POULTRY AS FOOD.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 8003, 5 May 1904, Page 1

POULTRY AS FOOD.

When we compare the meat of poultry with,, that of beef, veal, lamb and pork we find that, in general, the refuse in poultry is slightly less than in the other meats. The amount of refuse, however, varies somewhat with the tastes and habit* of the consumer. Some persons enjoy eating the crisp skin of 'well-roasted birds, while in other j families it is discarded as undesirable. If | the carcase is boiled for broth much of the ( nutritious material •in the bones, which would otherwise be quite useless, is cooked out and jsaved from waste. "In these and other ways it may be seen' that the amount of actual refuse from poultry is a variable quantity. "^ A COMPARISON OF NUTRITIVE VALUES. Let us now see how the different kinds of poultry compare with one another in nutritive value. Common fowl— rby which we mean here the mature birds— contain a little more refuse than the average poultry, a lit- , tie less water, .and about the average of indigestible nutrients ; it is about' like the average inprotein and richer than, most in fat. Chickens (birds under one yearof age) contain about the same proportion of refuse ai a fowl, noticeably more water and slightly less indigestible nutrients. Their flesh contains about the average amount of protein, b)ut is poor in fat, and has a corres^ ■ pondingly low fuel value. Capon has about, the same' proportions of ingredients as fowl. Turkey has comparatively little water and indigestible nutrients, and is rich -.in, both protein and fat. : Guinea-hen contains large proportions of refuse and water, is rich in protein but poor in fat. The poultry game birds, pheasants and quail, contain 'rather small percentages of refuse, • large amounts of water, and small proportions of indigestible nutrients ; they ar6 rich in protein and poor in fat. Curiously enough, squabs, as the young of pigeon are called, differ from the average composition of poultry . reversely from pigeon; where they they are poor pigeon? are rich, and vice versa. Squabs contain more refuse and less water than the average poultry^ have a high percentage of indigestible nutrients, are rich in protein, and poor in fat. On the other hand, pigeons con* tain little refuse, large amounts of water, comparatively little of indigestible nutrients, a good deal of protein and company tively little fat. . THE FLESH OF WATERFOWL. . . The analysis ; of goose and greea goose show, little refuse and water, . almost the largest percentagea of indigestible nutrients,^little protein, and large quantities of fat; because of this excessive fat they have a higher fuel value than any other meats except duckling and fat pork. Ducks and ducklings both contain compWatively large amounts of refuse, small amounts of water, large percentages of indigestible nutrients, little protein, and large quantities of fat: ' According to these figures, duckling contains more fat than any other kind of poultry, almost one-fifth more than chicken. .•■'■.. GENERAL REDUCTIONS. From these somewhat complicated I details we may make a few general statenftents, The light fleshed fowls (fowl, turkey, guinea fowl, pheasant and quail) are ordinarllj richer in Jprotein. and poorer in fat than th« dark fleshed. On. account of their low per centage, of fat, they sboyr a. lower propor tion of indigestible nutrients, tut also a lower fuel value. In common fowl, arid per haps in. all light-fleshed Varieties,;' the flesl of the young seems to yield a larger propor tion of protein and a correspondingly small© proportion of fat than that of -mature birds In the dark fleshed^inds, th* reverse seam: to hold, the young containing less yprpteii and .mom fat- than .the old. As a, genera thing young birds thave a smaller, ,'ligibtei .skeleton; un jiroportion to their total w^eht

and therefore show smaller percentages of refuse than the older birds. The young have also a larger proportion of water in their flesh, which may partially explain why it is so much more tender to the teeth. Some of the differences in the nutritive value of the various kinds of poultry are so large that they ought to be considered in planning dietaries. If green goose with 31 per cent of fat were replaced , by chicken with 6.8 per cent of fat, or duckling with 11.6 per cent protein by turkey containing 18.8 per cent protein, the proportion of fuel and tissue building material furnished to the body might be noticeably changed. 6ta the other hand, jfc would be foolish to insist on the very slight differences between closely related birds like turkey and chicken ox duck and goose. Such differences would hardly be noticeable in the ordinary mixed diet, aoadj 'as was observed in comparing poultry : , with \ other meats, the differences may .vary with individual birds, or there may be greater losses in cooking to counterbalance advantages in the original composition. Very often, too, the prices of different birds vary enough to offset the slight differences in composition. POPULAR THEORIES. There are a great many interesting thfcories as to the especial worth or worthlessness of Afferent parts of the flesh, of poultry. For example, it is often held 1 that, while the' breast of duck is very and wholesome, the rest of the bird; is hardly fit to eat. This may be partly due to the old prejudice against duck meat, but there is a small grain of truth in il. If, as is commonly supposed, cooked fat is , less digestible than the other nutrients of food, meat from the breast would, of course, need less labour of digestion than the other parts, and would also furnish more pTotein from/ the same weight of food, and! would really be a better food, especially for persons with weak digestions. One .often hears it said that the light meat of fowl, turkey, etc., is more nutritious or more easily digested than the dark. But this difference, as far, as it may be definitely stated, seems to depend on the chemical composition of the different parts, and not, as <tniany have maintained, on the texture of the meat fibres. Light meat is surely more lender to the teeth, and one reason, that it must therefore be more easily acted upon by the: digestive juices; but it is equally probable that the fibres of light meat are more closely set than those in tfye dark meat, and it may be argued with equal plausibility that the dark meat is therefore more easily affected by the juices. There is very little definitely known upon this point, save that the differences are too small to,, be of importance to any but the weakest'digestions. It has been shown by experiment that boiled chicken leaves the stomach taore quickly than roasted, hence* it saems. probable that the mode of cooking makes. more difference in the digestibility than the very slight differences of compsition 6r testure. ■ , i • ■ —rr. . '