October 12, 1372.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
283 
used as adulterants, but I have not myself founc 
them. The only common adulterant is farina o: 
various kinds added to the powder of a low-pricec 
unbleached ginger. Detection of any adulterant 
(except turmeric) very easy; the latter not difficult 
to one familiar with its structure. 
{To be continued .) 
LIEBIG’S EXTRACT OF MEAT. 
The following letter upon the subject of Extract of 
Meat has been addressed to the editor of the ‘ Times ’ 
by Baron Liebig:— 
Sir,—In a paper read by Dr. Edward Smith, in 
Brighton, before Section F of the British Association, 
respecting the alimentation of the population of Great 
Britain, on “ Preserved Food and Extract of Meat,” of 
which an abstract appeared in the * Times ’ of the 20th 
of August, Dr. Smith expresses opinions which are in¬ 
compatible with the present state of science. 
Having directed my special attention to this subject, 
and the leading ideas upon nutrition and food being the 
same which have been made known by me 25 years ago, 
I trust I may be considered entitled to elucidate and 
correct in your widely circulating paper the injurious 
and erroneous inference of Dr. Edward Smith. 
Dr. Edward Smith attaches great importance to the 
preparation of food; the economy of nutrition, however, 
depends essentially on the right proportion in the 
nourishment consumed of the nitrogenous substances 
(meat, fish, eggs, etc.), and those free from nitrogen 
(starch, butter, sugar, etc.). 
An excess of meat in the diet is waste, and the ex¬ 
clusive consumption of potatoes is likewise w r aste. The 
chemical composition of meat and of potatoes (as well 
as of all other articles of food) is perfectly well known, 
and it is therefore easy to calculate the proportion in 
wffiich they must be mixed in order to obtain the maxi¬ 
mum of nutritive value for every individual at every 
stage of life. 
The alimentation of a population can only be judged 
by means of a knowledge of their wants, and of the 
above-mentioned proportions. The great economical 
successes in the production of meat and milk by agri¬ 
culturists who are acquainted with the relative nutritive 
value of the various sorts of food are well known, and 
as long as Dr. Edward Smith does not specify what 
weight per head “ the small morsel of meat ” and the 
potatoes or rice should have in order “to form a highly 
nutritious diet,” and as long as he does not explain why 
the small, morsel of meat should be fat meat and not 
lean, wdiich “the poor, in their fastidiousness, prefer,” 
so long Dr. Edward Smith must allow us to consider his 
assertions that the English were worse fed than the 
Irish or Scotch as a mere fancy. 
In the selection of food, which is influenced by 
necessity or want, the instinct and the experience of 
tbe million are infallible, and a far better guide than the 
theoretic speculations of men who have remained ignorant 
ot the composition of food, as well as of even the sim¬ 
plest laws of nutrition. 
“ Tish, says Dr. Edward Smith, “is sometimes sug¬ 
gested as a substitute for meat; but fish is rather a relish 
than food, and contains little more nutriment than 
water.” 
From Paycn’s investigations it is well known, how¬ 
ever, that the flesh of fish on the average does not con¬ 
tain more water than fresh beef, and as much solid sub¬ 
stance as the latter. For instance, the flesh of salmon 
contains 75-70 per cent, water and 24-296 per cent, 
solid substances, while beef (muscle) contains 75-88 per 
cent, water and 24*12 per cent, solid substances. The 
flesh of herring contains still less water than salmon, 
and even flat fish, such as soles, are as rich in nitro¬ 
genous substances as the best wheaten flour weight for 
weight. ' 
The assertion of Dr. Edward Smith that the flesh of 
fish contains little more nutriment than water is, as may 
easily be perceived, in direct opposition to well ascer¬ 
tained facts. 
Truly comical are Dr. Edward Smith’s views respect¬ 
ing- tea and extract of meat. “ He laments the amount 
of money which is, as he holds, wasted, and worse than 
wasted upon tea, the amount of nutriment contained in 
an ounce of tea being infinitesimal.” 
Dr. Edward Smith cannot seriously imagine that tea 
is taken by certain ignorant and stupid people because 
they believe it to be a nutriment, which tea indeed is 
not. The capability of swallowing not one single camel, 
but an entire troop is, however, required in order to 
believe that if an individual a short time after having- 
retired from a well-supplied table, satisfies the longing 
for a cup of tea, he does so for no other reason than t-o 
add to the food and wine consumed in abundance an 
infinitesimal fraction of carbon and nitrogen, the two 
chief elements of nutrition. 
. Tea is no nutriment in the ordinary sense. The indi¬ 
vidual who takes tea after his meal feels, without being 
able to define it, that tea has a favourable effect upon 
certain highly important functions in his body, that 
digestion is accelerated and facilitated, and that his brain- 
work is benefited thereby ; and if a poor factory work¬ 
man imposes on himself privations in his food and other 
necessaries of life in order to spare a few pence for tea, 
there must be a deeper cause for this than mere custom. 
Neither tea nor extract of meat is nutriment in the 
ordinary sense .; they possess a far higher importance 
by certain medical properties of a peculiar kind. The 
physician does not employ them as specific remedies. 
They serve the healthy man for the preservation of his 
lealth. Taken in proper proportion, they strengthen 
the internal resistance of the body to the most various 
external injurious influences which combine to disturb 
the general vital processes, and they adjust these latter. 
Health is nothing but resistance to injurious influences, 
and its degree in different individuals depends upon 
the force of this resistance. The object of every in¬ 
telligent physician will be directed in the cure of an 
illness towards strengthening the internal resistance to 
local disturbances, and to restore the normal functions 
by his remedies, which in this case are called medicines ; 
and he knows therefore to assign the proper place to the 
beef tea or meat juice which he prescribes to his patients 
and convalescents. 
It is surely a grave offence against all laws of physi¬ 
ology to compare tea, coffee, and extract of meat to the 
more common articles of food, and because they ai-e not 
that, to draw the inference, as Dr. Edward Smith has 
done, that they are nothing at all. This is certainly not 
scientific reasoning. 
As regards coffee, Julius Froebol, in his work ‘Seven 
Years in Central America,’ says:—• 
“For the men accompanying the great mercantile 
caravans in Central America coffee is an indispensable 
necessity. Brandy is taken as medicine, but coffee is 
quite a necessary article, and is drunk twice a day. The 
refreshing effects of this beverage in heat and cold, in 
rain and dry weather, are extraordinary.” 
Of the composition and the value of extract of meat 
Dr. Edward Smith holds the most singular opinions. 
He says, “ This is sold as a very thick liquid, in jars, and 
1 lb. is said to represent 321b. of flesh.” 
It has, however, never been asserted that 1 lb. of ex¬ 
tract of meat represents 321b. of flesh ; this is simply an 
invention of Dr. Edward Smith. The truth is that l lb. 
of extract contains the substances soluble in hot water of 
32 lb. flesh. 
Dr. Edward Smith proceeds to say:— 
“ The composition is water (if you will completely dry 
a pot of the extract you will see how large is the pro- 
