OUR BABIES

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 58, 1 December 1917, Page 15

OUR BABIES

fBT HIGBU.I

Published under the auspices of tha society for the Health of Women and Children.

It is wiser to put up a fence at the top of a precipice than to maintain an ambulance at the bottom."

RELATIVE FOOD VALUES. Tbe-following summary of a lecture delivered by Dr. TruDy King during Dominion Baby Week at the Burna Hall, Dunedin, is adapted from one of the newspaper reports;—

With "Relative Food Values" for his subject, Dr. Trilby King delivered a most arresting address, lighting up his facts with such humonr and making his points so racily that the very large audience assembled in Burns Hall had almost as much entertainment as instruction; and every minute of the lecturer's ninety minutes demonstration was worth attention. The staging behind Dr. King was a composito assemblage of the stock-in-trade of tho grocer and the butcher; and the first thought of every person must have been that the stock-was displayed in a very lop-sided • way. On the left sacks of wheat, barley, oatmeal, flour, tins of biscuits, cakes, jars of bovril, etc., rose tier on tier;, on his' other side were merely the carcasses of a pig, an ox, a sheep, a few strings ,of sausage, a fish, a: chicken, a few samples of tinned meatß, cans of milk, skim-milk, whey, cream, and cheese.

The unequal balance was purposeful, or rather the balance was economical!? and not artistically adjusted. For presently Dr. King was telling his audience That the huge quantity of vegetable matter on the left was the quantity absorbed by the animals to produce the flesh exhibit on the right; and that, while the vegetable matter on exhibit would keep a man, his wife, and four children for twelve months; the flesh exhibit would keep only one of them for six months.

The -words are not- Dr. King's, but the sentence summarises his exposition and gives some idea of its trend; and a very interesting aspect of the food question ■ it exposes-iii view of existing prices. Without further anticipation- of his argument, let us follow him from the-begin-ning. Comparative Food Values and Cost of

Animal v. Vegetable Materials. The lecturer asked what was the 'weight of grain needed to make a pound of pork? and answered that it took 51b. of barley to make lib. of pork. It was universally true that animals could return iu the form of meat, milk, or eggß, onlj a small fraction of tho nutrient value of what t%y consumed. They gave hack trom 5 per cent, to 10 per cent.' of what was fed to them. >Vhat was the economic significance? In the East were found na. tions living almost entirely on vegetable matter, whose rate of wages was from is. to 25., against from 10a. to 15s. here. It, meant, in fact, that if people lived entirely on animal matter it would take over 10 times as much money to provide them with food as if they lived solely oi vegetable matter. Therefore the whole problem of domestic economics, and especially war-time economics, was summed up in one question on the housewife's pari: How far can I, without harming the family, and indeed with actual benefit to them, use in the daily meals ii smaller proportion of-animal and a larger proportion of vegetable material?

The Importance of Adhering to Nature's ! . ' Standards.

Dr. King indicated the three- essential nutrient materials in- all food6-su b -»ni . and starches, fat or oils, and protcld or nesh-forming material. Incidentally 'ho mentioned tho fact that in the milk for the human being the proportion of proteid was ljoz. per 100, while for the calf it was 3Joz. per 100—fc fact which showed how absurd it was to think that tho milk of one being could be transferred to the use of anofSer being without modification. Some mothers had tho fallacious belief that cow's milk, having nearly three times as much proteid as human milk, its use would bo merely an. error on tho right Bide. But Nature's proportions were infallible. Tho wholo human body was a huge poison factory, which only the circulation of tho blood and the healthy action of the kidneys and other organs swept freo from the poisons; and of all these poißonous substances nothing compared with tho waste products of .proteid. In placing upon a child's kidneys (which wore In procct* of growth and highly vulnerable) two or three times the work for which tho Creator designed them, we-were exposing tho.children to overstrain,, debility, and even death; and even if?; they survived, the health of children whosol:6rgans..woro thus Overtaxed in infancy teriaed'-to break down in middlo life through the failure of the kidneys and othor damaged structures—Bright's disease being a typical example. Components and Nutrient Values of Diflorent Food Materials. Bcturning to his main subject. Dr. King particularised tho components and nutrient values of diflerent food materials. .Milk, he said, contained 121 per cent, of solids, Bteak 25 per cent, (protcids and fat). Tho following direct statements gave definite information to tho uninitiated:— Ono half-pint of milk is equivalent to about quarter of a pound of beeffltoalt. -A pint of milk is oqual in.nutrient material tofivo eggs; a quarter-pint of milk has more feeding value than ono egg. Cheese is 60 per cent, solid., ; When ybu'.work it out you will find that a pound of cheese has a feeding value equivalent, to about three pounds of meat, allowing for a little bono waste. The present price of meat is about the same as that of cheese; therefore, la. spent on cheeso will buy nearly three timeß as must food material as it would • if spent on buying the best jpint of meat.

"You say, 'We will do away with flesh foods, then,'" said Dr. King. "I'ou arc not to do that, it would not be good for you. Wo have got used to the 'bad habit' of living on our humbler fellow-beings. But if one decided to live upon tho vegetable worjd, what would bo tho cheapest way of living? The cheapest thing to livo on is wheat, which contains all the elements ■of food in fair proportion, except fat. Even common painter's linseed oil would supply that element, and the shortage of proteid could, be .made up by peas or beans.-

■ This statement provoked laughter. "You smile," said the doctor, "but linseed oil sometimes agrees with babies better than the fat of .cow's milk." Boiled wheat, he added,-was rather like young Indian corn, and,: if put to it, peoplo could livo on wheat.as a largo proportion of their diet, bupposing they did. it would take about ljlb. a day to keep a- man; which at the present high price would involve an expense of 2d. a day. -The . proportionate amount (in nutrient quality) of potatoes would cost 9d. a day, of meat 4s. a day. of bread, say, 6d. The cheapest■ proiierly-balanced vegetable ration for a man-would be ljlb. of wheat an ounce or, two-of split peas, and an ounce of oil or fat, Buoh a diet would cost under 3d. a- day. Momp. by "Hygeia.'-No one would Bug* Best living from choice solely on suoh a monotonous and unappetising diet; but tho information is invaluable as showing tho fundamental requirements. Further it is specially interesting at the present time to picture what it would be best- for us to procuro if forced, owing to tho war, to live on restricted rations and keen tho family in good health at a minimum of coat.

How very little wo should really need in tho way of suoh luxuries as. meat, milk and eggs on the ono hand, or on the other hand such - cottago garden productß as potatoos, cabbages, or lettuce as substitutes for part of tho nbovo to keen he family in the very pink of condition. There 10 nothing like war and privation to brace us up to some appreciation of tho oxaoting, wasteful, pampered, overfed lives we lead.