January 18,1373.] THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
561 
EXTRACT OF MEAT. 
EY BARON LIEBIG, 
President of the It^yal Academy of Sciences at Munich. 
In a letter by Dr. Edward Smitli, wliicli ap¬ 
peared in the Times of October lGth, he reproaches 
me with several quotations contained in my letter 
of October 1st, which require on my part some vin¬ 
dication. 
Dr. Smitli says that the passages I have quoted 
on “ economy of nutrition,” “ the small morsel of 
meat,” “fish,” “tea,”’ are not extracts from any 
published work of his, and he calls upon me to 
explain where I had obtained my (most unac¬ 
countable) “quotations.” My vindication is not a 
difficult one, and I gladly take this opportunity to 
explain more fully the real value of extract of meat 
for the alimentation of the people; the only un¬ 
pleasant part of the task is, that in doing so I am 
compelled to speak more of myself than I like. 
In the first place it is quite correct that the above 
mentioned quotations have not appeared either in the 
article in the Standard, or in that of the Times of 
August 20th. They are taken word for word from 
an article entitled “ The Butcher’s Bill,” which ap¬ 
peared in the Saturday Review of August 31st. 
This article is avowedly based on Dr. Edward 
Smith’s view^, so that any one who took the trouble 
to read it, must, like myself, have arrived at the 
conviction that its sentences contained the authentic 
opinions of Dr. Edward Smith. 
Dr. Edward Smith says, “ Let it be clearly un¬ 
derstood that at length Baron Liebig is in accord 
with other scientific men, and that all ma}' adopt 
the words of Liebig—‘ Neither tea nor extract of 
meat are nutriment in the ordinary sense,’ and all I 
contend for is accomplished.” This does not seem 
to say less than that I have now been converted to 
views which either I formerly had not, or which I 
even disputed, while the real truth is that all that 
has been ascertained within, the last thirty years on 
these subjects is in perfect accord with my teach¬ 
ings. Thirty years ago I taught in my ‘Animal 
Chemistry,’ that for the preservation of life the food 
of men, as also that of animals, must contain one in¬ 
dispensable element for the formation of blood or of 
the albumen in the blood. I have further explained 
in my ‘ Researches on the Chemistry of Food,’ 
0.847), that “ beef-tea” or “extract of meat” contains 
none of the substances called albuminates, as these 
latter coagulate and separate when the meat is boiled 
in water. In my ‘ Familiar Letters on Chemistry,’ 
xxix. p. 421 (edition of 1851), I said, “ In the albu¬ 
men of this fluid (juice of flesh) we have the sub¬ 
stance serving as transition product to the fibrine of 
flesh, and in the other substances (contained in beef- 
tea) the matters required for the production of cellu¬ 
lar tissue and nerves.” From this it will be seen 
that I never asserted that “ beef-tea ” or “ extract 
of meat” contained substances necessary for the 
formation of albumen in the blood or of muscular 
tissue. I have, on the contrary, designated them as 
“ food for the nerves,” in the same sense as common 
salt is also designated as food, although one cannot 
always define in which manner it acts usefully. 
It cannot, therefore, be said that “ I am at length 
in accord with other scientific men,” but that these 
scientific men, including Dr. Edward Smith, have 
simply adopted what I have always, and from the 
very beginning, taught. Based on my own defini- 
Tiiird Series, No. 134. 
tions, Dr. Edward Smith informs me that extract of 
meat is not “ food,” but a “ nervous stimulant.” 
But what is a nervous stimulant ? everybody will 
ask who is not satisfied with a word, but wishes for 
a definition. We take the constituents of extract of 
meat in our daily food, just as we take tea and coffee 
in addition to our food, and nothing can be more 
undeniable than that these substances produce a 
certain beneficial effect on all the functions of the 
body, and also on the process of nutrition. It is 
clearly not the duty of a scientific man simply to 
deny these effects, but to find out how great is the 
share these substances have in the functions of the 
animal organization. 
Some years ago two physiologists at Vienna at¬ 
tempted to prove by experiments on themselves, 
respecting the effect and value of common salt in 
the process of nutrition, that salt is a luxury and of 
no value for nutrition and the preservation of health. 
In matters affecting the alimentation of the people 
no importance can be attached to such trifling experi¬ 
ments if they are in contradiction to confirmed ex¬ 
periences, and this contradiction will grow in the 
same proportion the less the experimentalist is 
capable of observing and rightly interpreting facts. 
In order to comprehend the difference between 
“ common food” and “ nervous food,” as I will call it 
in order to avoid circumlocution, it must be consi¬ 
dered that man has two kinds of work to perform, 
muscular or mechanical work and brain or nervous 
work. The one, the muscular work, is under the 
dominion of the nerves and the brain. 
By “ common food ” must be understood those 
substances which serve for the preservation of the 
temperature and restoration of the machine. Coffee, 
tea and extract of meat are not suited to these pur¬ 
poses ; by their effect, however, on the nerves they 
exercise a decided influence. 
The experiments made with extract of meat in 
Russia, France and Sweden are what in the scientific 
world are termed “sham experiments.” They are 
not undertaken to find out that which is not known, 
but as the result is known beforehand, appear really 
only to be made with a view to deceive others, and 
the conclusions drawn from them are simply absurd. 
It will suffice to describe one of these experiments 
in order to convince any one who bears in mind that, 
it has been scientifically determined that extract of 
meat does not contain any substances necessary for 
the formation of albumen in the blood, and for the 
restoration of the waste of muscular tissue. 
Two dogs of almost equal weight were fed, the one 
with meat, the other with extract of meat. The 
former was fed with400-500grm. fresh meat, the other 
with 124—15 grm. extract of meat (the quantity con¬ 
tained in 400-500 grm. fresh meat). The dog fed on 
meat flourished, his weight rather increased, while 
the other fed on extract of meat only, became thin, 
was attacked with diarrhoea, and would have died if 
the experiment had been continued. The inference 
drawn from this experiment is :—Extract of meat is 
not nutritious, it rather has poisonous effects, causes 
diarrhoea, and would produce death. That the other 
dog had likewise consumed 12^-15 grm. extract of 
meat in the 400-500 grm. of meat without being seized 
with diarrhoea or feeling any injurious effec s, this 
fact does not trouble the experimentalist, nor does it 
concern him that a dog weighing from 2 to 3 kilo¬ 
grammes requires from 40 to 50 grm. of carbon in 
his food for the process of respiration and to kiep up 
