502 QUEENSLAND AGRICULTURAL JOURNAL. {1 Nov., 1901. 
sprinkled over and allowed to dry. Should the inspecting veterinary surgeon 
have the slightest suspicion that such a state of matters existed, a cloth should 
be dipped in very hot water and held for a minute on the ribs, and on its 
removal it would easily be seen if the pleura was intact, for if so, it would show 
up quite opaque; but if the part should have been stripped the connective 
tissue lining of the intercostal muscles will only be seen. Regarding the 
inspection of such flesh, Mr. McPhail said that even although the meat in their 
opinion be sound, yet they must not pass as “marketable” any stripped meat, 
because the Local Government Board had issued certain recommendations and 
instructions to their inspectors, and one of the most important was that they 
should seize all stripped meat. In conclusion, he urged them, as veterinary 
surgeons, to keep up as high a standard of good meat as was possible to attain, 
and advocate it in every way, and thus show the public that, for their own 
safety, they should appoint professional men to be the final judges as to 
whether meat was “ diseased or unsound or unfit for the food of man.” 
Commenting on the foregoing paper, the Scottish Harmer says :— 
The paper read by Mr. McPhail to the National Veterinary Association in 
August last is put before the reader to-day, and in its own line nothing more 
valuable has been presented for a long time. Those who read it carefully will 
learn much concerning the views of meat inspectors on what is, and what is 
not, wholesome food; and farmers who are unfortunate enough to become 
possessors of what he calls “accidental meat’? will see how very narrow a 
margin is left for them to work on. Mr. McPhail’s views may not be shared 
by all inspectors, but it is important to observe that he submits these views, 
not as his personal ideas, but as what he believes to be demanded by the 
requirements of the Local Government Board. If there are places where the 
regulations are not carried out so strictly as is demanded by Mr. McPhail, it 
should be remembered that, as far as can be seen, the inspectors in these places 
are eoming short of their duty. In other words, if Mr. McPhail’s views do 
not in every case coincide with what is, they represent what ought to be. 
The net result of the argument of this exhaustive paper undoubtedly is 
that none but qualified veterinary surgeons should be appointed as meat 
inspectors. This is demanded alike by the interests of the public, which are 
paramount, and the interests of the farmer or butcher. ‘The public are entitled 
to be protected against unsound meat, and they are also entitled to a guarantee 
that all meat that is sound should be put upon the market, so that there may be 
as large a supply of wholesome food as possible. The stockowner and butcher 
are entitled to be protected against the erratic decisions of men whose know- 
ledge of meat is purely empirical, and in whose verdicts there is no consistency. 
Efficient meat inspectors are men who know disease and its effects on flesh that 
is offered for sale. A knowledge of disease may not always be possessed by 
the man who knows the appearance of flesh which is diseased, but clearly the 
knowledge of disease is the more important, for the greater includes the less. 
It is therefore a matter of great importance to stockowners and butchers that 
meat should be passed under review by men who know what they are doing, and 
haye a professional reputation to preserve or lose. 
Fault will fairly be found with the attitude which Mr. McPhail assumes 
towards foreign meat. He explains how that meat is inspected at the port of 
despatch, but the weakness of his view that that is sufficient is clearly seen when 
we read what he says about the instruction of the Local Government Board 
regarding ‘stripping.’ There is no guarantee in the case of foreign meat that 
it has not been “stripped and dressed,” and, unless it be subjected to the warm 
fomentation test described in the paper, there never can be any certainty that 
the meat has not been efficiently “dressed.” The home feeder and distributor 
is entitled to demand that his foreign rival should not enjoy immunities which 
are denied to him. If there is to be differentiation between home and foreign 
produce, the difference should be in our own favour. Unfortunately, experi- 
ence shows that in respect of most things the reverse holds good, and there is 
reason to fear, from what Mr. McPhail tells us, that foreign meat is no exception 
‘to therule. Such ought not so to be. 
