The Stock-Feeder's Manual: the chemistry of food in relation to the breeding and feeding of live stockCameron, Charles Alexander, Sir
Science
The Stock-Feeder's Manual: the chemistry of food in relation to the breeding and feeding of live stock
Cameron, Charles Alexander, Sir
Feeds; Livestock
Owing to the marked individuality which man exhibits in the selection of
his food, and to the intimate relationship subsisting between food and
the organism it nourishes, it is impossible to arrange the alimental
substances in the strict order of their nutritive values. You can bring
a horse to the water, but you cannot compel him to drink it; you can
swallow any kind of food you please, but you cannot force your stomach
to digest it. It is, therefore, vain to tell a man that a certain kind
of food is shown by chemical analysis to be nutritious, when his stomach
tells him unmistakeably that it is poisonous, and refuses to digest it.
In the matter of dietetics Nature is a safer guide than the chemist.
Many substances, when viewed only in the light shed upon them by
chemical analysis, appear to be rich in the elements of nutrition, yet
when they are introduced into the stomachs of certain individuals, they
disarrange the digestive organs, and sometimes cause the whole system to
go out of order. Every day we see exemplified the truth of the proverb,
that "one man's meat is another man's poison." There are persons who
relish and readily digest fat pork, and yet they cannot eat a single
egg with impunity; others enjoy and easily assimilate eggs, but their
stomachs cannot tolerate a particle of fat bacon.
It is not merely the composition of an aliment and its adaptability to
the organism which determine its nutritive value--its digestibility
and flavor are points which affect it. There are few people in these
countries who are disposed to quarrel with beef; but no one would
prefer the leg of an elderly milch cow to the sirloin of a well-fed
three-year-old bullock: yet if our selection were to be determined by
the analysis of the two kinds of beef, we would be just as likely to
prefer the one as the other. No doubt the relative tenderness of meats
may be ascertained by experiments conducted _outside_ the body; but
tenderness is not in every case synonymous with easy digestibility.
Veal contains more soluble albumen, and is, consequently, far more
tender than beef; yet, as every one knows, it is less digestible. It is
curious that maturity renders the flesh of some animals more digestible,
and that of others less digestible. Flavor has something to do with
these differences. Beef is richer than veal in the agreeably flavorous
osmazome, and the flesh of the kid is destitute of the disagreeable
odour of the fully-developed goat. The superiority of wild-fowl over the
domesticated birds is solely owing to the finer flavor of their flesh.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account