 

 supplied in the same quantity as the raw 

 meat in weight before being cooked — namely 

 5>^ ounces to 6 ounces. He also held that 

 the Australian beast was not equal to the 

 English beast. The pecuniary aspect of the 

 question sliowed that there was manifestly 

 an advantage to the Australian producer, 

 since he could by this process make larger 

 returns than by boiling down the carcases of 

 animals for the production of tallow and fat, 

 and, so far, the wealth ot the Colonies was 

 increased. Moreover, the process added to 



the amount of food for man, and so far must 

 be of universal advantage. As to the 

 English consumer, taking beef supplied to 

 institutions as at yd. and 7^d. a-lb., he 

 thought there was little gain in the use 

 of the Australian tin-meat in those cases, 

 but there was a gain to the individual con- 

 sumer who had to pay more to the butcher 

 for his meat in this country. He advised 

 that the recommendations laid down by the 

 original importers of the meats should be 

 adhered to in respect of not cooking the 

 meat further than by preparing it in a stew 

 or soup, without more than warming it, and 

 to use it only as a change of food. 



Respecting Liebig's extract of meat, he 

 pointed out that it was claimed for this 

 that I lb. jar represented 32 lb. of flesh 

 meat. Its composition was water, and, 

 in large quantity, the salt of meat and the 

 phosphates. It contained only the soluble 

 parts of meat, and only such as could be 

 preserved from putrefaction. The fibrine or 

 solid substance of the meat was excluded, for 

 that was insoluble in water. The fat was 

 excluded most carefully, as it would become 

 rancid. Gelatine and albumen were excluded 

 because they would decompose. When, 

 therefore, fibrine, gelatine, and albumen 

 were excluded, it was certainly not " meat," 

 which was left as the word was understood, 

 for nearly every part of the meat which 

 could be transformed in the body and act as 

 food was excluded ; therefore, Liebig's ex- 

 tract of meat was not meat, and to give the 

 meat power, the 32 lb. of meat from which it 

 was said to be taken must be added to it, for 

 as it was it was the play of Hatnld without 

 the character of Hamlet. The product was 

 of less value to the consumer than to the 

 producer, and the preparation was of a delu- 

 sive rather than a real advantage; but, al- 

 though he said this, he held that it had a 

 value as a stimulant in the same way as 

 theine or coffereine ; but its economic value 

 was very small as representing 32 lb. of meat 

 in a I lb. jar. There had been much miscon- 

 ception respecting the product, for Liebig 

 never affirmed that it was meat, or the equi- 

 valent of meat.] 



