(From The English Review).
MEAT, unless eaten as soon as the animal is killed and before the rigor mortis has set in, is not fit for consumption until it has been hung for some days, the duration of hanging period depending on the weather. In other words, it is not sufficiently tender for the table until putrefaction has set in and has advance to a quite considerable degree.
It will probably be contended that this putrefaction is, in properly served meat, scarcely perceptible, and that whatever may remain of it is purified by the action of the fire in cooking. But this is merely begging the question, and the fact remains that putrefaction has set in, and it is not at all an uncommon thing to find game, such as venison, grouse, snipe woodcock and hare, served in a very advanced state of decomposition.
It is then euphemistically termed “well hung”. Mankind appears to have this delectable habit in common with hyenas, jackals, crocodiles and vultures. Most decent carnivora prefer meat fresh, as soon as killed. To anyone whose olfactory sensibilities have not become blunted to the smell by eating it, the odour of cooked meat or fish, however slightly putrescent, is positively revolting.
It is a very significant fact that the only animals the flesh of which is considered fit for human consumption are those which are not themselves carnivora. We eat oxen, sheep, horses, hares, rabbits, etc., and various birds, but we do not, at least not unless forced by circumstances, eat dogs, cats, rats, weasels, stoats, vultures or gulls and cormorants, which two latter feed on fish.
The reason is obvious. The flesh of carnivora is foul evil- tasting and unhealthy. Likewise is the inference obvious that by eating meat mans body must lose in purity, health and cleanliness.
Continuing this line of thought it is noticeable that the breath of all carnivora is extremely offensive, while the breath of such animals as horses, cows and sheep is not only not offensive, but wholly sweet. A comparison of the odours in the carnivora houses as against the non-carnivora houses at the Zoo provides an object lesson on this point.
To consider now a less unsavoury side of the subject: There appears to be a very deeply-rooted belief that meat must be included in our diet in order to maintain strength, and, even, that the consumption of a considerable amount of meat produces physical strength. Hence, presumably, the glorification of the “Roast Beef of Old England”. This is, of course, an utterly absurd fallacy.
Oxen and horses which count as among the strongest animals, and which are called upon to expend strength, energy and continued effort in the performance of their work, do not partake of the meat of other oxen and horses, nor do they revive themselves with meat extracts. Incidentally, I may mention that the soups made from these are probably the most useless and form of nourishment imaginable.
If the difference between cattle and the human body appear too great to admit of a fair comparison, what of the gorilla, which lives on roots, fruit and berries, and is more than a match for any man from the point of view of physical strength. Is there any reason whatever why we should not thrive equally well on a clean, meatless diet ?.
It has, I believe, been shown that, in proportion to the bulk consumed, the nutriment (not to speak of the fashionable vitamins) which the human body can draw from meat is very poor as compared with other foods, such as nuts, dried fruits, eggs, cheese, cereals, green vegetables, etc.
That meat has the property of conveying a certain amount of warmth to the body, that it need be less carefully masticated, and that it is, perhaps, more easily digestible in the stomach than some of the foods mentioned above, it would be idle to deny, but does this easy digestibility in the stomach counter-balance the disadvantage of its toxic effect on the system which arises from the fact that our intestines are proportionately longer than those of the carnivora, and that our gastric juices are not sufficiently strong to disinfect it during its passage through our body ?.
The facility of recovery from the severest wounds, lesions and operations that is enjoyed by primitive races as compared with the more highly civilized peoples has often been a matter of wonder, but there is very little doubt that the principal reason for this is their entire, or almost entire, abstinence from meat, and their generally simple and frugal diet.
Rheumatism, catarrhs, gout, influenza colds, coughs, etc., etc., etc., which appear to be so great a curse in this country, are almost entirely due to faulty living and a consequent toxic condition of the body. It is well worth while for anyone suffering from any of these to try the experiment of giving up meat. The effect is likely to be astounding if there be no other grievous error of hygiene.
Setting aside the fact the quite evidently our denture and our digestive tract shows us not to be intended for the consumption of meat, it is probable that comparatively few amongst us realize how great is the effect of diet on character, temperament, mentality and habits.
To judge of this through animals, whilst meat eating appears to produce a certain ferociousness and unreliability, the animals which are not carnivorous give evidence of adaptability and tranquillity of disposition. It is only the latter which we have satisfactorily trained to labour for us. The gentleness they display must not be taken to imply that they are, therefore, wanting in courage, spirit, or intelligence.
The bull in the ring, and the intelligence of monkeys and elephants sufficiently controvert any such supposition. Presumably on humans also meat eating has very distinct effects, and seeing its toxic and irritating action on the blood and system, these effects are not likely to be very fortunate. This is an aspect of the question which would be well worth study.
No one who possesses any love for animals and repugnance to cruelty can fail to be influenced by the thought of the horrors of the slaughter-house, the sufferings endured on the way there, and the revolting displays of the butcher, fish and poultry shops, more especially during what is termed the festive season. The shops must be directly disgusting to anyone with pretensions to feelings of refinement.
Much is being done, I admit, to diminish the horrors of actual slaughter to which I have alluded, and all honour is due to those who are ceaselessly working to this end by the erection of model slaughter-houses and the introduction of the humane killer and other improvements.
But I have seen within the last few months bullocks lifted from the dock to the steamer deck by their horns and dumped there bruised and bleeding; sheep being driven along the road so footsore that they fall down, and what slaughter- house can ever prevent the terrifying odour of blood reaching to cattle before it is their turn to be killed ? Shall we be parties to such cruelty ? This question specially presents itself to all those who profess to be supporters of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, otherwise their position becomes wholly illogical.
It would of course, be altogether idle to hope for any early change. ingrained ideas, custom, love of what passes as “good cheer”, and vested interests die hard. Moreover, here in England another factor militates strongly against a meatless diet, and that is ignorance regarding the palatable preparation of vegetables and other foods as substitutes for meat and fish.
To the average Englishman vegetarianism no doubt conjures up a vision of meals consisting of boiled potatoes, cabbage boiled in water and soda, eggs and spinach with all the virtue boiled out of the spinach and poured down the sink, and other kindred culinary horrors. No wonder he shys at it ! He has no idea of the varied, healthful, and delicious fare which the French, Italian and Spanish peasants, for instance, produce with vegetables, pulses, cereals, cheese, oil, honey, etc. Except cheese, these articles are but sparsely used in the English cuisine indeed, the ignorance, limitation and stodginess in this country, concerning matters of diet is phenomenal, even among those who have had opportunities of broadening their outlook.
Vegetarian food is mostly regarded with scarcely veiled contempt as an effete diet likely to result in physical and mental effeteness. Very possibly much opposition to it is due to indolence, since meat is more simple and easy to prepare. Frying sausages or bacon, boiling a leg of mutton, turning a piece of bully beef from a tin on to a plate demands less careful efforts and attention than the preparation of a savoury vegetable stew.
